alt-10k_20181231.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 every Interactive Data file required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit 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, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates, based upon the closing price of the Registrant’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market of $13.35, on June 30, 2018 was approximately $12.3 million.

There were 13,451,105 shares of the Registrant’s common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding on March 27, 2019.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (this “Annual Report”) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Written or oral statements that constitute forward-looking statements may be made by us or on our behalf. Words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “target,” “strategy,” “intend,” “project,” “guidance,” “likely,” “usually,” “potential,” or the negative of these words or variations of such words, similar expressions, or comparable terminology are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. There are a number of important risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated by forward-looking statements. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections about the industry and markets in which we operate, and management’s beliefs and assumptions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict and may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and other factors include, but are not limited to, risks associated with the following:

We have based the forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report on information available to us on the date of this annual report. Except as required by law we undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You are advised to consult any additional disclosures that we may make in reports that we, in the future, may file with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.

All forward-looking statements included herein are expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing cautionary statements. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this Annual Report is as of December 31, 2018.

“Altimmune,” our logo and other trademarks, trade names or service marks of the Company appearing in this Annual Report, including, ALT-702, Densigen, HepTcell, NasoShield, NasoVAX, Oncosyn, RespirVec, and SparVax-L, are the property of the Company. The other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report are the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks, trade names or service marks to imply an endorsement or sponsorship of us by such companies, or any relationship with such companies. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report may appear without the ^® or TM symbol.

Altimmune, Inc. is a clinical stage immunotherapeutics company focused on the discovery and development of products to stimulate robust and durable immune responses for the prevention and treatment of diseases. Our product candidates are focused in two key areas for which we have unique proprietary approaches; i) our synthetic peptide technology for cancer and infectious disease, and ii) intranasal vaccines for infectious disease. Using these technologies, we have generated preclinical and clinical product candidates that potentially represent an entirely new approach to harnessing the immune system. In addition, we are seeking to acquire or in-license product candidates in immunotherapeutic indications that are either synergistic or complementary to our capabilities to expand our pipeline.

HepTcell is an immunotherapeutic product candidate for patients chronically infected with the hepatitis B virus (“HBV”). It is designed to drive CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses against all HBV genotypes in patients of all ethnic backgrounds. Stimulating T-cell responses in chronically infected HBV patients has been challenging because chronic infection with HBV strongly diminishes T-cell immunity directed against the virus. HepTcell focuses the immune system on discrete highly conserved regions of the HBV proteome. We believe our approach allows HepTcell to break immune tolerance by activating T-cells against critical viral sequences with decreased probability of immune escape due to viral mutation. HepTcell is based on our synthetic peptide technology platform and is given by intramuscular injection. In 2018 we completed a Phase 1 trial in the United Kingdom and South Korea in patients with chronic HBV. The HepTcell Phase 1 trial was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, dose-escalation study that enrolled 61 subjects with chronic HBV who were HBeAg-negative and well-controlled on licensed antivirals. A total of 41 patients received one of two dose levels of HepTcell, with and without IC31^TM, a depot-forming TLR9 adjuvant developed by Valneva SE, while 20 control patients received either placebo or IC31 alone. Patients received three injections each 28 days apart and were followed for six months after the final dose. All dose combinations showed excellent tolerability and met the primary endpoint of safety. In the two adjuvanted HepTcell arms, T-cell responses against HBV markedly increased over baseline compared to placebo. Altimmune plans to advance HepTcell into Phase 2 development.

ALT-702 is a tumor immunostimulant product candidate that has the potential to safely elicit or improve immune responses to a variety of cancers. It is a conjugated TLR 7/8 agonist designed to reverse immune-suppressive effects in the tumor microenvironment and promote antitumoral responses without the systemic side effects associated with other TLR 7 and TLR 7/8 agonists. This localized immune stimulation is anticipated to turn “cold” tumors to “hot” and to synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We are currently developing a full preclinical dataset in murine tumor models with the intention of advancing this program into the clinic.

NasoVAX, an intranasally administered recombinant influenza vaccine, uses an adenovector to achieve expression of the influenza antigen in the target cell, thereby potentially stimulating a broader and more rapid immune response than traditional influenza vaccines. Our Phase 2a trial evaluating NasoVAX started in September 2017 and was completed during 2018. Initial data, released in March 2018, indicated that NasoVAX was well-tolerated at all doses tested. Additionally, the achievement of 100% seroprotection and statistically significant increases in mucosal antibody at two of the three dose levels studied has set NasoVAX apart from other intranasally administered vaccines. Strong T-cell responses were also observed at the highest dose. This combination of serum antibody, mucosal antibody and T-cell responses provides the potential for improved ability to prevent infection and suggests that NasoVAX could have a greater impact on flu symptoms and containing the spread of the flu virus than currently approved influenza vaccines. All subjects were followed for an additional six months after vaccination to assess the durability of the antibody response, and 8 of the 15 subjects from the highest dose returned between 12 and 14 months after initial dosing for an additional immunogenicity assessment. These new NasoVAX data on the long-term durability of the immune response show that the immune response elicited by NasoVAX remained at seroprotective levels for at least 13 months. Durable responses on the order of one year are not expected from currently approved influenza vaccines and suggest that the immune response induced by NasoVAX could be much longer than the current influenza vaccines.

NasoShield is an anthrax vaccine designed to provide rapid and stable protection after a single intranasal administration. In a head-to-head comparison with the existing approved anthrax vaccine in well-established animal models, a single dose of NasoShield showed complete protection from inhalation anthrax and was non-inferior to multiple doses of the existing approved anthrax vaccine while providing for a more rapid and stable immune response. We have developed the product candidate with the support of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”), and with their continued financial and contractual support, we launched a Phase 1 trial of NasoShield in the first quarter of 2018. The purpose of the Phase 1 trial was to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a single intranasal dose of NasoShield at four dose cohort levels. An additional cohort received a repeated dose of NasoShield at Day 21. Based on initial data from the single and two-dose cohorts, NasoShield was well-tolerated but did not produce an appreciable toxin neutralizing antibody (TNA) response. The Company did not expect this result given the compelling nonclinical data obtained previously in two well-established animal models for anthrax. We are investigating all potential causes that may have contributed to these results. The results of these investigations are expected in the first half of 2019.

SparVax-L is our alternative anthrax vaccine candidate being developed under contract with NIAID. It is a recombinant protein-based anthrax vaccine designed to require fewer doses and have a longer shelf-life than the only currently licensed anthrax vaccine. The shelf life of a liquid formulation was insufficient to meet the government standards and the product was reformulated as a lyophilized (dry powder) formulation. We have demonstrated a significant improvement in product stability (at least two years at room temperature and at least six years at refrigerated temperatures) with the lyophilized formulation. Recent preclinical experiments have shown SparVax-L to be 100% protective with a two-dose regiment (0 and 14 days) with higher protective toxin neutralizing antibodies than the currently licensed vaccine administered under the same schedule. As of December 31, 2018, development activities under the existing NIAID contract are substantially complete and the Company will only continue development of SparVax-L with the support of the US government or other entity. No such funding has been identified as of the date of this filing.

Our business is the result of a merger between PharmAthene, Inc. (“PharmAthene”) and the business previously known as Altimmune, Inc. (“Private Altimmune”). In May 2017, Private Altimmune merged with PharmAthene pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”) dated January 18, 2017, among Private Altimmune, PharmAthene, its wholly owned acquisition subsidiaries Mustang Merger Sub Corp I Inc. (“Merger Sub Corp”) and Mustang Merger Sub II LLC (“Merger Sub LLC”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub LLC agreed to acquire 100% of the outstanding capital stock of Private Altimmune in a reverse triangular merger and reorganization pursuant to section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Mergers”). Prior to the Mergers, PharmAthene was a publicly traded biodefense company engaged in Phase 2 clinical trials in developing SparVax-L anthrax vaccine.

On May 4, 2017, Private Altimmune and PharmAthene closed the Mergers in accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement. Upon the closing of the Mergers, (i) Merger Sub Corp merged with and into Private Altimmune, with Private Altimmune remaining as the surviving corporation; (ii) Private Altimmune then merged with and into Merger Sub LLC, with Merger Sub LLC (renamed as “Altimmune LLC”) remaining as the surviving entity; and (iii) PharmAthene was renamed as “Altimmune, Inc.” Upon closing of the Mergers, all equity instruments of Private Altimmune were exchanged for corresponding equity instruments of PharmAthene. Except where the context indicates otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” “Altimmune” or the “Company” refer, for periods prior to the completion of the Mergers, to Private Altimmune and its subsidiaries, and for periods following the completion of the Mergers to the combined company and its subsidiaries.

Certain product candidates are based on our proprietary platform technologies as described below.

Densigen is our synthetic peptide technology platform. HepTcell was developed using our Densigen platform which activates T-cells to generate a cytotoxic immune response against intracellular pathogens. This synthetic peptide technology is based on peptides of 30 – 40 amino acids that comprise a high density of CD4 and CD8 T-cell epitopes selected to focus the T-cell response on highly conserved targets and allow diverse populations to respond to the product. Densigen technology is protected by patents owned by us.

Key aspects of our Densigen technology, supported by our preclinical studies and clinical trials, include:

NasoShield and NasoVAX, our respiratory anti-infective product candidates, are derived from our RespirVec platform in which rapid as well as long-term immune protection is elicited by intranasal delivery of adenovectored pathogen sequences. RespirVec technology is comprised of intranasal delivery of replication-deficient adenoviruses and is protected by patents that we own or license.

Key aspects of our RespirVec technology, supported by our preclinical studies and clinical trials, include:

The biopharmaceutical industry and the vaccine market are intensely competitive and are characterized by rapid technological progress. In general, competition among pharmaceutical products is based in part on product efficacy, safety, reliability, availability, price and patent position. An important factor is the relative timing of the market introduction of our products and our competitors’ products. Accordingly, the speed with which we can develop products, complete the clinical trials and approval processes and supply commercial quantities of the products to the market is an important competitive factor. Our competitive position also depends upon our ability to show differentiation with a product that is more efficacious, particularly in the relevant target populations, and/or be less expensive and quicker to manufacture. We also depend upon our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, obtain patent protection or otherwise develop proprietary products or processes and secure sufficient capital resources for the often substantial period between technological conception and commercial sale.

Large and established companies such as AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi Pasteur, among others, compete in the influenza vaccine market. These companies compete with us with their greater experience and expertise in securing government contracts and grants to support their research and development efforts, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals to market products, manufacturing such products on a broad scale and marketing approved products. These companies also compete with us by having significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development and have collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product that we develop obsolete.

We also face competition from smaller companies such as Novavax, which is developing an influenza vaccine; Inovio Pharmaceuticals, which is developing an HBV therapeutic vaccine; and Emergent Biosolutions, which manufactures the existing anthrax vaccine. We face competition for HepTcell, our immunotherapeutic HBV product, from companies such as Transgene which is developing an adenovirus-based vaccine and Inovio, which is developing a DNA vaccine delivered by in vivo electroporation. In the context of ALT-702, our conjugated TLR7/8 agonist for the treatment of cancer, we face competition from companies such as MedImmune, which is developing MEDI 9197 (formerly 3M-052), a dual TLR7/8 agonist for solid tumors; Curevac, which is developing a CV8102, a TLR7/8/RIG-1 agonist based on noncoding single stranded RNA for the treatment of solid tumors and Urogen, which is developing a TLR7 agonist for bladder cancer. Any of these smaller companies may develop competing products more rapidly than we do. A number of companies of varying sizes are also pursuing the development of a “universal” flu vaccine. In addition, we face substantial competition for government funding, particularly for our anthrax vaccine program.

We generally seek patent protection for our technology and product candidates in the United States and abroad. The patent coverage available to biotechnology companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. Our success will depend, in part, on whether we can:

We have relied upon certain proprietary trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological advances to develop a competitive position. In efforts to maintain confidentiality and ownership of trade secrets, proprietary information and developments, all of our employees are required to execute agreements regarding confidentiality and assign to us all rights to any inventions and processes they develop while they are employed by us. We may in the future use license agreements to access external products and technologies as well as to convey our own intellectual property to others. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary rights are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets.

Immunotherapy for Respiratory Pathogens — Intranasal Application of Adenoviral Vector Vaccines

We are developing a rapid and prolonged immunologic-therapeutic technology, for which we have a patent issued in the United States, Europe and Japan for influenza; and pending applications in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other commercially relevant jurisdictions. The claims are directed to methods for inducing an immune response against respiratory pathogens including influenza and Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax, comprising intranasal administration of an effective amount of E1 and/or E3 deleted adenovirus. The patent and, if issued, the patent(s) resulting from the pending applications have an expiration date no earlier than March 2032, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

Topical and Intranasal Application of Adenoviral Vectors Expressing Heterologous Antigen — In-Licensed from the University of Alabama at Birmingham Research Foundation

We are the exclusive licensee of patents owned by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Research Foundation (“UABRF”). These patents are directed to topical noninvasive application of genetic vectors. These patents are issued in the United States and certain European countries, including Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Spain, as well as other commercially relevant jurisdictions. The claims are directed to methods of non-invasively inducing a systemic immune response in a bird or mammal against a gene product comprising contacting skin, or intranasal administration, of the bird or mammal with a genetic vector in an amount effective to induce the response. The ex-U.S. patents are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than May 2020, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

We are also the exclusive licensee of one issued U.S. patent application owned by the UABRF directed to mucosal administration of genetic vectors. The claims are directed to methods of non-invasive immunization by administering a non-replicating adenovirus vector expressing influenza antigens via intranasal administration. The issued U.S. patent has an expiration date no earlier than January 2020, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

On March 1, 1998, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with the UABRF, which was amended and restated on June 2, 2014 and further amended as of October 16, 2015, pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive license under the patent rights described above to develop, manufacture and commercialize a non-invasive vaccine technology within the field of use, which includes any diagnostic, vaccine or therapeutic use or methods, in any country in which the licensed patents are pending or have been granted. The UABRF reserved non-commercial rights customarily reserved by academic licensors and rights outside the field of use. Although the UABRF retained primary responsibility for the filing, prosecution, maintenance and defense of the licensed patents, we have the right to review and comment on all patent protection activities and we agreed to reimburse the UABRF for the cost of such activities.

In connection with the original license, we paid an up-front license fee of $0.03 million and issued 2,986 shares of common stock to UABRF. We also agreed to make certain payments, including an annual maintenance payment and royalty payments as a percentage of net sales of licensed products covered by valid claims of any licensed patent in the country of sale until the expiration of the last to expire of such patents in such country. The royalty payments are subject to a minimum annual royalty amount following the first commercial sale of a licensed product, ranging from low five figures to low six figures. To date, we have paid UABRF an aggregate of $478,000 under the license agreement consisting of cash and promissory notes to UABRF that have since been repaid, and $94,000 in shares of common stock.

We may terminate the license agreement without cause, and the agreement contains customary provisions for either party to terminate prior to the expiration of the agreement. In addition, UABRF may terminate the agreement if by the earlier of (i) the end of the third calendar year after the first commercial sale of a licensed product and (ii) January 1, 2023 (as extended by the October 2015 amendment), 50% of the minimum royalty payments due in that year does not originate from net sales of licensed products. The agreement expires on the date upon which the last of the licensed patents expires.

PER.C6 Cell Line — In-Licensed from Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V (Formerly Crucell Holland, B.V.)

We are the non-exclusive licensee of patent rights held by Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V (Formerly Crucell Holland, B.V.) (“Janssen”), covering a method of producing an adenoviral vector stock using cell lines including the PER.C6 cell line, which may be used for the development and manufacture of vaccine products. The Janssen patent rights include patents issued in the United States with an expected expiration date no earlier than April 2020, in each case not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

We entered into an amended license agreement with Janssen, effective as of October 4, 2005, which amended and restated our prior license agreements with Janssen. Under the amended license agreement, we obtained a non-exclusive, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) under certain patent rights and know-how to use Janssen’s proprietary cell line to develop, manufacture and commercialize vaccines to prevent and/or treat influenza virus and anthrax infection in humans.

In consideration for the license, we paid an up-front license fee, issued equity shares, and agreed to pay certain development-based milestone payments through approval of licensed products by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), up to an aggregate amount of approximately $2.5 million. We also agreed to pay royalty payments as a percentage of net sales of products in any country where the manufacture of such product is covered by a valid claim of any licensed patent or uses licensed know-how, subject to a royalty stacking reduction and minimum annual royalty payments, until the expiration of the term of the amended agreement. To date, we have paid Janssen $2.1 million in cash and equity under the amended agreement.

We further amended our license agreement with Janssen, effective September 25, 2015, primarily to streamline our manufacturing license arrangements. Prior to the 2015 amendment, we entered into three-party manufacturing license agreements with each manufacturer and Janssen. The 2015 amendment enables us to directly grant sublicenses of certain of our rights under Janssen’s patent rights and know-how to manufacturers, subject to Janssen’s consent which may not be withheld if the manufacturer meets certain criteria.

We may terminate the amended license agreement without cause, and the agreement contains customary provisions for either party to terminate prior to the expiration of the agreement. The amended license agreement expires on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis on the later of the date upon which the last of the licensed patents applicable to the relevant product expires or 15 years from the date of first commercial sale of the relevant product. Upon expiration of the amended license agreement, or if we terminate the amended license agreement for Janssen’s material breach, we retain the right to exploit the rights granted.

We are developing a fluorocarbon antigen construct platform technology. Our patents covering this technology are issued in the United States, China, India, Japan and certain European countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany and France. Additional patents are issued in other commercially relevant jurisdictions and an application is pending in the United States. The claims are directed to the fluorocarbon linked antigen construct, compositions comprising the construct and methods of using the construct to stimulate an immune response. The patents and, if issued, the patent(s) resulting from the pending patent applications are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than April 2025, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

Formulation of Antigen Delivery Vectors — Manufacturing Process for the Final Formulation of the Antigen Delivery Vectors

We are developing an intermediary of the manufacturing process for solubilizing the fluorocarbon antigens, for which we have a patent issued in the United States, Europe and Japan and patent applications pending in the United States and Japan, as well as other commercially relevant jurisdictions. The claims are directed to methods of solubilizing certain fluorocarbon antigen peptides using acetic acid formulations and manufactured lyophilized compositions thereof that are soluble in an aqueous solution. The patent and, if issued, the patent(s) resulting from the pending patent applications are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than December 2031, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

We are developing a rapid and prolonged immunologic-therapeutic technology for influenza, for which we have a patent issued in the United States, Europe and Japan for influenza and patent applications pending in the United States, Europe and Japan, as well as other commercially relevant jurisdictions. The issued and pending claims are directed to methods for inducing a rapid protective response against influenza, comprising intranasal administration of an effective amount of E1 and/or E3 deleted adenovirus. The patent and, if issued, the patent(s) resulting from the pending applications are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than March 2032, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees. NasoVAX is also covered by the patents and patent applications relating to our RespirVec platform technology, including an issued U.S. patent with claims directed to methods of non-invasive immunization by administering a non-replicating adenovirus vector expressing influenza antigens via intranasal administration.

We are developing a rapid and prolonged immunologic-therapeutic technology for anthrax (NasoShield), for which we have a patent granted in the United States, Europe and Japan. Additional patent applications are pending in the United States, Europe, Japan and other commercially relevant jurisdictions. The issued and pending claims are directed to methods for inducing a rapid protective response against anthrax, comprising intranasal administration of an effective amount of E1 and/or E3-deleted adenovirus expressing a Bacillus anthracis antigen. The patent, if issued, resulting from the pending applications are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than March 2032, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

NasoShield is further covered by an issued and pending US patent. The issued claims are directed to methods of inducing a protective immune response against inhalation anthrax, comprising intranasal administration of an adenoviral vector expressing anthrax protective antigen. The patent has an expiration date no earlier than July 2024, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees. NasoShield is also covered by the patents and patent applications relating to our RespirVec platform technology.

We are developing a lyophilized anthrax vaccine (SparVax-L) containing a recombinant anthrax protective antigen (rPA), for which we have a patent issued in the United States and Japan, as well as other commercially relevant jurisdictions. The claims are directed to an anthrax vaccine containing a recombinant anthrax protective antigen (rPA) bound to aluminum hydroxide and methods thereof. The patents are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than March 2030, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees. The mark, SparVax-L, was allowed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2017.

We are developing an HBV immunotherapy technology directed to compositions comprising fluorocarbon constructs with specific peptide HBV antigen sequences. Our patent applications covering this technology are pending in Europe, Asia, and India, as well as other commercially relevant jurisdictions; the application in the United States is allowed. The claims are directed to HBV antigen peptide sequences comprising T-cell epitopes linked to fluorocarbon chains and compositions comprising at least two of the fluorocarbon linked HBV antigen peptide sequences. If issued, the patent(s) resulting from the pending patent applications are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than December 2033, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees. HepTcell is also covered by the patents and patent applications relating to our Densigen platform technology.

We are developing a conjugated immunostimulant for which we have a patent issued in the United States and patent applications pending in the United States, Canada, Russia, Europe, Japan and Korea. The claims are directed to conjugated immune stimulatory constructs, compositions comprising the constructs and methods of using the constructs to stimulate an immune response. The patents and, if issued, the patent(s) resulting from the pending patent applications are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than 2034, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated fees.

We co-own with Auburn University patents and patent applications covering technology directed to an avian vaccine using human adenovirus vectors for the delivery of avian immunogens and antigens. These patents are issued in the United States and Europe, as well as other commercially relevant jurisdictions; and an application is pending in the United States. The claims are directed to methods for avian (in ovo or embryonic) administration of a human adenoviral vector expressing avian influenza antigens. The patents and, if issued, the patent(s) resulting from the patent applications are expected to have an expiration date no earlier than August 2026, not giving effect to any potential extensions and assuming payment of all associated.

Substantially all of our revenues to date have been derived from grants and United States government contracts. There can be no assurances that our remaining U.S. government contract will be continued, renewed beyond the base period, or that we can enter into new contracts or receive new grants to supply the U.S. or other governments with our products. The process of obtaining government contracts is lengthy and uncertain.

U.S. government contracts typically are subject to audit by the government and contain termination provisions for the government allowing it to terminate at its discretion, which subjects us to additional risks. These risks include the ability of the U.S. government unilaterally to:

Termination-for-convenience provisions generally enable us to recover only our costs incurred or committed, settlement expenses, and profit on the work completed prior to termination. Termination-for-default provisions do not permit these recoveries and would make us liable for excess costs incurred by the U.S. government in procuring undelivered items from another source.

We are developing our NasoShield anthrax vaccine pursuant to a contract with BARDA that commenced in July 2016. Under this contract, BARDA pays us a fixed fee and reimburses certain of our costs for the research and development of an Ad5-vectored, protective antigen-based intranasal anthrax vaccine through current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) manufacture and conduct of a Phase 1 clinical trial dose ranging assessment of safety and immunogenicity. The contract consists of an initial base performance period providing approximately $24.1 million in funding for the period July 2016 through November 2019. BARDA has seven options to extend the contract to fund certain continued development and manufacturing activities for the anthrax vaccine, including Phase 2 clinical studies, through July 2021. Each option, if exercised by BARDA, would provide additional funding ranging from approximately $1.1 million to $34.4 million, providing a total contract potential of $130 million. To date, we have received an aggregate of approximately $14.7 million in revenue under the current BARDA contract.

The Company has been audited by BARDA through 2015 and has agreed on final indirect rates with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) through 2015.

We own the intellectual property rights to inventions made by us in the performance of work under the BARDA contracts, provided that we disclose such inventions to the U.S. government and notifies the U.S. government of our election to retain title. The U.S. government will have a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice, or have practiced for or on our behalf, such inventions throughout the world, in addition to other rights customarily reserved by the U.S. government for intellectual property generated using government funds.

BARDA is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response that supports the advanced research and development, manufacturing, acquisition and stockpiling of medical countermeasures. Our contracts with BARDA, like those awarded by other U.S. government agencies, contain provisions not typically found in commercial contracts. Most notably, BARDA, or the U.S. government acting through BARDA, may terminate, modify or amend our contract, in whole or in part, for nearly any reason or no reason.

We are developing our SparVax-L anthrax vaccine pursuant to a contract with NIAID. This recombinant protein-based anthrax vaccine is designed to require fewer doses and have a longer shelf life than the only currently licensed anthrax vaccine. We have demonstrated a significant improvement in shelf life (two years at room temperature and six years at refrigerated temperatures) with a lyophilized formulation. Recent preclinical experiments have shown it to be 100% protective with a two-dose regimen (administered on study Days 0 and 14 days) with higher protective (toxin neutralizing) antibodies than the currently licensed vaccine administered under the same schedule. Activities under this contract are substantially complete, and we are seeking additional government funding to advance the program beyond the completion of this contract. As more fully discussed in Item 7. below, Management has assessed a low probability of obtaining future funding from a governmental agency which has resulted in a $21.4 million impairment of the SparVax-L IPR&D asset. The carrying value at December 31, 2018 and 2017 is $1.0 million and $22.4 million, respectively.

Biological products, such as our product candidates, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”), the Public Health Service (“PHS Act”), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Regulations under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as well as other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. FDA approval must be obtained before clinical testing of biological products. FDA concurrence to commence clinical trials also must be obtained before marketing of biological products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources, and each process may take several years to complete, although certain expedited programs potentially applicable to our product candidates, such as FDA fast track approval processes for certain new drugs with the potential to address unmet medical needs for certain serious or life-threatening conditions, may potentially expedite approval processes. Certain federal incentive programs are also potentially applicable to our product candidates, such as for “orphan drugs” that treat rare conditions, and programs supporting the development of bioterrorism medical countermeasures. Data obtained from clinical activities is not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all, and we may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals, which could delay or preclude us from marketing our product candidates. In addition, the FDA may limit the indications for use or place other conditions on any approvals that could restrict the commercial application of the products. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. In addition, our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Before testing any biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical study stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of certain preclinical studies must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs.

The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical studies may continue even after the IND is submitted. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. The FDA may also place the clinical trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, studies may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such studies.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events (“AEs”), should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, during applicable phases of development. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected AEs, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing and other sources that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies, develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, the FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers depending on the designated pathway for submission. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. In addition, amendments to BLAs for seasonal influenza vaccines are currently required to be submitted annually.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. PDUFA also imposes an annual product fee for biologics and an annual establishment fee on facilities used to manufacture prescription biologics. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business.

Following submission of the application, the FDA reviews the BLA to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than how we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes; or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post-marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

After regulatory approval of a product is obtained, there may be a number of post-approval requirements. For example, as a condition of approval of a BLA, the FDA may require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy. In addition, holders of an approved BLA are required to keep extensive records, to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, to provide updated safety and efficacy information and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling for their products. Also, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to cGMP regulations and practices, as well as the manufacturing conditions of approval set forth in the BLA. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP, which imposes certain procedural, substantive and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

Future FDA inspections may identify compliance issues at manufacturer facilities or at the facilities of third-party suppliers that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct and prevent recurrence of any deficiencies and could result in fines or penalties by regulatory authorities. In addition, discovery of problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal or recall of the product from the market or other voluntary, FDA-initiated or judicial action, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, license revocations, seizure, total or partial suspension of production or criminal penalties, any of which could delay or prohibit further marketing. Newly discovered or developed safety or efficacy data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications.

The 21st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”), which was signed into law on December 13, 2016, established a new priority review voucher (“PRV”) program for material threat Medical Countermeasures (“MCMs”). Upon approval of a material threat MCM application, the FDA will award a PRV provided certain criteria are met. When a marketing application receives a priority review designation, the FDA’s goal is to take action on that application within 6 months. To be considered a material threat MCM PRV, the MCM application must be: (i) intended for use to prevent or treat harm from a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agent (or harm caused by an MCM used against such agent) determined by the Department of Homeland Security to be a material threat; (ii) eligible for priority review; (iii) approved after the date of enactment of the Cures Act; and (iv) for a drug for which an active ingredient has not been previously approved by the FDA.

In 2002, the FDA amended its requirements applicable to BLAs to permit the approval of certain biologics that are intended to reduce or prevent serious or life-threatening conditions based on evidence of safety from trial in healthy subjects and effectiveness from appropriate animal studies when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. These regulations, also known as the “Animal Rule,” and published in the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 601 Subpart H), authorize the FDA to rely on evidence from animal studies to provide evidence of a product’s effectiveness under circumstances where there is a reasonably well-understood mechanism for the toxicity of the agent. Under these requirements, and with FDA’s prior agreement, biologics used to reduce or prevent the toxicity of CBRN substances may be approved for use in humans based on evidence of effectiveness derived from appropriate animal studies and any additional supporting data. Products evaluated for effectiveness under this rule are evaluated for safety under preexisting requirements for establishing the safety of new drug and biological products, including Phase 1 through Phase 2 clinical trials. Under certain circumstances a single animal species may be acceptable if that animal model is sufficiently well-characterized for predicting a response in humans. The animal study endpoint must be clearly related to the desired benefit in humans and the information obtained from animal studies must allow for selection of an effective dose in humans. The Animal Rule also requires post-marketing studies, such as field studies, to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit and assess its safety should an exigency exists that leads to the product being used in humans; the nature of these studies will be discussed with FDA as part of the BLA process. Products approved under the Animal Rule are subject to additional requirements, such as restrictions imposed on marketing or distribution or requirements to provide information to patients. The Animal Rule drug development pathway typically involves costs and time for nonclinical studies and animal models in excess of what would be expended in conducting human vaccine clinical trials not requiring compliance with the Animal Rule.

Under Project BioShield, the Secretary of HHS may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and upon the approval of the President, contract to purchase unapproved medical countermeasures for the Strategic National Stockpile (“SNS”), in specified circumstances. The U.S. Congress is notified of a recommendation for a stockpile purchase after Presidential approval. Project BioShield specifies that a company supplying the countermeasure to the SNS is paid on delivery of a substantial portion of the countermeasure. To be eligible for purchase under these provisions, the Secretary of HHS must determine that there are sufficient and satisfactory clinical results or research data, including data, if available, from preclinical studies and clinical trials, to support a reasonable conclusion that the countermeasure will qualify for approval or licensing within eight years. The legislation also allows unlicensed products to be procured for the SNS so that they are available at the time an emergency is declared.

Project BioShield also allows the Secretary of HHS to authorize the emergency use of medical products that have not yet been approved by the FDA. To exercise this authority, the Secretary of HHS must conclude that:

Some product candidates may be eligible both for consideration for procurement into the SNS and for use in the event of an emergency, although there is no guarantee that our product candidates will meet the criteria set forth by HHS or the FDA for procurement and Emergency use Authorization, respectively.

As part of the ongoing efforts of governmental authorities to lower health care costs by facilitating generic competition to pharmaceutical products, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), enacted as part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act in 2010 (“Health Care Reform Law”), created a new abbreviated regulatory approval pathway in the United States for biological products that are found to be “biosimilar” or “interchangeable” with a biological “reference product” previously licensed under a BLA. This abbreviated approval pathway is intended to permit a biosimilar to come to market more quickly and less expensively by relying to some extent on the data generated by the reference product’s sponsor, and the FDA’s previous review and approval of the reference product. Under the BPCIA, a biosimilar sponsor’s ability to seek or obtain approval through the abbreviated pathway is limited by periods of exclusivity granted by the FDA to the holder of the reference product’s BLA, and no biosimilar application may be accepted by the FDA for review until 4 years after the date the reference product was first licensed by the FDA, and no biosimilar application, once accepted, may receive final approval until 12 years after the reference product was first licensed by the FDA.

While we would expect to be granted this 12-year period of exclusivity for our product candidates, if approved, notably, this period of reference product market exclusivity applies only to the biosimilar pathway and will not, for example, provide protection against any biological product for a similar indication that achieves FDA approval under a traditional BLA based on the sponsor’s own research data There is also risk that the 12-year period of biological reference product exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates, if they are approved, to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for competition sooner than anticipated. Once approved, biosimilars likely would compete with, and in some circumstances may be deemed under the law to be “interchangeable with,” the previously approved reference product. The extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our product candidates, if approved, in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. Although there is uncertainty regarding the impact of this new program, it seems likely that if any of our product candidates are approved by the FDA, there is risk that the approval of a biosimilar competitor to one of our products could have an adverse impact on our business. In particular, a biosimilar could be significantly less costly to bring to market and priced significantly lower than our product, if approved by the FDA.

Certain FDA programs are intended to speed the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases, which could potentially apply to our product candidates, although this cannot be assured, and we do not currently have any products with fast track designation. The FDA fast track programs, one of which is fast track designation, are designed to facilitate the development and review of new drugs that are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the conditions. Fast track designation applies to a combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Thus, it is the development program for a specific drug for a specific indication that receives fast track designation. The sponsor of a product designated as being in a fast track drug development program may engage in close early communication with the FDA, including through timely meetings and feedback on clinical trials. Products in fast track drug development programs also may be eligible for FDA priority review or accelerated approval, if relevant criteria are met; in other words, the review cycle may have a six-month review clock instead of a twelve-month review clock). Sponsors may also be able to submit completed portions of an application before the entire application is completed; however, the review clock will not officially begin until the entire completed BLA is submitted to and filed by the FDA. The FDA may notify a sponsor that its program is no longer classified as a fast track development program if the fast track designation is no longer supported by emerging data, the designated drug development program is no longer being pursued, or another product that meets the unmet medical need for the same indication.

Under the BPCIA, biologics, such as our product candidates, may be eligible for pediatric exclusivity, an incentive intended to encourage medical product research for children. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods applicable to biological products under the BPCIA — namely, the four-year period during which the FDA will not consider an application for a biosimilar product, and the 12-year period during which the FDA will not approve a biosimilar application. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of these exclusivity protection periods, may be granted based on the completion of a pediatric trial. Which is expected unless a waiver is sought and granted by the FDA, for a program to be exempt from pediatric planning obligations. It is possible, but not assured, that certain of our current or future product candidates may be targeted to pediatric populations, such as our influenza vaccine candidate, and so pursuit of this incentive may be relevant.

The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a “rare disease or condition” that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for such a disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation can provide opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and FDA user fee exemptions. In addition, if a product that has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product may be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA would not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or a meaningfully different mode of administration. It is possible, but not assured, that certain of our current or future product candidates may be targeted to rare diseases or conditions, such as with respect to our cancer vaccine activities, and so pursuit of this incentive may be relevant to us.

U.S. Regulations Affecting Certain Federally Funded Programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid

Pharmaceutical manufacturers with products that are reimbursed by U.S. federally funded programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are subject to regulation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and enforcement by the HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), and in the event our product candidates are approved, regulation by CMS and enforcement by HHS OIG would be relevant to the Company. Some of these laws, referred to as “false claims laws,” prohibit the submission or causing the submission of false or fraudulent claims for reimbursement to federal, state and other health care payers and programs. Other laws, referred to as “anti-kickback laws,” prohibit soliciting, offering, receiving or paying remuneration in order to induce the referral of a patient or ordering, purchasing, leasing or arranging for, or recommending ordering, purchasing or leasing of, items or services that are paid for by federal, state and other health care payers and programs.

The federal Anti-Kickback Law prohibits providers and others from directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration with the intent of generating referrals or orders for services or items covered by a government health care program. Many states have enacted similar laws. Courts have interpreted this law very broadly, including by holding that a violation has occurred if even one purpose of the remuneration is to generate referrals, even if there are other lawful purposes. There are statutory and regulatory exceptions, or safe harbors, that outline arrangements that are deemed lawful. However, the fact that an arrangement does not fall within a safe harbor does not necessarily render the conduct illegal under the Anti-Kickback Law. In sum, even common business arrangements, such as discounted terms and volume incentives for customers in a position to recommend or choose drugs for patients, such as physicians and hospitals, can result in substantial legal penalties, including, among others, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and arrangements with referral sources must be structured with care to comply with applicable requirements. Also, certain business practices, such as payment of consulting fees to health care providers, sponsorship of educational or research grants, charitable donations, interactions with health care providers that prescribe products for uses not approved by the FDA and financial support for continuing medical education programs, must be conducted within narrowly prescribed and controlled limits to avoid the possibility of wrongfully influencing health care providers to prescribe or purchase particular products or as a reward for past prescribing. Violations of the Anti-Kickback Law may be punished by civil and criminal penalties or exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

The Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) is violated by any entity that “presents or causes to be presented” knowingly false claims for payment to the federal government. In addition, the Health Care Reform Law amended the FCA to create a cause of action against any person who knowingly makes a false statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly conceals or improperly decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the government. For the purposes of these recent amendments, an “obligation” includes an identified overpayment, which is defined broadly to include “any funds that a person receives or retains under Medicare and Medicaid to which the person, after applicable reconciliation, is not entitled…” The FCA is commonly used to sue those who submit allegedly false Medicare or Medicaid claims, as well as those who induce or assist others to submit a false claim. “False claims” can result not only from non-compliance with the express requirements of applicable governmental reimbursement programs, such as Medicaid or Medicare, but also from non-compliance with other laws, such as the Anti-Kickback Law or laws that require quality care in service delivery. The fraud and abuse regulations have been subject to varying interpretations, as well as heightened enforcement activity over the past few years, and significant enforcement activity has been the result of “relators,” who serve as whistleblowers by filing complaints in the name of the United States (and if applicable, particular states) under federal and state false claims laws. Under the federal FCA, relators can be entitled to receive up to 30% of total recoveries. Violations of the FCA can result in treble damages, and each false claim submitted can be subject to a civil penalty, which, for penalties assessed after January 29, 2018 whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, ranges from a minimum of $11,181 to a maximum of $22,363 per claim. Most states have adopted similar state false claims laws, and these state laws have their own penalties which may be in addition to federal FCA penalties.

The Health Care Reform Law significantly strengthened the federal FCA and federal Anti-Kickback Law provisions, which could lead to the possibility of increased whistleblower or relator suits, and among other things made clear that a federal Anti-Kickback Law violation can be a basis for federal FCA liability. The bringing of any FCA action, even if unsuccessful could require us to devote resources to investigate and defend the action, as well as result in reputational harm. Failure to comply with fraud and abuse laws could result in significant civil and criminal penalties and costs, including the loss of licenses and the ability to participate in federal and state health care programs, and could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, many of these laws are vague or indefinite and have not been interpreted by the courts and have been subject to frequent modification and varied interpretation by prosecutorial and regulatory authorities, increasing the risk of noncompliance. We cannot predict whether changes in applicable law, or interpretation of laws, or changes in our services or marketing practices in response to changes in applicable law or interpretation of laws, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our financial prospects could be affected by changes in health care spending and policy in the United States and abroad. We operate in a highly regulated industry and new laws or judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws or decisions, related to health care availability, the method of delivery or payment for health care products and services could negatively impact our business, operations and financial condition.

For example, in the United States there is significant interest in promoting health care reform, as evidenced by the enactment in the United States of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the companion Health Care Reform Law. The Health Care Reform Law increased federal oversight of private health insurance plans and included a number of provisions designed to reduce Medicare expenditures and the cost of health care generally, to reduce fraud and abuse, and to provide access to increased health coverage.

The Health Care Reform Law has also imposed substantial changes to the U.S. system for paying for health care, including programs to extend medical benefits to millions of individuals who have lacked insurance coverage. Generally, implementation of the Health Care Reform Law has thus far included significant cost-saving, revenue and payment reduction measures with respect to, for example, several government health care programs that might cover our products in the United States, should they be commercialized, including Medicaid and Medicare. Additional downward pricing pressure associated with the Health Care Reform Law includes that the Health Care Reform Law established and provided significant funding for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to coordinate and fund Comparative Effectiveness Research, as those terms are defined in the Health Care Reform Law. While the stated intent of Comparative Effectiveness Research is to develop information to guide providers to the most efficacious therapies, outcomes of Comparative Effectiveness Research could influence the reimbursement or coverage for therapies that are determined to be less cost effective than others. Should any of our products be approved for sale, but then determined to be less cost effective than alternative therapies, the levels of reimbursement for these products, or the willingness to reimburse at all, could be impacted, which could materially impact our financial results.

President Trump is seeking to repeal and replace the Health Care Reform Law. Repeal and replace legislation was passed in the House of Representatives, but did not obtain the necessary votes in the Senate. Subsequently, the President has affirmed his intention to repeal and replace the Health Care Reform Law and has taken a number of administrative actions to materially weaken the Health Care Reform Law. For example, on January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Health Care Reform Law to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Health Care Reform Law that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Further, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law, which repealed the individual mandate of the Health Care Reform Law. The uncertain status of the Health Care Reform Law limits our ability to forecast changes that may occur in the future, and its repeal without adequate replacement may have a negative impact on our business.

Another provision of the Health Care Reform Law, generally referred to as the Physician Payment Sunshine Act or Open Payments Program, has imposed new reporting and disclosure requirements for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and distributors with certain FDA-approved products, such as approved vaccines, with regard to payments or other transfers of value made to certain U.S. health care practitioners, such as physicians and academic medical centers, and with regard to certain ownership interests held by physicians in reporting entities. The CMS publishes information from these reports on a publicly available website, including amounts transferred and the physician and teaching hospital identities.

Under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, should any of our products be approved for sale, we may be required to collect and report detailed information regarding certain financial relationships we have with physicians and teaching hospitals. Our compliance with these rules may also impose additional costs. It is difficult to predict how the new requirements, which also preempt similar state law reporting requirements, may impact our relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals.

It is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and foreign governments will continue to consider changes to existing health care legislation. We cannot predict the reform initiatives that may be adopted in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be repealed or modified. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payers of health care services to contain or reduce costs of health care may adversely affect:

We are also subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential federal, state or local regulations. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological and chemical substances used in, and waste generated by our operations. Our research and development involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals and viruses. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources. Additionally, for formulations containing controlled substances, we are subject to Drug Enforcement Act regulations.

There have been a number of federal and state legislative changes made over the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biological products, government control and other changes to the health care system of the United States. Concerns about drug pricing have been expressed by members of Congress and President Trump. It is uncertain how such legislative changes will be adopted or what actions federal, state or private payers for medical goods and services may take in response to such legislation. We cannot predict the effect such health care changes will have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms will not have a material adverse effect.

Our products will also be subject to extensive regulatory requirements in the European Union. As in the United States, medicinal products can only be marketed if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. See “European Marketing Authorization” below.

As in the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. The EU Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC) (Clinical Trials Directive) provides the clinical trials regulatory framework in the European Union, but the European Union member states have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the regimes of the different member states. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the European Union countries where the trial is to be conducted by the relevant National Competent Authority (NCA), and one or more Ethics Committees (ECs), and a Clinical Trial Authorization must be obtained.

Similar to the FDA, Europe’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (“CHMP”) has adopted ICH S6 as a guideline governing preclinical testing of biologics. Sponsors usually must conduct pharmacodynamic (PD) studies, such as in vitro binding assays and in vivo studies that assess the product’s pharmacologic activity and define its mechanism of action. Biologics typically undergo single- and repeat-dose toxicity studies using relevant species. Safety pharmacology studies, which evaluate the product’s functional effects on major body systems and specific organs, and local tolerance testing can be done separately or subsumed in toxicity testing. Sponsors also usually conduct single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic (PK) and/or toxicokinetic studies to assess absorption, disposition, exposure and clearance (in particular, antibody-mediated clearance), and explore dose-response relationships. This information is used to predict margins of safety for human studies. Immunogenicity testing might include screening and mechanistic studies.

The Clinical Trials Directive and European Commission guidance describe the steps that a sponsor must take before commencing a clinical trial. According to these documents, a clinical trial may commence only if: (i) the anticipated therapeutic and public health benefits outweigh any foreseeable risks and inconveniences to the subjects; (ii) the trial subjects understand the objectives and risks of the trial and give informed, written consent to participate; (iii) the trial safeguards the physical and mental integrity of the subjects; and (iv) insurance covers the liability of the sponsor and investigator. To comply with these requirements, the trial sponsor must take certain steps. In general, the sponsor must take responsibility for trial conduct, appointment of an appropriate investigator, selection of the institution that will conduct the trial, quality control, data collection standards, protocol drafting, and creation of the investigator’s brochure. The sponsor then must apply for approval from both the ethics committee and the relevant NCA in the member state. Written authorization may be required for all biologics trials and is required for trials involving medicines containing genetically modified organisms, medicines for gene therapy, and medicines for somatic cell therapy (including xenogeneic cell therapy). The opinion of the ethics committee should be issued within 60 days. A review period of 30 days can be added for medicines requiring written authorization noted earlier, and for xenogeneic cell therapy, there are no time limits for authorization. This timeframe can be extended by an additional 90 days (in addition to the original 90 days) if the ethics committee consults a national group or committee. The trial may begin only if (i) the ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion and (ii) no competent authority has informed the applicant of grounds for non-acceptance.

Clinical trials of biologics must comply with GCP, as described in Directive 2005/28/EC on Good Clinical Practice and the ICH E6 guideline, which the CHMP has adopted. The directive and guideline describe general governing principles for clinical trials. The rights, safety and well-being of trial subjects must prevail over the interests of science and society. Investigators must obtain freely given informed consent from every trial subject before each subject is enrolled. Clinical trial information must be handled, recorded and stored with respect for relevant confidentiality and privacy rules. Trials must comply with the ethical principles of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Specific GCP guidelines apply to trials of advanced therapy medicinal products. These guidelines regulate issues such as the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells; the implementation of a traceability system; and specific rules on safety reporting and long-term follow-up. Under the Clinical Trials Directive, special requirements apply to clinical trials conducted on minors and other persons not able to give informed legal consent. These requirements are intended to preserve the dignity of the trial subjects, confirm that the benefits of the trial outweigh the risks and ensure that subjects’ representatives give consent with as much involvement of the subject as possible. Competent authorities must record information regarding trials in the European database of clinical trials which is accessible only to other competent authorities, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), and the European Commission. CHMP has issued a guideline on quality requirements during the clinical trial period for investigational medicinal products containing biological or biotechnology-derived substances. The guideline describes quality documentation that should be submitted to the competent authority as part of the sponsor’s investigational medicinal product dossier (“IMPD”). The IMPD should include, among other things, (i) an adequate description of the process and process controls, including a flow chart of all successive steps and details of in-process testing and (ii) a description and justification of “any reprocessing during manufacture of the drug substance.” The guideline also recognizes that sponsors will improve and optimize their manufacturing processes during clinical development and describes the steps sponsors should take following these changes. Specifically, the sponsor must compare the quality attributes of the pre- and post-change biological active substances and relevant intermediates and conduct a comparability exercise where necessary. For first-in-human clinical trials, sponsors should use product representative of the material used during the non-clinical testing phase. Finally, with regard to characterization, the guideline requires details on the biological activity to be provided, recognizing that the extent of characterization data will further increase in later phases.

General regulatory guidance on study design applies to biologics as well as small molecule medicines. According to the guidance, there is a “close, but variable correlation” between phase of development and type of study, but one type of trial can occur in several different phases. The guidance therefore identifies the most typical kind of study for each phase.

Phase 1 usually involves the initial introduction of the investigational product into human subjects, and studies in this phase usually have non-therapeutic objectives. Specifically, Phase 1 studies typically investigate initial safety and tolerability, PK, PD and/or drug activity, to preliminarily determine the potential therapeutic benefit of a medicine. Phase 1 studies may be conducted in healthy volunteers or certain types of patients. If the medicine has significant potential toxicity (e.g., cytotoxic products), the trial will usually be conducted in patients.

The most typical Phase 2 study is a therapeutic exploratory study that explores efficacy in narrowly defined, relatively homogenous groups of patients. Initially, studies may use a variety of designs (e.g., concurrent controls and comparisons with baseline status). Subsequent Phase 2 trials usually are randomized and concurrently controlled, allowing for evaluation of the medicine’s safety and efficacy for a particular indication. A major goal of this phase is to determine the dose(s) for Phase 3 trials.

Phase 3 typically involves therapeutic confirmatory studies that are designed to verify the preliminary evidence obtained in Phase 2 and to provide a sufficient basis for marketing authorization. Phase 3 studies may also further explore the dose response relationship, or explore the drug’s use in wider populations, in different stages of disease, or in combination with another drug. With regard to medicines administered for long periods, extended exposure trials ordinarily occur during Phase 3, although the sponsor may start them in Phase 2.

To ensure that clinical trials in all three phases of development will be adequate to support a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”), sponsors should design these trials with the MAA requirements in mind. Biologics in general need to comply with the requirements set out in Part III of the Annex I to Directive 2003/63/EC, and advanced therapy medicinal products need to comply with the requirements described in Part IV.

A sponsor may obtain, from the EMA, scientific advice regarding clinical trial protocols. Although this advice does not bind the ethics committees or NCAs and is not binding for purposes of a future MAA, it can be useful to guide revisions to the protocol. The agency’s remarks will only address scientific issues and will generally focus on matters such as the selection of endpoints and comparator, the duration of treatment or follow-up and the design of pivotal studies. Advice also might address a sponsor’s proposal to deviate from a CHMP guideline. If the applicant decides not to follow the EMA’s advice, it should justify this decision in its MAA. EMA guidance details the procedures for requesting scientific advice. The fact that an applicant requests advice from EMA does not preclude it from also seeking advice from national competent authorities or from foreign regulators, such as the FDA. The process of obtaining advice from the national competent authorities is often less formal than requesting advice from the EMA, and such advice can prove helpful. Consequently, seeking such advice is a common choice among applicants. Applicants also may seek parallel scientific advice from the EMA and FDA. Generally, the parallel scientific procedure is available for “important breakthrough drugs,” that is, products that the EMA and FDA have identified as falling within therapeutic areas of overlapping interest (e.g., oncology products, vaccines and blood products). The goal of these meetings is to provide clarity regarding the regulatory requirements of each region and the reasons for any differences between them. A sponsor requesting parallel scientific advice should authorize the agencies to exchange all information about the product, including trade secrets. After the parallel scientific advice procedure, each agency will provide its own independent advice on the questions at issue. There is no guarantee of harmonized advice or identical regulatory decisions on the approvability of the product.

In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which includes the 28-member states of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be placed on the market after approval of a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA. The MAA is based on the results of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials conducted on the medicinal product in question. There are two types of MMAs:

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the drug on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Many biologics fall under the scope of the Centralized Procedure, which, as mentioned above, is mandatory for medicines developed through biotechnological methods, such as recombinant DNA technology; controlled expression of genes coding for biologically active proteins in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, including transformed mammalian cells; and hybridoma and mAb methods. For example, cell therapy, gene therapy, vaccines from strains developed through recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion), and “any medicinal product for which a monoclonal antibody is used at any stage in the manufacturing process” are all subject to the Centralized Procedure. Nonetheless, some biologics are still approved at the member state level. For example, many vaccines do not fall within the scope of the Centralized Procedure. The EMA has published a guideline intended to harmonize the summaries of product characteristics and patient information leaflets for human vaccines.

With respect to the Centralized Procedure, the approval standards for biotechnology products are the same as for chemically synthesized medicines. Both types of products must be safe and effective and have appropriate quality. Because of their special characteristics, however, biotechnology products must comply with several additional dossier requirements. The MAA for a biotechnology product must meet the standard dossier submission requirements, as described in Article 8 of the Medicines Directive (2001/83/EC). Consequently, the MAA must generally comply with the Common Technical Document format, including with respect to Module I (administrative information, including labeling and mock-ups), Module 2 (various summaries), Module 3 (chemical, pharmaceutical and biological information), Module 4 (non-clinical reports) and Module 5 (clinical study reports). MAAs for biologics also must meet special requirements. The applicant must thoroughly describe the manufacturing process and must: (i) provide information on the origin and history of the starting materials; (ii) demonstrate that the active substance complies with specific measures for preventing the transmission of animal spongiform encephalopathies; (iii) if cell banks are used, demonstrate that cell characteristics remain unchanged at the passage level for production (and beyond); (iv) provide information as to whether there are adventitious agents in seed materials, cell banks, pools of serum or plasma, and all other materials of biological origin, and, if it is not possible to avoid the presence of potentially pathogenic adventitious agents, show that further processing ensures elimination or inactivation of the agents; (v) if possible, base vaccine production on a seed lot system and established cell banks; (vi) in case of medicines derived from human blood or plasma, describe the origin, criteria and procedures for the collection, transportation and storage of the starting material; and (vii) describe the manufacturing facilities and equipment. Other special rules apply certain types of biological medicines. For example, for plasma-derived medicinal products, the applicant must provide an information dossier, the Plasma Master File. MAAs for vaccines other than for influenza need to contain a Vaccine Antigen Master File. Special rules also apply to advanced therapy medicinal products, including gene therapies, somatic cell therapies and tissue-engineered products.

In the European Union, new medicinal products qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. This data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application for eight years, after which generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but not approved for two years. The overall ten-year period may be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the period of data exclusivity, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

The EMA is also able to grant orphan designation in respect of medicinal products. To qualify the medicinal product must be intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (i) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union or (ii) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union where without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicinal product in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. Further, no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question must exist in the European Union or, if such method exists, the medicinal product must be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Orphan medicinal products still remain subject to the same regulatory approval process, albeit that they are always assessed through the Centralized Procedure. Effective September 19, 2018, sponsors applying for Orphan Designation must use MEA’s secure online IRIS platform. However, sponsors of orphan medicinal products are eligible to benefit from a number of incentives offered, including certain assistance with development of the medicinal product, reduced fees for MA applications and protection from market competition once the medicinal product is authorized, as below.

Where an MA in respect of an orphan medicinal product is granted, the EMA and the competent authorities of the member states shall not, for a period of ten years, accept another application for an MA, or grant an MA or accept an application to extend an existing MA, for the same therapeutic indication, in respect of a similar medicinal product, unless: (i) the holder of the MA for the original orphan medicinal product has given its consent to the second applicant; (ii) the holder of the MA for the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the medicinal product; or (iii) the second applicant can establish the second medicinal is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior.

In addition to regulations in the United States and the European Union, we may be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our product. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval from comparable regulatory authorities in foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials in such countries and the approval of the regulators of foreign countries before we may market products in such countries. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

The FDA has adopted regulations governing its acceptance of foreign clinical data not conducted under an IND to support IND applications or marketing authorizations, such as BLAs. The conditions include requirements regarding the ability of the FDA to conduct onsite inspections to validate such data, and compliance with GCPs. Where a marketing application is based solely on foreign data, additional requirements apply, including a demonstration that the foreign data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice.

EU Directive 2001/83/EC allows for clinical trials conducted outside the European Union to be taken into consideration during the review of an MAA in the European Union if such trials have been designed, implemented and reported based on principles equivalent to those of the Clinical Trials Directive with regard to good clinical practice and ethical principles. Moreover, they should comply with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The applicant must submit a statement declaring such compliance as part of the MAA. In December 2008, the EMA published a strategy paper on the acceptance of data from foreign clinical trials conducted in “third countries,” particularly those outside the “‘traditional’ Western European and North American research areas.” According to this strategy paper, there is a “growing concern both among regulators and in public debate about how well these trials are conducted from an ethical and scientific/organizational standpoint.” The EMA has called for increased cooperation between international regulatory authorities involved in the supervision of clinical trials and has put forth other proposals to address these issues.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as for commercial manufacture if our product candidates receive marketing approval. To date, we have obtained materials for clinical trials and non-clinical studies from third-party manufacturers who are suppliers to us. For our product candidates, we intend to identify and qualify additional contract manufacturers to provide commercial scale manufacturing prior to submission of an NDA to the FDA.

As of December 31, 2018, we had 27 full-time employees, 11 of whom hold M.D. or Ph.D. degrees and 15 of whom hold other advanced degrees. Of our total workforce, 19 are engaged primarily in research and development activities and 8 are engaged primarily in executive, finance and accounting, and administrative functions. As of December 31, 2018, all employees are in the United States and none are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Our consolidated contract revenues were approximately $10.3 million and $10.7 million during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2018, we recognized $8.3 million and $2.0 million as revenue from the BARDA and NIAID contracts, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we recognized $8.9 million and $1.8 million as revenue from the BARDA and NIAID contracts, respectively.

For the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, all revenues were generated in the United States, which is our country of domicile. As of ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, long-lived assets with a net book value of $2.8 million and $23.4 million, respectively, were located in the United States. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, long-lived assets with a net book value of $12.4 million and $15.9 million, respectively, were located outside of the United States.

During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, we spent approximately $18.5 million and $18.4 million on research and development activities, respectively.

We completed the Mergers between Private Altimmune and PharmAthene in 2017. Our stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol “ALT”. Our principal executive offices located at 910 Clopper Road, Suite 201S, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878. Our telephone number is (240) 654-1450, and our Internet website is www.altimmune.com and our investor relations website is located under the “Investors” tab. The information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this Annual Report and is not incorporated by reference herein.

We make available our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to these reports, free of charge through our website (www.altimmune.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the SEC. We also make available on our website reports filed by our executive officers and Directors on Forms 3, 4, and 5 regarding their ownership of our securities. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and any amendments to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, are also available on our website under the “Investors” tab.

The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

In addition to the other information included in this Annual Report, the following risk factors should be carefully considered when evaluating an investment in us. These risk factors and other uncertainties may cause our actual future results or performance to differ materially from any future results or performance expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements contained in this report and in other public statements we make. In addition, because of these risks and uncertainties, as well as other variables affecting our operating results, our past financial performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance. See “Forward-Looking statements” in Item 1 of this Annual Report.

Risks Related to Our Business, Financing Requirements, Product Development and Clinical Trials

During 2017, we completed the sale of our redeemable preferred shares under our “shelf” registration statement on Form S-3. Using a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 to raise additional capital generally takes less time and is less expensive than other means, such as conducting an offering under a Form S-1 registration statement. However, our ability to raise capital using a shelf registration statement may be limited by, among other things, SEC rules and regulations. Under SEC rules and regulations, if our public float (the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates) is less than $75.0 million, then the aggregate market value of securities sold by us or on our behalf under our Form S-3 in any 12-month period is limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float. Our public float is currently below $75.0 million and therefore we are currently subject to this limitation. If our ability to utilize a Form S-3 registration statement for a primary offering of our securities is limited to one-third of our public float, we may conduct such an offering pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act or under a Form S-1 registration statement, and we would expect either of those alternatives to increase the cost of raising additional capital relative to utilizing a Form S-3 registration statement.

In addition, under current SEC rules and regulations, our common stock must be listed and registered on a national securities exchange in order to utilize a Form S-3 registration statement (i) for a primary offering, if our public float is not at least $75.0 million as of a date within 60 days prior to the date of filing the Form S-3 or a re-evaluation date, whichever is later, and (ii) to register the resale of our securities by persons other than us (i.e., a resale offering). While currently our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Market, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain such listing.

Our ability to timely raise sufficient additional capital also may be limited by NASDAQ’s stockholder approval requirements for transactions involving the issuance of our common stock or securities convertible into our common stock. For instance, NASDAQ requires that we obtain stockholder approval of any transaction involving the sale, issuance or potential issuance by us of our common stock (or securities convertible into our common stock) at a price less than the greater of book or market value, which (together with sales by our officers, directors and principal stockholders) equals 20% or more of our then outstanding common stock, unless the transaction is considered a “public offering” by NASDAQ. In addition, certain prior sales by us may be aggregated with any offering we may propose in the future, further limiting the amount we could raise in any future offering without stockholder approval. NASDAQ also requires that we obtain stockholder approval if the issuance or potential issuance of additional shares will be considered by NASDAQ to result in a change of control of our company.

Obtaining stockholder approval is a costly and time-consuming process. If we are required to obtain stockholder approval for a potential transaction, we would expect to spend substantial additional money and resources. In addition, seeking stockholder approval would delay our receipt of otherwise available capital or alter the terms of the transaction, which may materially and adversely affect our ability to execute our business strategy, and there is no guarantee our stockholders ultimately would approve a proposed transaction.

We have incurred significant losses since our founding and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company and have not yet generated revenues from product sales. To date, substantially all of our revenues have been derived from grants and contracts with governmental agencies, primarily our BARDA contract for our anthrax vaccine product candidate. We have incurred net losses in most periods since our inception, including a net loss of $39.2 million and $46.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, we have an accumulated deficit of $116.9 million. To date, we have not received regulatory approvals for any products or generated any revenues from the sale of products, and we do not expect to generate any product revenues in the foreseeable future. We do not know whether or when we will generate product revenues or become profitable.

We have devoted most of our financial resources to research and development, including preclinical and clinical development of product candidates. We have not completed pivotal clinical trials for any product candidate. Our leading product candidates remain in early stage clinical development, and it will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our future revenues will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates have received approval, our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, reimbursement from third-party payers and other factors.

The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular quarter or quarters, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Our profitability depends on our ability to develop and commercialize our current and future product candidates.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates, forming strategic partnerships and alliances with third parties and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. If some or all of our product candidates do not prove to be safe, pure and efficacious, then we may have to abandon those product candidates altogether and we will be unable to generate revenues from sales of such products.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase significantly if and as we:

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform studies in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates, our expenses could increase.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations.

Future conditions might require us to make substantial write-downs in our assets, which would adversely affect our balance sheet and results of operations.

We review our long-lived tangible and intangible assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. We also test our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment at least annually in the fourth quarter, or when events or changes in the business environment indicate that the carrying value of the reporting unit may exceed its fair value. During 2017, as a result of our declining share price, we tested our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment both as of interim and at year end. Based on the result of the test, we determined that that our goodwill was impaired. An aggregate impairment charge of $35.9 million was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2017. As a result of the 2018 annual impairment test of our indefinite lived intangibles performed in conjunction with a strategic review of our development pipeline, we recorded an impairment charge of $24.5 million during 2018. At December 31, 2018, we continued to carry $13.9 million of indefinite lived intangible assets. Any such significant write-downs of our long-lived assets in the future could adversely affect our balance sheet and results of operations.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed would force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales, licensing fees, royalties, milestones, contract research or other sources in an amount sufficient to fully fund our operations for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we will use our existing cash resources, together with funding received from BARDA, and will require additional funds to maintain our operations, continue our research and development programs, commence future preclinical studies and clinical trials, seek regulatory approvals and manufacture and market our products. As of December 31, 2018, our cash balance was $34.4 million. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash will be sufficient to fund our projected operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least a twelve-month period from the issuance date of our December 31, 2018 financial statements. However, we do not expect that these funds will be sufficient to enable us to complete the clinical trials needed to seek marketing approval or commercialize any of our product candidates. Furthermore, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need additional funds sooner than planned.

We believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future developing our product candidates. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, maintaining our intellectual property estate, potentially acquiring new technologies, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing products, forming partnerships and strategic alliances, as well as marketing and selling products approved for sale, if any. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of our planned and anticipated clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We may also seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. 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 to us when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate preclinical studies, clinical trials or other development activities for one or more of our product candidates or delay, limit, reduce or terminate our establishment of sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to commercialize our product candidates.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to the Company’s stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates on unfavorable terms.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, BARDA funding, and license and development agreements through strategic partnerships with third parties. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt or preferred stock financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, issuing additional equity, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or otherwise grant licenses on terms that are not favorable. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts for our leading product candidates or our preclinical product candidates, or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Because our product candidates are in an early stage of development, there is a high risk of failure, and we may never succeed in developing marketable products or generating product revenue.

Our preclinical and clinical results are not necessarily predictive of the final results of our ongoing or future clinical trials. We have completed early, small, proof-of-concept clinical trials with our NasoVAX influenza vaccine, and we are in in Phase 1 clinical development with HepTcell and NasoShield program. Success in preclinical studies may not be predictive of similar results in humans during clinical trials, and successful results from early or small clinical trials of a vaccine candidate may not be replicated in later and larger clinical trials. Clinical trials are expensive, time consuming and uncertain as to outcome, and we cannot guarantee that any of these activities will be successful. If the results of our ongoing or future clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet our clinical endpoints with statistical significance or if there are safety concerns or adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates, or we may determine to suspend development of or abandon specific product candidates. For example, we suspended the development of a Densigen platform-based product candidate, Flunisyn, which was being developed as a T-cell vaccine for the treatment of influenza, in favor of NasoVAX. Clinical trials with this product candidate showed that it was well tolerated and able to induce robust T-cell responses against the viral sequences represented, but a comparison of the entire study population in later-stage clinical trials showed no statistical differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups for several measures of protection.

In addition, we can offer no assurances that we have correctly estimated the resources or personnel necessary to seek partners, co-developers or acquirers for our biodefense programs or execute under our NIAID contract acquired and assumed in connection with the Mergers. If a larger workforce or one with a different skillset is ultimately required to maintain these operations, we may be unable to maximize our existing anthrax vaccine program.

Our product candidates, all of which are biological drug candidates, are subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to, among other things, research, clinical trials, manufacturing, import, export and commercialization. Furthermore, the timing of the marketing approval for our NasoShield and SparVax-L product candidates is subject to obtaining continued funding and consent from BARDA, which is uncertain. In order to obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any product candidate, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that the product candidate is safe and effective for use in each target indication. Even if we obtain regulatory approval, that approval may be for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired or may require labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. Also, we may gain regulatory approval for our leading product candidates or our other preclinical product candidates in some but not all of the jurisdictions we seek to obtain regulatory approval. For example, failure to obtain regulatory approval of our products in any of the U.S., European or Japanese markets would materially and adversely affect the Company. Failure to obtain regulatory approval of some but not all of the target indications may result in limited commercial opportunity for the approved product. We may never obtain regulatory approval for these product candidates in any jurisdiction. We also may be required to perform additional or unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product or impose restrictions on its distribution in the form of a modified risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

We are heavily dependent on the success of our leading product candidates, NasoVAX, NasoShield, and HepTcell. If we ultimately are unable to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize NasoVAX, NasoShield, HepTcell, or any other product candidate, our business will be substantially harmed.

We currently have no products approved for commercial distribution. Our business strategy is to build a pipeline of product candidates using our proprietary platforms, including our leading product candidates, NasoVAX, NasoShield, and HepTcell, and to progress those product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of different types of diseases. We may not be able to develop products that are safe and effective for all or any of the indications that we target. Even if we are successful in building a product pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development for a number of reasons, including causing harmful side effects or demonstrating other characteristics that indicate a low likelihood of receiving marketing approval or achieving market acceptance. If our methods of identifying potential product candidates fail to produce a pipeline of potentially viable product candidates, then our success as a business will be dependent on the success of fewer potential product candidates, which introduces risks to our business model and potential limitations to any success we may achieve.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future discovery and preclinical development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. Furthermore, until such time as we are able to build a broader product candidate pipeline, if ever, any adverse developments with respect to our leading product candidates, NasoVAX, NasoShield, and HepTcell, would have a more significant adverse effect on our overall business than if we maintained a broader portfolio of product candidates.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

Delays, including delays caused by the above factors, can be costly and could negatively affect our ability to complete a clinical trial. For example, we have had delays in previous clinical trials, including those conducted for NasoVAX, as a result of clinical holds imposed by the FDA or other regulatory authorities and requests for additional or new information on vaccine product testing in connection with an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) submitted to the FDA. We have also recently experienced multiple failures during the manufacturing of clinical materials for use in future NasoVAX Phase 2 clinical trial.

We cannot give any assurance that we will be able to resolve any future clinical holds imposed by the FDA or other regulatory authorities outside of the United States, or any delay caused by manufacturing failures or other factors described above or any other factors, on a timely basis or at all. If we are not able to successfully initiate and complete subsequent clinical trials, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval and will not be able to commercialize our product candidates.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates. If patients are unwilling to participate in our trials because of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology industries, public perception of vaccine safety issues or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product development, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical trials altogether.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve diversity in a trial, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment is affected by several factors, including:

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we cannot enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by regulatory agencies.

Even if we enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to initiate our clinical trials, we may be unable to maintain participation of these patients throughout the course of the clinical trial as required by the clinical trial protocol, in which event we may be unable to use the research results from those patients. For example, we may face difficulties in identifying patient populations with active disease to enroll in our HBV product clinical trial for HepTcell. Other clinical trials involving patients with active HBV have sometimes faced difficulties in working with these patient populations, which may include significant numbers of individuals with difficulties with treatment compliance, such as active drug users. While we are developing strategies to address this issue, there is no guarantee that these strategies will prove successful.

If we have difficulty enrolling and maintaining the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business.

It may be difficult to predict the time and cost of product development. Unforeseen problems may prevent further development or approval of our product candidates.

Our product candidates, including vaccines and immunotherapies, involve novel approaches to activate the immune system. Consequently, it may be difficult to predict the time and cost of product development. For example, the RespirVec platform involves intranasally administered adenovectored vaccines and the Densigen platform involves synthetic peptide T-cell vaccines. Unforeseen problems with our approaches to vaccines and immunotherapy may prevent further development or approval of our product candidates. Because of the novelty of our approaches, there may be unknown safety risks associated with the vaccines that we develop or the clinical endpoints that we establish in trials may not be generally accepted by regulatory agencies, which may therefore require us to perform large field studies to demonstrate efficacy. There can be no assurance that any development problems we may experience in the future will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved.

In addition, novel vaccine adjuvants, which are included in HepTcell and Oncosyn, our product candidates based on the Densigen technology, may pose an increased safety risk to patients. Adjuvants are compounds that are added to vaccine antigens to enhance the activation and improve immune response and efficacy of vaccines. Development of vaccines with novel adjuvants requires evaluation in larger numbers of patients prior to approval than would be typical for therapeutic drugs. Guidelines for evaluation of vaccines with novel adjuvants have been established by the FDA and other regulatory bodies and expert committees. The safety of any vaccine, because of the presence of an adjuvant, may have side effects considered to pose too great a risk to patients to warrant approval of the vaccine. Traditionally, regulatory authorities have required extensive study of novel adjuvants because vaccines typically get administered to healthy populations, in particular infants, children and the elderly, rather than in people with disease. As a result, although it is anticipated that HepTcell and Oncosyn are intended for the treatment of patients suffering from a disease, regulatory agencies such as the FDA may nevertheless require us to conduct extensive safety testing prior to approval to demonstrate a low risk of rare and severe adverse events caused by our product candidates that include novel vaccine adjuvants.

If approved, the novel mechanism of action of the vaccines may adversely affect physician and patient perception and acceptance of our products. Public perception of vaccine safety issues, including adoption of novel vaccine mechanisms of action, may adversely influence willingness of subjects to participate in clinical trials, or if approved, to prescribe and receive novel vaccines. For example, GSK pulled from the market an approved vaccine to prevent Lyme disease (Lymerix) in February 2002 after anecdotal evidence of joint pain resulted in subjects’ unwillingness to receive the vaccine. The FDA found no evidence that the vaccine caused a safety risk; however, GSK pulled the vaccine due to low sales resulting from the negative public perception associated with the reports on joint pain. In addition, parental aversion to new vaccines or vaccines in general may adversely influence later stage clinical trials of our influenza product candidate or, if approved, its commercial success.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, and if they do not properly and successfully perform their obligations to us, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators to assist in managing, monitoring and otherwise carrying out our clinical trials. We compete with many other companies for the resources of these third parties. The third parties on whom we rely generally may terminate their engagements at any time and having to enter into alternative arrangements would delay development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities require compliance with applicable law, regulations and standards, including GCP, for designing, conducting, monitoring, recording, analyzing and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that the data and results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Although we rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, we are responsible for ensuring that each of these clinical trials is conducted in accordance with applicable law, regulations and standards, including our general investigational plan and protocol.

Furthermore, if these third parties do not successfully carry out their duties under their agreements, if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to clinical trial protocols or to regulatory requirements, or if they otherwise fail to comply with clinical trial protocols or meet expected deadlines, then the clinical trials of our product candidates may not meet regulatory requirements. If clinical trials do not meet regulatory requirements or if these third parties need to be replaced, then preclinical development activities or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated. If any of these events occur, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates on a timely basis or at all.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We face substantial competition from other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before, or more successfully, than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the design, development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our objective is to design, develop and commercialize new products with superior efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety. In many cases, the products that we intend to commercialize, if successfully commercialized, will compete with existing market-leading products.

Many of our potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. Large and established companies such as AstraZeneca, GSK, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi Pasteur, among others, compete in the influenza vaccine market. These companies have greater experience and expertise in securing government contracts and grants to support their research and development efforts, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals to market products, manufacturing such products on a broad scale and marketing approved products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development and have collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the products that we develop obsolete.

We also face competition from smaller companies such as Novavax, which is developing a recombinant influenza vaccine; Inovio Pharmaceuticals, which is developing an HBV therapeutic vaccine; Emergent Biosolutions, which manufactures the existing anthrax vaccine; and PaxVax and Pfenex, which are developing anthrax vaccines. Any of these smaller companies may develop competing products more rapidly than we do. A number of companies of varying sizes are also pursuing the development of a “universal” flu vaccine. In addition, we have substantial competition for government funding, particularly for our anthrax vaccine program. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing products before we do. In addition, any new product that we develop that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If we are not able to compete effectively against potential competitors, our business will not grow, and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

We may not be able to comply with the requirements of foreign jurisdictions in conducting trials within the United Kingdom or any other foreign country.

We have conducted clinical trials in the United Kingdom and South Korea for HepTcell, and future clinical trials may be conducted in other foreign jurisdictions. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in the United Kingdom or any other foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

If we fail to successfully meet requirements for the conduct of clinical trials outside of the United States, we may be delayed in obtaining, or be unable to obtain, regulatory approval for our product candidates in the United States or in countries outside of the United States.

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop our products, conduct our clinical trials and commercialize our product candidates.

We are highly dependent on members of our senior management, including Dr. Vipin Garg, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Sybil Tasker, our Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Clinical Research and Development, and Dr. M. Scot Roberts, our Chief Scientific Officer. Although we have entered into employment agreements with each of these members of senior management and key employees, the loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than the Company and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to the Company. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

Because we have acquired all the outstanding shares of most of our acquired companies, our investment in those companies are or will be subject to all of their liabilities other than their respective debts which we paid or will pay at the time of the acquisitions. If there are unknown liabilities or other obligations, our business could be materially affected. We may also experience issues relating to internal controls over financial reporting, issues that could affect our ability to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act tax examinations by the IRS or state tax authorities, or issues that could affect our ability to comply with other applicable laws.

The comprehensive tax reform bill could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law new tax legislation known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), which significantly revises the Internal Revenue Code. The TCJA, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense to 30% of adjusted earnings (except for certain small businesses), limitation of the deduction for net operating losses to 80% of current year taxable income and elimination of net operating loss carrybacks in respect of net operating losses generated during or after 2018, one time taxation of offshore earnings at reduced rates regardless of whether they are repatriated, elimination of U.S. tax on foreign earnings (subject to certain important exceptions), immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time, and modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits (including reduction of orphan drug tax credits). Notwithstanding the reduction in the corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of the new federal tax law is uncertain and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the newly enacted federal tax law. The impact of this tax reform on holders of our common stock is also uncertain and could be adverse.

We may not be able to utilize a significant portion of our net operating loss carryforwards, which could harm our results of operations.

We had U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $14.6 million as of December 31, 2018. Of this amount, $2.02 million has a 20-year carry forward period that will expire at various dates beginning in 2020. The remaining amount of $12.61 million has an unlimited life. As of December 31, 2018, after giving effect to new corporate tax rates prescribed by the TCJA, we have recorded a valuation allowance of $8.8 million against our net deferred tax asset. The TCJA limits the amount of net operating losses generated after 2017 that we are permitted to deduct in any taxable year after 2017 to 80% of our taxable income in such year. The TCJA also eliminates the ability to carry back net operating losses generated after 2017 to prior years but allows net operating losses generated after 2017 to be carried forward indefinitely. As such, there is a risk that due to such items, our existing net operating losses could expire or be unavailable to offset future income. The net operating loss carryforwards are reflective of a 382-limitation related to ownership changes triggered by equity offerings that occurred in 2017 and 2018.

If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, research, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and foreign jurisdictions. Failure to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates will prevent us from commercializing them in those markets.

We have not received approval from regulatory authorities to market any product candidate in any jurisdiction, and it is possible that neither our current product candidates nor any product candidates that we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals necessary for us to commence product sales.

We expect to rely on third-party CROs and consultants to assist in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication of each of our product candidates to establish the product candidates’ safety and efficacy for such indications. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, regulatory authorities.

The pathway to regulatory approvals is time consuming and unpredictable, involves substantial costs and consumes management time and attention. It is not possible to predict the timing or success of obtaining regulatory approvals with any degree of certainty, and as a result, it is difficult to forecast our future financial results or prospects. Any unexpected development in the regulatory approval process, including delays or denials of regulatory approvals or significant modifications to our product candidates required by our regulators, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, and could substantially harm our stock price.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that delay or prevent their regulatory approval or limit their commercial potential.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates or even competing products in development that utilize a common mechanism of action could cause regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities and potential product liability claims. Serious adverse events deemed to be caused by our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on the development of our product candidates and our business as a whole. The most common adverse events in the clinical trials evaluating the safety and tolerability of the NasoVAX influenza vaccine have been headaches, runny noses and sore throats. The most common adverse events observed in clinical trials for product candidates developed using the Densigen platform include injection site reactions, headache, malaise and fatigue.

Our understanding of the relationship between our product candidates and these events, as well as our understanding of adverse events reported in future clinical trials of other product candidates, may change as we gather more information, and additional unexpected adverse events may be observed. In addition, the side effect profile of pharmaceutical drugs cannot be fully established based on preapproval clinical trials involving a limited number of patients. Routine review and analysis of post-marketing safety surveillance and clinical trials will provide additional information, for example, potential evidence of rare, population-specific or long-term adverse reactions, and may adversely affect the commercialization of the product, and even lead to the suspension or withdrawal of product marketing authorization.

If we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates either before or after receipt of marketing approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining marketing approvals for and market acceptance of our product candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

If we fail to obtain regulatory approval in non-U.S. jurisdictions, we will not be able to market our products in those jurisdictions.

We intend to market certain of our product candidates, if approved, in the United Kingdom and other international markets, in addition to the United States. Such marketing will require separate regulatory approvals in each market and compliance with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedures vary among countries and may involve requirements for additional testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, such as certain countries of the European Union, a vaccine must be approved for reimbursement, including the price that can be charged, before it can be approved for sale in that country. In these countries, pricing discussions with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product, and additional clinical research may be required to enable comparison of the cost effectiveness of our product candidate to other available alternatives. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. However, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may compromise our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, such products will be subject to ongoing regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and other restrictions.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to conditions of approval. We may also be required to conduct post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product potentially over many years. If the FDA or other regulatory authority approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP, and compliance with cGMP and GCP for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Any such restrictions may result in significant additional expense or could limit sales of the approved product.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with an approved product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing operations or processes, may result in, among other things:

In addition, applicable regulatory policies of governmental authorities, such as the FDA, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could affect any regulatory approval that we may receive for our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic or biosimilar versions of any of our products that receive marketing approval, or if any product approvals we obtain do not provide us with the exclusivity periods we hope to achieve, the sales of our products could be adversely affected.

As part of the ongoing efforts of governmental authorities to lower health care costs by facilitating generic competition to pharmaceutical products, the BPCIA enacted as part of the Health Care Reform Law, created a new abbreviated regulatory approval pathway in the United States for biological products that are found to be “biosimilar” to or “interchangeable” with a biological “reference product” previously licensed under a BLA. This abbreviated approval pathway is intended to permit a biosimilar to come to market more quickly and less expensively by relying to some extent on the data generated by the reference product’s sponsor and the FDA’s previous review and approval of the reference product. Under the BPCIA, a biosimilar sponsor’s ability to seek or obtain approval through the abbreviated pathway is limited by periods of exclusivity granted by the FDA to the holder of the reference product’s BLA, and no biosimilar application may be accepted by the FDA for review until four years after the date the reference product was first licensed by the FDA, and no biosimilar application, once accepted, may receive final approval until 12 years after the reference product was first licensed by the FDA.

Once approved, biosimilars likely would compete with, and in some circumstances may be deemed under applicable laws to be “interchangeable with,” the previously approved reference product. The extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our product candidates, if approved, in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. Although there is uncertainty regarding the impact of this new program, it seems likely that if any of our product candidates are approved by the FDA, there is risk that the approval of a biosimilar competitor to one of our products could have an adverse impact on our business. In particular, a biosimilar could be significantly less costly to bring to market and priced significantly lower than our product, if approved by the FDA.

We may also be subject to competition from biosimilar products in Europe. To date, 27 biosimilar products have been authorized by the EMA. As in the United States the regulatory approval pathway for biosimilar products in Europe is abbreviated. A biosimilar sponsor must however still provide all of the preclinical and clinical data required to demonstrate the similarity of their product with the reference product. The level of data required is assessed on a case by case basis, but it will be less than that required for an original biological product. The pathway is more complex than the abridged procedure that may be followed to obtain authorization of a generic version of a non-biological product, but it would still allow the biosimilar product to be brought to market more quickly and less expensively than our original product. That said, in Europe applications for marketing authorizations in relation to biosimilar products are subject to the same data and market exclusivity as apply to generic non-biologic products so no biosimilar product could be approved or placed on the market during the periods such exclusivity applies to our product. Marketing authorization of a biosimilar product in Europe does not guarantee that the biosimilar product may be substituted for the reference product. Interchangeability of a biosimilar product with the reference product is not assessed by the EMA but this determination is left to each of the member states. We cannot know at this stage the extent to which any biosimilar product would be interchangeable with our reference product, and this may vary between member states.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity our competitors may pursue. In the United States, the FDA has the authority to award additional exclusivity for approved products where the sponsor conducts specified testing on pediatric or adolescent populations upon the written request of the FDA. If granted, pediatric exclusivity adds nine months to existing exclusivity periods applicable to biological products under the BPCIA — namely, the four-year period during which the FDA will not consider an application for a biosimilar product, and the twelve-year period during which the FDA will not approve a biosimilar application. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of these exclusivity protection periods, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “written request” for such trial. In Europe, as well, pediatric studies are incentivized by the reward of additional exclusivity. Pediatric Investigation Plans (“PIPs”), are determined by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA. Where an application for a marketing authorization is submitted in respect of a medicinal product designated as an orphan medicinal product and that application contains the results of the PIP studies, market exclusivity for that orphan medicinal product is extended by two years if the product is authorized across Europe. We may pursue pediatric exclusivity for one or more of our product candidates but may not succeed in obtaining it. There is also a risk that a competitor may achieve pediatric exclusivity that would delay any potential approvals of our product candidates.

Orphan drug designation presents yet another regulatory incentive that may be available to us and our competitors. The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to products intended to treat a “rare disease or condition” that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States of such drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation can provide opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and FDA user fee exemptions. In addition, if a product that has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product may be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA would not approve any other application to market the same drug for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or a meaningfully different mode of administration.

In the European Union, orphan drug status offers similar but not identical benefits as those in the United States. We may pursue orphan drug designation for one or more of our product candidates but obtaining such designation cannot be assured. Additionally, should a competitor receive orphan drug designation for a product to treat the same disease and same indication as one of our product candidates, there is a risk that the FDA or a comparable European regulatory body could delay approving our product candidate.

Developing a drug product, such as NasoShield, to address biological warfare involves special considerations, including compliance with the “Animal Rule,” that may increase drug development delays and costs, and result in a longer and more uncertain regulatory approval process.

Under a special FDA procedure available for studying certain biological warfare products, such as NasoShield, the FDA makes available a research pathway known as the “Animal Rule,” which permits the conduct of clinical trials without exposing human subjects to deadly substances, such as anthrax. These regulations authorize the FDA to rely on evidence from animal studies to provide evidence of a product’s effectiveness under circumstances where there is a reasonably well-understood mechanism for the toxicity of the agent. Under these requirements, and with the FDA’s prior agreement, biologics used to reduce or prevent the toxicity of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear substances may be approved for use in humans based on evidence of effectiveness derived from appropriate animal studies and any additional supporting data. Products evaluated for effectiveness under this rule are evaluated for safety under preexisting requirements for establishing the safety of new drug and biological products, including Phase 1 through Phase 2 clinical trials. Under certain circumstances a single animal species may be acceptable if that animal model is sufficiently well-characterized for predicting a response in humans. The animal study endpoint must be clearly related to the desired benefit in humans and the information obtained from animal studies must allow for selection of an effective dose in humans. The Animal Rule also requires post-marketing studies, such as field studies, to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit and assess its safety should an exigency exist that leads to the product being used in humans; the nature of these studies will be discussed with FDA as part of the BLA process. Products approved under the Animal Rule are subject to additional requirements, such as restrictions imposed on marketing or distribution or requirements to provide information to patients.

Compliance with the Animal Rule would generally require us to utilize animal model studies for efficacy and provide certain animal and human safety data in order to obtain FDA approval for our anthrax vaccine product candidate. The Animal Rule drug development pathway typically involves costs and delays in excess of what would be expended in conducting human vaccine clinical trials not requiring compliance with the Animal Rule. Although there is an alternative regulatory pathway available for biological warfare drug candidates, called Emergency Use Authorization, which avoids the Animal Rule’s reliance on animal models focused on efficacy, there can be no assurance that this alternative model will apply to our anthrax vaccine product candidate.

Developing appropriate animal models in compliance with the Animal Rule is a time-consuming and expensive research effort. Further, we may not be able to sufficiently demonstrate the animal correlation to the satisfaction of the FDA, as these corollaries are difficult to establish and are often unclear. The FDA may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional non-clinical, clinical or other studies, refuse to approve our products, or place restrictions on our ability to commercialize those products. As a general matter, complying with the Animal Rule involves a more uncertain pathway to regulatory approval, as relatively few products have been approved in this manner. This means that it may be particularly difficult for us to predict the timing or ultimate success of receiving FDA approval for NasoShield. Further, other countries have not, at this time, established criteria for review and approval of these types of products outside their normal review process; i.e., there is no Animal Rule equivalent, and consequently there can be no assurance that we will be able to make a submission for marketing approval in foreign countries based on such animal data.

Additionally, few facilities in the United States and internationally have the capability to perform animal testing with anthrax or otherwise assist us in qualifying the requisite animal models. We compete with other biodefense companies for access to this limited pool of highly specialized resources. We therefore may not be able to secure contracts to conduct testing of our anthrax vaccine product candidate in a predictable timeframe or at all.

Additionally, under the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (“Project BioShield”), the Secretary of HHS may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of DHS and upon the approval of the President, contract to purchase unapproved medical countermeasures for the SNS, in specified circumstances. The U.S. Congress is notified of a recommendation for a stockpile purchase after Presidential approval. Project BioShield specifies that a company supplying the countermeasure to the SNS is paid on delivery of a substantial portion of the countermeasure. To be eligible for purchase under these provisions, the Secretary of HHS must determine that there are sufficient and satisfactory clinical results or research data, including data, if available, from preclinical studies and clinical trials, to support a reasonable conclusion that the countermeasure will qualify for approval or licensing within eight years. The legislation also allows unlicensed products to be procured for the SNS so that they are available at the time an emergency is declared.

Although this provision permits the Secretary of HHS to circumvent the FDA approval process, its use would be limited to rare circumstances. Our product candidates will be eligible both for consideration for procurement into the SNS and for use in the event of an emergency, although there is no guarantee that our product candidates will meet the criteria set forth by HHS or the FDA for procurement and Emergency-use Authorization, respectively. Both our NasoShield anthrax vaccine product candidate and our NasoVAX pandemic influenza vaccine product candidate may potentially be eligible for the SNS under Project BioShield.

It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights, and we may not be able to ensure their protection. If our patent position and other intellectual property rights do not adequately protect our product candidates, others could compete against us (including directly), which could materially harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We rely upon a combination of patents, patent applications, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates, platform technology and know-how. The patent position of biotechnology companies is generally uncertain, because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology patents. In addition, some countries do not grant patent claims directed to methods of treating humans, and in these countries patent protection may not be available at all to protect our product candidates. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other countries.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time consuming, and our current or future licensors, licensees or collaborators may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties, making us reliant on our licensors, licensees or collaborators. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Company’s business. If our current or future licensors, licensees or collaborators fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be lost or impaired. If our licensors, licensees or collaborators are not fully cooperative or disagree with the Company as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised.

If patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us. We and our licensors have filed several patent applications covering aspects of our product candidates. We cannot offer any assurance about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patents or whether any issued patents will be found invalid or unenforceable or will be successfully challenged by third parties.

Patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued. We cannot be certain that our licensors were the first to satisfy the requirements necessary to secure patent rights relating to any particular invention. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by such third party, or by the USPTO itself, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our patent applications.

Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. Any successful challenge to our patents or patent applications, or to any other patents or patent applications owned by or licensed to us, could deprive us of the rights necessary to prevent competition from third parties, which may impair the commercial success of any product candidate that we may develop. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors has been found, and prior art that we have not identified could be used by a third party to invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications, or those of our licensors, may not adequately protect our technology, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, prevent others from designing around our patents with similar products, or prevent others from operating in jurisdictions in which we did not pursue patent protection. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

Any loss of, or failure to obtain, patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. We may be unable to prevent competitors from entering the market with a product that is similar to or the same as our products.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in some foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. The earliest any of our patents are scheduled to expire is January 2020.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our products for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In most countries, including the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is 20 years from the date that the application for the patent is filed. In some cases, the term of a U.S. patent is shortened by a terminal disclaimer that reduces its term to that of an earlier-expiring patent. Various extensions of patent term may be available in particular countries; however, in all circumstances the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, has a limited term. If we encounter delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product under patent protection could be reduced. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms where these are available in any countries where we are prosecuting patents. Such possible extensions include those permitted under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 in the United States, which permits a patent term extension of up to five years to cover an FDA-approved product. The actual length of the extension will depend on the amount of patent term lost while the product was in clinical trials. However, the applicable authorities, including the USPTO and FDA in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data, and then may be able to launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, litigation may be necessary to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets and/or to determine the validity and scope of our own intellectual property rights or the proprietary rights of others. Such litigation can be expensive and time consuming, which could divert management resources and harm our business and financial results. Many of our current and potential competitors have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to litigate intellectual property rights than we can. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property.

Patent assertion, including initiating litigation, increases the likelihood that the accused third party will seek to narrow or invalidate our asserted patent. The scope and validity of our asserted patent may be challenged in a variety of post-grant proceedings before the USPTO and foreign patent offices. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that our asserted patent is invalid or unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding or other legal proceeding could therefore put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement or misappropriation may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates, and to use our or our licensors’ proprietary technologies without infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing and may develop our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. We may not have identified all U.S. and foreign patents or published patent applications that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our product candidates or by covering similar technologies that affect our market.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims, for example, to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture, methods of analysis and/or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. In some cases, we may have failed to identify such relevant third-party patents or patent applications. For example, patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until issued as patents. Except for the preceding exceptions, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are generally published only after a waiting period of approximately 18 months after the earliest filing. Therefore, patent applications covering our platform technology or our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies or product candidates and/or the use, analysis and/or manufacture of our product candidates.

If any third-party patents are held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture, methods of analysis and/or methods for treatment, the holders of any such patents may be awarded monetary damages, obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, or both. An award of monetary damages may be substantial and may include treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement. An award of injunctive relief could block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate until such patent expired or unless we obtain a license. Such licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be forced to redesign an infringing product, prevented from commercializing a product, or forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms.

Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business.

We may face a claim of misappropriation if a third party believes that we inappropriately obtained and used trade secrets of such third party. If we are found to have misappropriated a third party’s trade secrets, we may be prevented from further using such trade secrets, limiting our ability to develop our product candidates, and we may be required to pay damages.

During the course of any patent or other intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our product candidates, platform technology or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our common stock may decline. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have an adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, independent contractors or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers, or our employees may challenge the inventorship of our patents.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these individuals, including members of our senior management, executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such previous employment. Although we use reasonable efforts to ensure that our employees, independent contractors and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such third party.

We may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. In addition, we may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

We have in-licensed a portion of our intellectual property, and, if we fail to comply with our obligations under these arrangements, we could lose such intellectual property rights or owe damages to the licensor of such intellectual property.

We are a party to a number of license agreements that are important to our business, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Certain of our in-licensed intellectual property covers, or may cover, RespirVec and certain of our product candidates. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on the Company. If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of non-performance between the Company and our licensing partners regarding our rights or obligations under the license agreements, including any such conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to satisfy payment obligations under any such agreement, we may owe damages, our licensor may have a right to terminate the affected license, and our ability to utilize the affected intellectual property in our product discovery and development efforts and our ability to enter into collaboration or marketing agreements for an affected product candidate may be adversely affected.

We may need to license certain intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights, that is important or necessary to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. If the patented or proprietary technology of third parties is necessary for us to commercialize our product candidates, we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could materially harm our business.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on confidentiality agreements to protect trade secrets and proprietary know-how that may not be patentable or that we may elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our technology and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. In particular, we seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by the Company during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. We also enter into agreements with our employees that provide that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to the Company shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our know-how, our employees, consultants, contractors or outside scientific advisors might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our know-how or other proprietary information to competitors. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our know-how or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques.

Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our know-how is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States sometimes are less willing than U.S. courts to protect know-how. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our know-how could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to those of the Company’s, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. For example, we have experienced threatened or actual opposition for two trademarks that we were pursuing. We decided to discontinue our use of one of those trademarks, and the other matter was resolved on favorable terms. Although these matters have been resolved on terms that did not materially harm the Company, we may become subject to other trademark challenges in the future. If we are unable to establish long-term name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected.

Our future commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, third-party payers and others in the medical community.

Even if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, or any other product candidates that we may develop or acquire in the future, the product may not gain market acceptance among physicians, third-party payers, patients and others in the medical community. Market acceptance of any approved products depends on a number of other factors, including:

Market acceptance is critical to our ability to generate significant revenue. Any product candidate, if approved and commercialized, may be accepted in only limited capacities or not at all. If any approved products are not accepted by the market to the extent that we expect, we may not be able to generate significant revenue and our business would suffer.

We rely on, and expect to continue to rely on, third parties to manufacture our product candidates and related materials for our clinical trials and preclinical studies, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel, and we rely on, and expect to continue to rely on, third-party manufacturers and suppliers to manufacture and supply vaccines for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and on related materials, such as anthrax, influenza and HBV products. We rely on a small number of third-party manufacturers and suppliers to manufacture and supply bulk drug substance and fill finished vaccines for our initial clinical trials. This reliance on a small number of third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or other products needed for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

Any of these third parties that we rely upon may terminate their engagement with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development activities. In addition, our reliance on these third parties for manufacturing activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations regarding manufacturing.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates itself, including:

Any of these events could lead to preclinical and clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval or affect our ability to successfully commercialize future products. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA or other regulatory authority action, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, license revocations, recall, seizure, total or partial suspension of production, or criminal penalties.

In addition, our product candidates involve technically complex manufacturing processes, and even slight deviations at any point in the production process may lead to production failures and may cause the production of our products to be disrupted, potentially for extended periods of time. For example, one of our third-party manufacturers has recently failed on multiple occasions to successfully manufacture sufficient quantities of our NasoVAX product candidate. This failure required us to delay planned multi-valent clinical trials.

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with applicable cGMP, regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on it, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates.

Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for the Company. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We have limited arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. If our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers, and it may prove very difficult and time consuming to identify potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our product candidates. Accordingly, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

If we are unable to manufacture our products in sufficient quantities, or at sufficient yields, or are unable to obtain regulatory approvals for a manufacturing facility for our products, we may experience delays in product development, clinical trials, regulatory approval and commercial distribution.

Completion of our clinical trials and commercialization of our product candidates require access to, or development of, facilities to manufacture our product candidates at sufficient yields and at commercial scale, and this manufacturing involves a complicated process with which we have limited experience. Even if clinical trials are successful, we still may be unable to commercialize a product due to difficulties in obtaining regulatory approval for our engineering processes or problems in scaling that process to commercial production. We have no experience manufacturing, or managing third parties in manufacturing, any of our product candidates in the volumes that will be necessary to support large-scale clinical trials or commercial sales. Efforts to establish these capabilities may not meet initial expectations as to scheduling, scale-up, reproducibility, yield, purity, cost, potency or quality.

We expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of clinical and, if approved for marketing, commercial quantities of our product candidates. These third-party manufacturers must also receive FDA or other applicable governmental authority approval before they can produce clinical material or commercial products. Our products may be in competition with other products for access to these facilities and may be subject to delays in manufacture if third parties give other products greater priority. We may not be able to enter into any necessary third-party manufacturing arrangements on acceptable terms, or on a timely basis. In addition, we may have to enter into technical transfer agreements and share our know-how with the third-party manufacturers, which can be time consuming and may result in delays.

No known manufacturer has received FDA clearance to manufacture large scale quantities of commercial products with the modified version of adenovirus used in the production of product candidates based on our proprietary RespirVec technology. The Company or our contract manufacturers therefore will need to develop a scalable manufacturing process for any product candidates that we may develop and commercialize that use our RespirVec technology. Our contract manufacturing organizations may encounter technical or scientific issues related to development or manufacturing that we may be unable to resolve in a timely manner or with available funds. If we or our manufacturing partners are unable to scale the manufacturing process to produce commercial quantities of our product candidates, or our manufacturing partners do not pass required regulatory pre-approval inspections, our commercialization efforts may be adversely affected.

Our reliance on contract manufacturers may adversely affect our operations or result in unforeseen delays or other problems beyond our control. Because of contractual restraints and the limited number of third-party manufacturers with the expertise, required regulatory approvals and facilities to manufacture our products on a commercial scale, replacement of a manufacturer may be expensive and time consuming and may cause interruptions in the production of our product candidates. A third-party manufacturer may also encounter difficulties in production. These problems may include:

Any delay or interruption in the manufacture of our products could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we obtain marketing approval, and for which we decide to independently commercialize, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization.

In the future, we may build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to market or co-promote some of our product candidates in the United States and in Europe, if and when they are approved. There are risks involved with our establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:

If we do not establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and instead enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our product revenues and our profitability, if any, could be lower than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to the Company. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance our product candidates through clinical trials and commercialization, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities for the Company. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners, suppliers and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and clinical trials effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and, if necessary, sales and marketing personnel. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our business.

We may not be successful in establishing and maintaining strategic partnerships, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize products.

A key part of our strategy is to seek strategic partnerships in the future, including potentially with major biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies for late-stage development and commercialization of our product candidates. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate partners for our product candidates, and the negotiation process is time consuming and complex. In order for the Company to successfully partner our product candidates, potential partners must view these product candidates as economically valuable in markets they determine to be attractive in light of the terms that we are seeking and other products available for licensing from other companies. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish strategic partnerships, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to the Company, and we may not be able to maintain such strategic partnerships if, for example, development or approval of a product is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. Any delay in entering into strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market.

In addition, any future partnerships we may enter into pose a number of risks, including that our partners may breach their agreements with the Company, and we may not be able to adequately protect our rights under these agreements. Furthermore, prospective partners will likely negotiate for certain rights to control decisions regarding the development and commercialization of our product candidates, if approved, and may not conduct those activities in the same manner as we would.

If we fail to establish and maintain strategic partnerships related to our product candidates, we will bear all of the risk and costs related to the development of any such product candidate, and we may need to seek additional financing, hire additional employees and otherwise develop expertise which we do not have and for which we have not budgeted. This could negatively affect the development of any unpartnered product candidate.

We may acquire other businesses, form joint ventures or make investments in other companies or technologies that could negatively affect our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, increase our debt or cause us to incur significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may pursue acquisitions of assets or licenses of assets, including preclinical, clinical or commercial stage products or product candidates, businesses, strategic alliances, joint ventures and collaborations, to expand our existing technologies and operations.

In the future, we may not be able to find suitable partners or acquisition candidates, and we may not be able to complete such transactions on favorable terms, if at all. If we make any acquisitions, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into our existing business, and we could assume unknown or contingent liabilities. Any future acquisitions also could result in the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or future write-offs of intangible assets or goodwill, any of which could have a negative impact on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Integration of an acquired company also may disrupt ongoing operations and require management resources that we would otherwise focus on developing our existing business. We may experience losses related to investments in other companies, which could harm our financial condition and results of operations. We may not identify or complete these transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, or at all, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, license, strategic alliance or joint venture.

To finance such a transaction, we may choose to issue shares of our common stock as consideration, which would dilute the ownership of our stockholders. If the price of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other companies or fund a joint venture project using our stock as consideration. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for these activities through public or private financings or through the issuance of debt. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to the Company, or at all, and any debt financing may involve covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against the Company, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We believe our anthrax countermeasures are covered under the general immunity provisions of the U.S. Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or Public Readiness Act, but this cannot be assured. Also, there can be no assurance that the Secretary of the HHS will make other declarations in the future that cover any of our other product candidates or that the U.S. Congress will not act in the future to reduce coverage under the Public Readiness Act or to repeal it altogether. Additionally, we are considering applying for liability protection under the U.S. Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act of 2002 (the “SAFETY Act”) which may limit the claims and damages potentially faced by companies who provide certain “qualified” anti-terrorism products. However, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain or maintain coverage under the SAFETY Act.

Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Failure to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. We currently carry liability insurance covering residual liability related to previously completed clinical trials in the amount of $5.0 million in the U.S., product liability insurance covering our clinical trials in the United Kingdom in the amount of £5.0 million in the aggregate, and clinical trial liability insurance covering our clinical trials in South Korea in the amount of $1.0 million. Although we maintain product liability insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

A breakdown in our information technology systems could result in a significant disruption to our business.

Our operations and those of our business partners, such as CROs and others that manage sensitive data, are highly dependent on information technology systems, including Internet-based systems, which may be vulnerable to breakdown, wrongful intrusions, data breaches and malicious attack. Information security risks have generally increased in recent years. Our systems, and those of our third-party providers, are potentially vulnerable to data security breaches or cyberattack, whether by employees or others, which may expose sensitive data to unauthorized persons. A data security breach could lead to the loss of trade secrets or other intellectual property, the value of which may be contingent upon maintaining our confidentiality, or could lead to the public exposure of personal information (including sensitive personal medical information) of clinical trial participants, our employees and others, or adversely impact the conduct of scientific research and clinical trials, including the submission of research results to support marketing authorizations. This could require us to expend significant efforts and resources or incur significant expense to eliminate these problems and address related security concerns. In addition, procedures and safeguards must continually evolve to meet new data security challenges, and enhancing protections, and conducting investigations and remediation, may impose additional costs on the Company. If we were to suffer a breakdown in our systems, storage, distribution or tracing, we could experience significant disruptions affecting our business, reputational harm or claims against us by private parties and/or governmental agencies.

In addition, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have adopted a new pan-European General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), effective May 25, 2018, which increases privacy rights for individuals in Europe, extends the scope of responsibilities for data controllers and data processors and imposes increased requirements and potential penalties on companies, offering goods or services to individuals who are located in Europe or monitoring the behavior of such individuals (including by companies based outside of Europe). Noncompliance can result in penalties of up to the greater of EUR 20 million, or 4% of global company revenues. While we expect to have substantially compliant programs and controls in place to comply with the GDPR requirements, our compliance with the new regulation is likely to impose additional costs on us and we cannot predict whether the interpretations of the requirements, or changes in our practices in response to new requirements or interpretations of the requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Without the BARDA anthrax contract award, we would only be able to move forward with the NasoShield program at our own risk and without BARDA reimbursement and may therefore suspend or terminate it.

In recent financial periods, a significant portion of our revenues have been derived from our BARDA contract. For the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, BARDA funding for the development of NasoShield accounted for approximately 80% and 83% of our total consolidated revenue and grants and contracts, respectively. There are significant uncertainties and risks associated with our BARDA contract for our NasoShield anthrax vaccine program. Although in July 2016 we received a new BARDA contract that may fund our NasoShield anthrax vaccine program until 2021, the majority of the funds will be received during the final three years of the contract and are dependent on achieving the following positive clinical results during the initial two-year period to demonstrate interim safety and immune response to the vaccine in the Phase 1 clinical study. The results of the Phase 1 study obtained during 2018 met the endpoints for safety, however an appreciable immune response was not observed. BARDA will decide in its sole discretion whether to pursue any of the options under the contract and there can be no assurance that BARDA will elect to pursue any of the designated options. If BARDA does not pursue any of the options, BARDA could terminate the program, and we would not receive any further funds thereunder.

Our BARDA contracts are cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts that only reimburse certain specified activities.

Our BARDA contracts are cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts that only reimburse certain specified activities related to our anthrax vaccine program that have been previously authorized by BARDA. There is no guarantee that additional activities will not be needed and, if so, that BARDA will reimburse the Company for these activities. There are also significant requirements associated with operating as a federal government contractor, which include having appropriate accounting, and project tracking systems implemented and operational, and we may not be able to consistently meet these requirements. Performance under the BARDA contracts requires that we comply with appropriate regulations and operational mandates, which require us to engage internal and external expertise for compliance. Our ability to be regularly and fully reimbursed for our activities depends and will depend on our ability to comply and demonstrate compliance with such requirements. In the past, we have experienced delays in reimbursements under a BARDA contract on account of compliance issues, which we have had to dedicate substantial time and resources to remedy, including through modifications to our statement of work related to the program. In addition, under certain circumstances, BARDA may advise us to delay certain activities and invest additional time and resources before proceeding. If we follow such BARDA advice, overall program delays and costs associated with additional resources for which we have not planned may result. The costs associated with following such advice may or may not be reimbursed by BARDA under the contract. We may decide not to follow the advice provided by BARDA and instead pursue activities that we believe are in the best interest of our anthrax vaccine program and our business as a whole, even if BARDA would not reimburse us under our contract.

Prior to the Mergers with PharmAthene, the NIAID notified PharmAthene that it will exercise only one of the additional remaining options under its contract.

As part of the Mergers, we assumed PharmAthene’s contract with NIAID. The NIAID contract is incrementally funded. Over the base period of the contract, PharmAthene was awarded initial funding of approximately $5.2 million, which includes a cost reimbursement component and a fixed fee component payable upon achievement of certain milestones. NIAID exercised options under this agreement to provide additional funding of approximately $10.1 million and an extension of the period of performance through September 2019. The contract has a maximum total value of up to approximately $28.1 million if all technical milestones were met and all eight contract options were exercised by NIAID. PharmAthene was notified by NIAID that it will exercise only one of the additional remaining options under the contract to provide funding for a rabbit challenge study. Work under all exercised options will bring total committed and final funding under the NIAID contract to $15.3 million. The recoverability of the acquired IPR&D intangible asset is dependent on future funding to support further development. As more fully discussed in Item 7. below, during our impairment analysis in 2018, we calculated the fair value of SparVax-L using an excess earnings method or discounted cash flow model and compared the fair value to the carrying amount of the indefinite lived asset. Based on our analysis, we concluded that the fair value of our SparVax-L IPR&D intangible asset was approximately $1 million, as compared to the current carrying value of the asset of $22.4 million, which resulted in an impairment charge of approximately $21.4 million. The change in fair value was primarily the result of a change in the probability of success applied to the discounted cash flow model, which also considers Management’s assessment of obtaining future funding from a governmental agency.

Most of our immediately foreseeable future revenues are contingent upon grants, contracts and loans from the U.S. and other governments, non-profit entities and academic institutions, and we may not achieve sufficient revenues from these sources either to maintain operations or eventually attain profitability.

Substantially all of our revenues to date have been derived from U.S. and European government grants, contracts and loans (such as our current BARDA contract), and from time to time, we may apply for additional contracts, grants or loans from government agencies, non-profit entities and academic institutions. Such contracts, grants or loans can be highly attractive, because they provide additional capital to fund the ongoing development of our technologies and product candidates without diluting our stockholders. However, there is often significant competition for these contracts, grants and loans, and the process of obtaining government and other contracts, grants and loans is lengthy and uncertain. Entities offering contracts, grants or loans may have requirements to apply for or to otherwise be eligible to receive certain contracts, grants or loans that our competitors may be able to satisfy that we cannot. In addition, such entities may make arbitrary decisions as to whether to offer contracts or make grants or loans, to whom the contracts, grants or loans will be awarded and the size of the contracts, grants or loans to each awardee. Even if we are able to satisfy the award requirements, there is no guarantee that we will be a successful awardee. Therefore, we may not be able to win any contracts, grants or loans in a timely manner, if at all, and there can be no assurance that existing government or other contracts, grants or loans will be renewed or that we can enter into new contracts or receive new grants or loans.

With respect to the BARDA funding we receive for our anthrax vaccine product candidate, if the U.S. government makes significant contract awards to our competitors, rather than to us, our business will be harmed and it is unlikely that we would ultimately be able to supply that particular treatment or product either in the United States or to foreign governments or other third parties. Further, changes in government budgets and agendas, funding strategies, cost overruns in our programs, or advances by our competitors, may result in changes in the timing of funding for, a decreased and de-prioritized emphasis on, or termination of, government contracts that support the development and/or procurement of the biodefense product we are developing. For example, the outbreak of Ebola in 2014 changed the near-term focus and priorities of BARDA to help ensure sufficient progress was being made on a solution for that disease. This resulted in a delay of funding to some non-Ebola programs until Congress appropriated additional funds to BARDA specific for this purpose.

U.S. government funding is also subject to Congressional appropriations generally made on an annual basis even for multi-year contracts. More generally, due to the ongoing economic and political uncertainty, the U.S. government may reduce or delay spending in the biodefense field or eliminate funding of certain programs altogether, which could decrease the likelihood of future government contract awards or that the government would procure products from the Company. Future funding levels for BARDA for the advanced development and procurement of medical countermeasures are uncertain and may be subject to budget cuts and/or government shutdowns as the U.S. Congress and the President look to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. Potential reductions in funding could severely limit our ability to maintain, renew or enter into new contracts and therefore materially and adversely impact our business. A government shutdown could result in a suspension or delayed funding, which may materially and adversely affect our ability to continue our anthrax program.

Further, the 21^st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”), was signed into law on December 13, 2016 and, among other things, includes a provision requiring timely and accurate recommended utilization guidelines for MCMs, including for products in the Strategic National Stockpile. The Cures Act requires HHS to report to the appropriate committees of Congress when funding in the Special Reserve Fund (“SRF”), available for the procurement of MCMs falls below $1.5 billion and how the amount of funding will impact identified MCM priorities. The Cures Act ensures coordinated and efficient processes for executing MCM development and procurement programs by clarifying that the Director of BARDA carry out the programs funded by the SRF, as well as the procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements under BARDA.

U.S. government agencies have special contracting requirements that give them the ability to unilaterally control contracts such as our BARDA contract.

U.S. government contracts, such as our BARDA contract, typically contain unilateral termination provisions for the government and are subject to audit and modification by the government at its sole discretion, which will subject the Company to additional risks during the term of such contracts. These risks include the ability of the U.S. government unilaterally to:

The U.S. government will be able to terminate any of its contracts with the Company, including our BARDA contract, either for its convenience or if we default by failing to perform in accordance with the contract schedule and terms. Termination-for-convenience provisions generally enable us to recover only our costs incurred or committed, settlement expenses, and profit on the work completed prior to termination. Termination-for-default provisions do not permit these recoveries and would make us liable for excess costs incurred by the U.S. government in procuring undelivered items from another source.

The U.S. government’s determination to award any contracts may be challenged by an interested party, such as another bidder, at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) or in federal court. If such a challenge is successful, a contract award may be re-evaluated and terminated.

The laws and regulations governing the procurement of goods and services by the U.S. government provide procedures by which other bidders and other interested parties may challenge the award of a government contract. Such challenges or protests could be filed with respect to any U.S. government contract awarded to the Company, including our BARDA contract, even if there are not any valid legal grounds on which to base the protest. If any such protests are filed, the government agency may decide, and in certain circumstances will be statutorily required, to suspend our performance under the contract while such protests are being considered by the GAO or the applicable federal court, thus potentially delaying delivery of goods and services and payment. In addition, we could be forced to expend considerable funds to defend any potential award. If a protest is successful, the government may be ordered to terminate our contract and re-evaluate bids. The government could even be directed to award a potential contract to one of the other bidders.

Our business is subject to audit by the U.S. government, and may be subject to audit by foreign governments. A negative audit could adversely affect our business.

Our business is subject to audit by the U.S. government in part because of the funding we receive for our anthrax vaccine program under our BARDA contract. U.S. government agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency (the “DCAA”) routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. For example, BARDA audited indirect costs charged with respect to the SparVax^® contract for the years 2008 through 2014.

The DCAA also reviews the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, compensation and management information systems. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed, while such costs already reimbursed must be refunded. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, it may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or prohibition from conducting business with the U.S. government. In addition, a contractor could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against it.

In the future, we may also be subject to audits by foreign governments, as we from time to time receive funding from non-U.S. government sources.

Laws and regulations affecting government contracts make it more costly and difficult for us to successfully conduct our business.

Our business plan includes the continued development of our anthrax vaccine candidate, NasoShield, pursuant to our BARDA contract in addition to applying for additional contracts, grants or loans from government agencies, non-profit entities and academic institutions. We must comply with numerous laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of government contracts, which can make it more difficult for us to retain our rights under these contracts. These laws and regulations affect how we conduct business with government agencies. Among the most significant government contracting regulations that affect our business are:

Foreign governments typically also have laws and regulations governing contracts with their respective agencies. These foreign laws and regulations affect how we and our customers conduct business and, in some instances, impose added costs on our business. Any changes in applicable laws and regulations could restrict our ability to maintain our existing contracts and obtain new contracts, which could limit our ability to conduct our business and materially and adversely affect our revenues and results of operations.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, if they are approved, which could make it difficult for us to sell our products profitably.

Market acceptance and sales of any approved products will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers and may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures. Third-party payers, such as government health care programs, and private health insurers and health plans, decide which drugs they will provide coverage for and establish reimbursement levels. Coverage and reimbursement decisions by a third-party payer may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payer’s determination that use of a product is:

Third-party payers, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling health care costs. Coverage and reimbursement can vary significantly from payer to payer. As a result, obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for any approved product from each government and other third-party payer may require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of such products to each payer separately, with no assurance that we will be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for any of our product candidates, and we cannot be sure that coverage determinations or reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our products. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to commercialize certain of our products, even if they are approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. In addition, in the United States third-party payers are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs. As a result, significant uncertainty exists as to whether and how much third-party payers will reimburse patients for their use of newly approved drugs, which in turn will put pressure on the pricing of drugs.

Price controls may be imposed, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

In international markets, reimbursement and health care payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In some countries, particularly member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on coverage, prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after coverage and reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce revenues. In some countries, additional clinical research may be required to enable comparison of the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates, if they are approved, to other available vaccines in order to obtain or maintain coverage, reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payers or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. In the United States, concerns about drug pricing have been expressed by members of Congress and President Trump. There can be no assurance that our product candidates, if approved, will be considered cost-effective by third-party payers, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that the third-party payers’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our products profitably. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be adversely affected.

We are subject to multiple and substantial federal and state health care and other laws, and the complexity of our regulatory compliance obligations is likely to increase in the event our product candidates are commercialized.

Our business operations and activities may be directly or indirectly subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal FCA. If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research subjects, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs.

In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by the federal government and state governments in which we conduct our business. In addition to the Anti-Kickback Statute, FCA and Physician Payments Sunshine Act, the laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

In addition, the regulatory approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also subject us to foreign equivalents of the health care laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws, as well as compliance with the codes of practice of certain associations within such countries (for example, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) in the United Kingdom).

Efforts to help ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable health care laws and codes of practice may involve substantial costs. We have adopted policies and practices that are designed to help ensure that the Company, our employees, officers, agents, intermediaries and other third parties comply with applicable laws, but it is not always possible to assure compliance with applicable requirements, and the precautions we take to achieve compliance may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other health care laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to the Company, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

The impact of recent health care reform legislation and other changes in the health care industry and in health care spending on the Company is currently unknown and may adversely affect our business model.

For example, in the United States there is significant interest in promoting health care reform, as evidenced by the enactment in the United States of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care Reform Law. The Health Care Reform Law increased federal oversight of private health insurance plans and included a number of provisions designed to reduce Medicare expenditures and the cost of health care generally, to reduce fraud and abuse, and to provide access to increased health coverage.

President Trump is seeking to repeal and replace the Health Care Reform Law. Repeal and replace legislation was passed in the House of Representatives, but did not obtain the necessary votes in the Senate. Subsequently, President Trump affirmed his intention to repeal and replace the Health Care Reform Law and has taken a number of administrative actions to materially weaken the Health Care Reform Law. For example, on January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Health Care Reform Law to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Health Care Reform Law that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Further, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the TCJA into law, which repealed the individual mandate of the Health Care Reform Law. The uncertain status of the Health Care Reform Law affects our ability to plan, and its repeal without replacement could have a material adverse effect on our United States operations.

Another provision of the Health Care Reform Law, generally referred to as the Physician Payment Sunshine Act or Open Payments Program, has imposed new reporting and disclosure requirements for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and distributions with certain FDA approved products, such as approved vaccines, with regard to payments or other transfers of value made to certain U.S. health care practitioners, such as physicians and academic medical centers, and with regard to certain ownership interests held by physicians in reporting entities. The CMS publishes information from these reports on a publicly available website, including amounts transferred and the physician and teaching hospital identities.

Certain business practices associated with the commercialization of pharmaceutical products are subject to scrutiny by regulatory authorities, as well as to lawsuits brought by private citizens under federal and state laws. Failure to comply with applicable law or an adverse decision in lawsuits may result in adverse consequences to the Company.

The laws that would govern our conduct in the United States upon the commercialization of our product candidates are enforceable by criminal, civil and administrative penalties. Violations of laws such as the FD&C Act, the FCA, the PHS Act, or provisions of the U.S. Social Security Act known as the “Anti-Kickback Law” and the “Civil Monetary Penalties Law,” or any regulations promulgated under their authority, may result in jail sentences, fines or exclusion from federal and state programs, as may be determined by Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Defense, other regulatory authorities and the courts. There can be no assurance that our activities will not come under the scrutiny of regulators and other government authorities or that our practices will not be found to violate applicable laws, rules and regulations or prompt lawsuits by private citizen “relators” under federal or state false claims laws.

Some of these laws, referred to as “false claims laws,” prohibit the submission or causing the submission of false or fraudulent claims for reimbursement to federal, state and other health care payers and programs. Other laws, referred to as “anti-kickback laws,” prohibit soliciting, offering, receiving or paying remuneration in order to induce the referral of a patient or ordering, purchasing, leasing or arranging for, or recommending ordering, purchasing or leasing of, items or services that are paid for by federal, state and other health care payers and programs. For example, the federal Anti-Kickback Law prohibits companies such as the Company from directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration with the intent of generating referrals or orders for services or items covered by a government health care program. Many states have enacted similar laws. Courts have interpreted this law very broadly, including by holding that a violation has occurred if even one purpose of the remuneration is to generate referrals, even if there are other lawful purposes. There are statutory and regulatory exceptions, or safe harbors, that outline arrangements that are deemed lawful. However, the fact that an arrangement does not fall within a safe harbor does not necessarily render the conduct illegal under the Anti-Kickback Law. In sum, even common business arrangements, such as discounted terms and volume incentives for customers in a position to recommend or choose drugs for patients, such as physicians and hospitals, can result in substantial legal penalties, including, among others, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and arrangements with referral sources must be structured with care to comply with applicable requirements. Also, certain business practices, such as payment of consulting fees to health care providers, sponsorship of educational or research grants, charitable donations, interactions with health care providers that prescribe products for uses not approved by the FDA and financial support for continuing medical education programs, must be conducted within narrowly prescribed and controlled limits to avoid the possibility of wrongfully influencing health care providers to prescribe or purchase particular products or as a reward for past prescribing. Violations of the Anti-Kickback Law may be punished by civil and criminal penalties or exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

The FCA is violated by any entity that “presents or causes to be presented” knowingly false claims for payment to the federal government. In addition, the Health Care Reform Law amended the FCA to create a cause of action against any person who knowingly makes a false statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly conceals or improperly decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the government. For the purposes of these recent amendments, an “obligation” includes an identified overpayment, which is defined broadly to include “any funds that a person receives or retains under Medicare and Medicaid to which the person, after applicable reconciliation, is not entitled…”

The FCA is commonly used to sue those who submit allegedly false Medicare or Medicaid claims, as well as those who induce or assist others to submit a false claim. “False claims” can result not only from non-compliance with the express requirements of applicable governmental reimbursement programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid, but also from non-compliance with other laws, such as the Anti-Kickback Law, FDA laws on off-label promotion, or laws that require quality care in service delivery. The fraud and abuse regulations have been subject to varying interpretations, as well as heightened enforcement activity over the past few years. Significant enforcement activity has been the result of actions brought by relators, who file complaints in the name of the United States (and if applicable, particular states) under federal and state FCA statutes. The qui tam and whistleblower provisions of the FCA allow private individuals to bring actions on behalf of the government alleging that the government was defrauded, with tremendous potential financial gain (up to 30% of the government’s recovery plus legal fees) to private citizens who prevail. Violations of the FCA can result in treble damages and each false claim submitted can be subject to a civil penalty, which for penalties assessed after January 29, 2018 whose violations occurred after November 2, 2015, ranges from a minimum of $11,181 to a maximum of $22,363 per claim. Most states have adopted similar state false claims laws, and these state laws have their own penalties which may be in addition to federal FCA penalties.

The bringing of any FCA action, even if unsuccessful, could require us to devote resources to investigate and defend the action, as well as result in reputational harm. Failure to comply with the fraud and abuse laws could result in significant civil and criminal penalties and costs, including the loss of licenses and the ability to participate in federal and state health care programs, and could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, many of these laws are vague or indefinite and have not been interpreted by the courts, and have been subject to frequent modification and varied interpretation by prosecutorial and regulatory authorities, increasing the risk of noncompliance. We cannot predict whether changes in applicable law, or interpretation of laws, or changes in our services or marketing practices in response to changes in applicable law or interpretation of laws could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, in addition to prohibiting the promotion of the safety or effectiveness of product candidates not yet approved for commercialization, an act known as pre-approval promotion, also generally restrict companies from promoting approved products for indications other than those indications for which a product is approved, which is also referred to as off-label use. This means, for example, that we may not make claims about the use of our products, should they be approved for sale, outside of their approved indications, and we may not proactively discuss or provide information regarding any of their off-label uses subject to very specific and limited exceptions. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies have, to a limited extent, been recognized by the FDA as permitted to disseminate to physicians certain truthful and accurate information regarding unapproved uses of approved products, or results of studies involving investigational products.

If we or our business partners fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing off-label uses of our product candidates, if approved, then we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including, but not limited to: (i) enforcement proceedings by regulatory agencies; (ii) reduced demand for our products; and (iii) civil or criminal sanctions. Furthermore, actions under the FCA have recently been brought against companies for allegedly promoting off-label uses of drugs, because such promotion induces the use and subsequent claims for reimbursement under Medicare and other federal programs. Similar actions for off-label promotion have been initiated by several states for Medicaid fraud. The Health Care Reform Law significantly strengthened provisions of the FCA, Medicare and Medicaid Anti-Kickback provisions, and other health care fraud provisions, leading to the possibility of greatly increased qui tam suits by relators for perceived violations. Violations or allegations of violations of the foregoing restrictions could materially and adversely affect our business.

If our product candidates are commercialized, then we would also be required to report detailed and complex pricing information, net of included discounts, rebates and other concessions, to CMS for the purpose of calculating national reimbursement levels, certain federal prices and certain federal and state rebate obligations, and we would need to develop the expertise, as well as the systems for collecting and reporting this data accurately to CMS and have instituted a compliance program to assure that the information collected is complete in all respects. Companies that fail to accurately report this kind of pricing information to the U.S. government could be subject to fines and other sanctions (including potential FCA liability) that could adversely affect their business.

We must comply with data privacy and security laws and regulations, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant liabilities.

We must operate in compliance with various data privacy and security regulations in the United States by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business, as well as in other jurisdictions outside of the United States, such as the United Kingdom, where we conduct clinical trials. For example, the federal law, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH and its implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information, such as information that identifies individuals who participate in our clinical trials as research subjects. HIPAA requires, among other things, the implementation of various recordkeeping, operational, notice and other practices intended to safeguard protected health information, limit its use to allowed purposes, and notify individuals in the event of privacy and security breaches. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations can result in substantial penalties and other liabilities. In addition, state laws govern 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 requirements, thus complicating compliance efforts.

In the United Kingdom, the collection and use of “personal data” is primarily governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”), which implemented the EU Directive (95/46/EEC) on data protection. Breach of the United Kingdom data protection laws can result in criminal as well as civil liability. The DPA applies to the “processing” of personal data, or individually identifiable data relating to living individuals. All obligations under the DPA fall on the “data controller” who determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data is, or is to be, processed. A person may be a data controller even if the information is held by a third party. If we are the data controllers for any personal data, including, for example, with respect to clinical trials carried out in the United Kingdom, we will need to comply with the DPA to ensure compliance by any third party who holds any relevant personal data.

We are subject to extensive government regulatory compliance and ethics oversight, and we will need to develop more extensive compliance and ethics policies in the future.

Our business is subject to extensive government regulation and ethics oversight, which will become more complex and extensive if we succeed in commercializing products. We have enacted various compliance policies and procedures that govern our business practices as appropriate for a company in our stage of development. These policies and procedures are implemented through education, training and monitoring of our employees, distributors and suppliers. However, our adoption and enforcement of these various policies and procedures does not ensure that we will avoid investigation or the imposition of penalties by applicable government agencies.

In addition, to enhance compliance with applicable health care laws and mitigate potential liability in the event of non-compliance, regulatory authorities, such as OIG, of the HHS have recommended the adoption and implementation of a comprehensive health care compliance program that generally contains the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program described in Section 8B2.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual. Increasing numbers of U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies have such programs. Although we believe our existing compliance policies and procedures are adequate for our current operations, these policies and procedures would not be considered a comprehensive health care compliance program consistent with the HHS OIG’s recommendations. Depending upon the nature of our future operations, we anticipate developing a more extensive compliance program in the future.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of fraudulent or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to comply with the laws of the FDA and similar foreign regulatory bodies; fails to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, or with federal, state and foreign health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations; fails to report financial information or data accurately, including to our regulators, such as the FDA and similar foreign regulatory bodies; or fails to disclose unauthorized activities to the Company. In particular, the promotion, sale and marketing of health care items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent misconduct, including fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and, structuring and commissions, certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics Policy and other policies and practices that are designed to help ensure that the Company, our employees, officers, agents, intermediaries and other third parties comply with applicable laws, but it is not always possible to identify and deter such misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against the Company, and in some cases regardless of the merits of those actions, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the costs of investigation, settlement arrangements, imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties (such as Corporate Integrity Agreements and other arrangements, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, and possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs), contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

In the United States, legislation limiting or restricting liability for medical products used to fight bioterrorism is new, and it cannot be certain that any such protection will apply to our product candidates or if applied what the scope of any such coverage will be.

The Public Readiness Act creates general immunity for manufacturers of drug products used to address bioterrorism attacks, when the Secretary of HHS issues a declaration for their manufacture, administration or use. The declaration is meant to provide general immunity from all claims under state or federal law for loss arising out of the administration or use of a covered drug product, generally referred to as a “countermeasure.” Manufacturers are excluded from this protection in cases of willful misconduct. Although we believe that our anthrax vaccine product candidate is covered under the general immunity provisions of the Public Readiness Act, there can be no assurance that this coverage will continue, or that the Secretary of HHS will make other declarations in the future that would cover any of our other product candidates, or that the U.S. Congress will not act in the future to reduce coverage under the Public Readiness Act or to repeal it altogether.

In addition, under the Public Readiness Act, upon a declaration by the Secretary of HHS, a compensation fund would be created to provide “timely, uniform, and adequate compensation to eligible individuals for covered injuries directly caused by the administration or use of a covered countermeasure.” The “covered injuries” to which the program applies are defined as serious physical injuries or death. Individuals are permitted to bring a willful misconduct action against a manufacturer after they have exhausted their remedies under the compensation program. However, there is no assurance that the Secretary of HHS would issue under this act a declaration to establish a compensation fund.

Additionally, we are considering applying for liability protection under the Support Anti-terrorism by the SAFETY Act, which provides certain protections that would limit the damages potentially faced by companies who provide certain “qualified” anti-terrorism products. However, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain or maintain coverage under the SAFETY Act. If the U.S. Department of Homeland Security limits the scope of any coverage awarded to the Company, denies it coverage or continued coverage for a particular product or product candidate, or delays in making decisions about whether to grant it coverage, we may become exposed to legal claims.

We are required to comply with certain export control laws which may limit our ability to sell our products to non-U.S. persons and may subject us to regulatory requirements that may delay or limit our ability to develop and commercialize our products.

Our product candidates are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce and are, in certain instances subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), administered by the U.S. Department of State. EAR restricts the export of dual-use products and technical data to certain countries, while ITAR restricts the export of defense products, technical data and defense services. In addition, EAR and ITAR may also regulate the disclosure to certain foreign nationals in the United States, such as research staff, of technical data about controlled commodities. The U.S. government agencies responsible for administering EAR and ITAR have significant discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of these regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in criminal and civil penalties and may harm our ability to enter into contracts with the U.S. government. It is also possible that these regulations could adversely affect our ability to sell our products to non-U.S. customers.

Our product candidates may also be subject to export control laws within the United Kingdom and European Union resulting in the need for authorization from customs authorities before they can leave the United Kingdom or European Union customs territories and restrictions on export from these territories to certain countries. Again, such laws could adversely affect our ability to sell to customers in certain countries and non-compliance can result in civil and criminal penalties. Such restrictions exist across the European Union and within its member states individually and may vary between member states.

We must comply with environmental laws and regulations, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant liabilities.

We use hazardous chemicals and biological materials in certain aspects of our business and are subject to a variety of federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment and disposal of these materials. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from the use, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials. In the event of contamination or injury, or failure to comply with environmental, occupational health and safety and export control laws and regulations, we could be held liable for any resulting damages and any such liability could exceed our assets and resources. In addition, we may be required to pay damages or civil judgments related to third-party claims, for which we are uninsured, including those relating to personal injury (including exposure to hazardous chemicals and biological materials), product quality issues, property damage or contribution to remedial obligations.

If we use biological and hazardous materials in a manner that causes contamination or injury or violates laws, we may be liable for damages.

Our research and development activities and clinical trials involve the use of potentially harmful biological materials, including anthrax, as well as hazardous materials and chemicals. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from the distribution, use, storage, handling or disposal of these materials. In the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages that result, and any liability could exceed our available financial resources. The Company, our collaborative partners, the third parties that conduct clinical trials on our behalf, and our third-party manufacturers are subject to federal, state, local or foreign laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and waste products. The cost of compliance with these laws and regulations could be significant. The failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could result in significant fines and work stoppages.

The trading price of our common stock has been volatile with substantial price fluctuations on heavy volume, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our common stock and existing stockholders.

Our stock price has been and, in the future, may be subject to substantial volatility. On September 13, 2018 we amended our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio 1-for-30 (the “Reverse Stock Split”). The Reverse Stock Split was effective on September 13, 2018, and our shares of common stock commenced trading on NASDAQ on a post-Reverse Stock Split basis on September 14, 2018. The volatility of our stock price has increased since we effected the Reverse Stock Split. Since our common stock began trading on a post-Reverse Stock Split basis on September 14, 2018 and through March 22, 2019, our stock has traded in a range with a low of $1.70 and a high of $36.25.

Furthermore, the stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price paid for the shares. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

In the past, stockholders have initiated class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies following periods of volatility in the market prices of these companies’ stock. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock could result in substantial dilution to the percentage ownership of our stockholders.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To raise capital, we may sell common stock or other securities convertible into or exchanged for our common stock in one or more transactions, and in a manner we determine from time to time and at prices that may not be the same as the price per share paid by other investors, and dilution to our stockholders could result. The price per share at which we sell additional shares of our common stock, or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, in future transactions may be higher or lower than the price per share paid by other investors. New investors could also receive rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of existing holders of our common stock. In addition, in the event of stock dividends, stock splits, reorganizations or similar events affecting our common stock, we may be required to proportionally adjust the conversion price, exercise price or number of shares issuable upon exercise of our outstanding warrants.

If we do not meet the continued listing standards of The NASDAQ Global Market our common stock could be delisted from trading, which could limit investors’ ability to make transactions in our common stock and subject us to additional trading restrictions.

Our common stock is listed on Nasdaq Global Market, a national securities exchange, which imposes continued listing requirements with respect to listed shares. If we fail to satisfy the continued listing standards, including with respect to the maintenance of a minimum share price, or if NASDAQ in its discretion, determines that a condition exists that makes further dealings of our Company on the exchange unwarranted, NASDAQ may issue a non-compliance letter or initiate delisting proceedings.

If our securities are delisted from trading on the NASDAQ exchange, our securities could be quoted on the OTCQB or on the Pink Open Market. As a result, we could face significant adverse consequences including:

Shares that we may issue in the future in connection with certain capital-raising transactions and shares available for future issuance upon exercise of warrants and options could dilute our stockholders and depress the market price of our common stock.

The issuance or even the expected issuance of a large number of shares of our common stock upon purchase, conversion or exercise of the securities described above could depress the market price of our stock and the issuance of such shares will dilute the stock ownership of our existing stockholders. Shares that we may issue in the future in connection with certain capital-raising transactions and shares available for future issuance upon exercise of warrants and options could dilute our stockholders and depress the market price of our common stock and result in the adjustment of the conversion terms of our existing securities.

Other than for the PharmAthene board of directors’ declaration of a special one-time cash dividend of $873.00 per share of PharmAthene common stock paid on February 3, 2017, neither Private Altimmune nor PharmAthene has ever paid any dividends on our common stock. While subject to periodic review, our current policy is to retain all earnings, if any, primarily to finance our future growth or ability to consummate strategic transactions, such as a merger or other business combination. We make no assurances that we will ever pay future dividends, cash or otherwise. Whether we pay any dividends in the future will depend on our financial condition, results of operations, and other factors that we will consider.

Our principal executive offices are located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, where we occupy approximately 14,141 square feet of laboratory and office space. For additional information, see Commitment and Contingencies, Note 15 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Management believes that these facilities are suitable and adequate to meet our anticipated needs.

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Our common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “ALT”. Prior to the completion of the Mergers, PharmAthene’s common stock traded on the NYSE American (formerly the NYSE MKT) under the symbol “PIP.”

As of March 27, 2019, we had 146 record holders of our common stock. The number of record holders is based on the actual number of holders registered on the books of our transfer agent and does not reflect holders of shares in “street name” or persons, partnerships, associations, corporations or other entities identified in security position listings maintained by depository trust companies.

Other than the special dividend of $873.00 per share (amount reflects PharmAthene’s 1-for-10 reverse stock split effected immediately prior to the Mergers and our 1-for-30 reverse stock split effected in September 2018) paid by PharmAthene on February 3, 2017, we have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock. We intend to retain future earnings, if any, to finance the operation and expansion of our business and do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination related to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors after considering our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors the board of directors deems relevant, and subject to the restrictions contained in any future financing instruments.

Information about our equity compensation plans is contained in Part II, Item 12 of this Annual Report under the heading Equity Compensation Plans and is incorporated herein by reference.

We are a smaller reporting company and not required to provide this information.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. See “Forward-looking statements” in Part I of this Annual Report and the section entitled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report for a discussion of certain factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make.

HepTcell is an immunotherapeutic product candidate for patients chronically infected with the hepatitis B virus (“HBV”). It is designed to drive CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses against all HBV genotypes in patients of all ethnic backgrounds. Stimulating T-cell responses in chronically infected HBV patients has been challenging because chronic infection with HBV strongly diminishes T-cell immunity directed against the virus. HepTcell focuses the immune system on discrete highly conserved regions of the HBV proteome. We believe our approach allows HepTcell to break immune tolerance by activating T-cells against critical viral sequences with decreased probability of immune escape due to viral mutation. HepTcell is based on our synthetic peptide technology platform and is given by intramuscular injection. In 2018 we completed a Phase 1 trial in the United Kingdom and South Korea in patients with chronic HBV. The HepTcell Phase 1 trial was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, dose-escalation study that enrolled 61 subjects with chronic HBV who were HBeAg-negative and well-controlled on licensed antivirals. A total of 41 patients received one of two dose levels of HepTcell, with and without IC31^TM, a depot forming TLR9 adjuvant developed by Valneva SE, while 20 control patients received either placebo or IC31 alone. Patients received three injections each 28 days apart and were followed for six months after the final dose. All dose combinations showed excellent tolerability and met the primary endpoint of safety. In the two adjuvanted HepTcell arms, T-cell responses against HBV markedly increased over baseline compared to placebo. Altimmune plans to advance HepTcell into Phase 2 development.

ALT-702 is a tumor immunostimulant product candidate that has the potential to safely elicit or improve immune responses to a variety of cancers. It is a conjugated TLR 7/8 agonist designed to reverse the immune-suppressive effects in the tumor microenvironment and promote antitumoral responses without the systemic side effects associated with other TLR 7 and TLR 7/8 agonists. This localized immune stimulation is anticipated to turn “cold” tumors to “hot” and to synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We are currently developing a full preclinical dataset in murine tumor models with the intention of advancing this program into the clinic.

Our business is the result of a merger between PharmAthene, Inc. (“PharmAthene”) and the business previously known as Altimmune, Inc. (“Private Altimmune”). In May 2017, Private Altimmune merged with PharmAthene pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”), dated January 18, 2017, among Private Altimmune, PharmAthene, its wholly owned acquisition subsidiaries Mustang Merger Sub Corp I Inc. (“Merger Sub Corp”) and Mustang Merger Sub II LLC (“Merger Sub LLC”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub LLC agreed to acquire 100% of the outstanding capital stock of Private Altimmune in a reverse triangular merger and reorganization pursuant to section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Mergers”). Prior to the Mergers, PharmAthene was a publicly traded biodefense company engaged in Phase 2 clinical trials in developing SparVax-L, an anthrax vaccine.

In accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement, PharmAthene issued 0.0249702 (the “share exchange ratio”) of a share of PharmAthene common stock for each share of Private Altimmune common stock outstanding as of the closing date. All historical share and per share information — including common stock, convertible preferred stock, redeemable preferred stock, common stock warrants, restricted stock, and stock options — has been retroactively adjusted to reflect the impact of the share exchange ratio. In addition, Private Altimmune stock options and warrants were also replaced with options and warrants to purchase PharmAthene’s common stock at the same exchange ratio of 0.0249702. Immediately prior to closing, 19,976 shares of our convertible preferred stock were converted into Private Altimmune common stock on a 1-for-1 basis. In addition, outstanding principal and accrued interest on certain promissory notes issued by Private Altimmune prior to the Mergers were converted into 10,558 shares of Private Altimmune common stock. Further, 1,325 shares of Private Altimmune common stock were issued pursuant to the accelerated vesting of restricted stock, and 22,024 shares of Private Altimmune common stock were issued as a result of warrant exercises, both in accordance with their original terms. Upon the closing of the Mergers, all outstanding shares of Private Altimmune common stock were exchanged for 229,450 shares of PharmAthene common stock.

Following the closing, shareholders of Private Altimmune held 58.2% of the equity interest of the combined entity and assumed control of the combined entity. As a result, the transaction has been accounted for as a reverse merger, and the assets and liabilities of PharmAthene have been recorded at their estimated fair value. The unadjusted purchase price to be allocated to PharmAthene’s assets and liabilities was estimated to be $44.7 million as of the closing date and consisted of the shares of the combined company retained by PharmAthene shareholders, and the estimated fair value of vested PharmAthene stock options and warrants which remained outstanding as of the closing date. Also at the closing, 252 shares of PharmAthene outstanding stock options with an estimated fair value of $15,173 remained subject to vesting and service requirements. These unvested options will be recorded as operating expense in future periods as the services are delivered and the options vest.

Except where the context indicates otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” “Altimmune” or the “Company” refer, for periods prior to the completion of the Mergers, to Private Altimmune and its subsidiaries, and for periods following the completion of the Mergers to the combined company and its subsidiaries.

On September 13, 2018 we amended our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio 1-for-30 (the “Reverse Stock Split”). The Reverse Stock Split was effective on September 13, 2018, and our shares of common stock commenced trading on NASDAQ on a post-Reverse Stock Split basis on September 14, 2018. Unless otherwise noted, all share and per share numbers in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are reflected on a Post-Reverse Stock Split basis for all periods presented.

Prior to and as a condition for the Mergers, in January 2017, Private Altimmune entered into a Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement (the “Note Agreement”) for the private placement of an aggregate of $8.6 million of 6% convertible notes (the “Notes”) to be issued in two separate closings. The initial closing occurred on March 9, 2017 and resulted in $3,150,630 of gross proceeds to the Company. The initial closing also included the repayment of $196,496 of certain existing outstanding notes payable and $881,044 of certain accrued expenses that were modified and became a component of the Notes on March 9, 2017. In connection with the first closing, Private Altimmune issued warrants to purchase up to 1,659 shares of Private Altimmune common stock to certain holders of the Notes, with an exercise price of $0.01 per share.

On August 16, 2017, we issued 15,656 shares of Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock, $0.0001 par value, (“redeemable preferred stock”) and warrants to purchase up to 78,181 shares of our common stock (the “Existing Warrants”) to certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering for total gross proceeds of $14.7 million, and incurred issuance costs totaling $1.7 million. The redeemable preferred stock matured on August 16, 2018. The maturity date was extendable at the option of the holders to ten trading days after the curing of a triggering event (as defined in the Certificate of Designations), or ten business days after the consummation of a change of control. In addition, the redeemable preferred stock agreements required that we reserve a sufficient number of common shares to cover at least 150% of the common shares expected to be issued upon the conversion of the redeemable preferred stock at the then current conversion price, and the exercises of common stock warrants issued in connection with the redeemable preferred stock. The redeemable preferred stock was to be redeemed in nine specified installments. On each of the nine monthly specified installment dates beginning in December 2017 through maturity, we converted, redeemed, or a combination, one-ninth of the originally issued number of shares of redeemable preferred stock at their stated value of $1,000 per share, for an aggregate value of $1.7 million for each installment. As we elected to convert the installment shares, the conversion price was determined based on the lowest of (i) the then applicable conversion price (initially $2.67 per share), (ii) 85% of the average of the three lowest weighted-average prices of the common stock during the ten trading days up to the installment date, and (iii) 85% of the weighted average price of common stock on the trading day immediately before the installment date. If we elected cash redemption, the redemption amount was $1,000 per share, plus any accrued but unpaid dividends and any accrued but unpaid late charges. During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, we converted 9,813 and 3,479 shares, respectively, of the redeemable preferred stock for an aggregate of 502,078 and 82,483, respectively, shares of common stock. We redeemed the remaining 2,364 shares of redeemable preferred stock for face value on June 22, 2018 in conjunction with the Exchanges (as defined below).

On June 22, 2018 we entered into separate exchange agreements with certain holders of our redeemable preferred stock and Existing Warrants (“the “First Exchange Holders”) pursuant to which, we (i) issued an aggregate of 167,700 shares of common stock to the First Exchange Holders, (ii) issued convertible notes (the “Exchange Notes”) to the First Exchange Holders with an aggregate principal value of $1.5 million, which are initially convertible into up to 73,530 shares of our common stock upon the default by the Company or at the holder’s option on the maturity date subject to adjustment under certain circumstances in accordance with the terms of the Exchange Notes and (iii) paid $1,100,000 in aggregate cash consideration to the First Exchange Holders, all in exchange for Existing Warrants to purchase up to 53,125 shares of common stock held by the First Exchange Holders. We refer to these transactions as the “First Exchange.” In addition, the Company agreed to redeem the remaining shares of redeemable preferred stock held by the First Exchange Holders, in cash, at the aggregate face value of $2.4 million.

On July 11, 2018, we entered into exchange agreements with certain other holders of our redeemable preferred stock and Existing Warrants (the “Second Exchange Holders”) pursuant to which we (i) issued an aggregate of 32,124 shares of common stock to the Second Exchange Holders and (ii) paid $22,241 in aggregate cash consideration to the Second Exchange Holders, all in exchange for all of the outstanding shares of our redeemable preferred stock held by the Second Exchange Holders. After receiving the approval of our stockholders at our annual meeting of stockholders held on August 30, 2018, we issued an additional 145,038 shares of common stock to the Second Exchange Holders in exchange for Existing Warrants to purchase up to 22,523 shares of common stock held by the Second Exchange Holders. We refer to these transactions as the “Second Exchange.”

On September 7, 2018, we entered into exchange agreements with certain other holders of our Existing Warrants (“the Third Exchange Holders”) pursuant to which we issued an aggregate of 5,929 shares of common stock to the Third Exchange Holders in exchange for Existing Warrants to purchase up to 921 shares of common stock held by the Third Exchange Holders. We refer to this transaction as the “Third Exchange” and together with the First Exchange and Second Exchange as the “Exchanges.”

On September 26, 2018, we issued an aggregate of 286,633 shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $17.02 per share to certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering (the “First Registered Direct Offering”). The net proceeds of the First Registered Direct Offering were approximately $4.3 million, after deducting placement agent fees and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

On October 2, 2018, we issued a combined total of 2,400,000 common units and pre-funded units in an underwritten public offering (the “Unit Offering”). Each common unit in the Offering was sold at a public offering price of $5.00 and consisted of one share of our common stock and a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $6.00. Each warrant sold in the Unit Offering is exercisable immediately and expires five years from the date of issuance. Each pre-funded unit in the Unit Offering was sold at a public offering price of $4.99 and consisted of a pre-funded warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.01 per share and a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $6.00. The pre-funded warrants were immediately exercisable and could be exercised at any time until all of the pre-funded warrants are exercised in full. All of the pre-funded warrants were exercised between October 2, 2018 and December 31, 2018. The net proceeds of the Unit Offering were approximately $10.7 million, after deducting the underwriting discount and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

The warrants issued in the Unit Offering are each subject to anti-dilution protection. Accordingly, to the extent we were to issue additional common stock or securities convertible into common stock at an issuance price lower than exercise price of the warrants, the exercise price of the warrants would be adjusted to the lower of (i) the issuance price or (ii) the lowest volume weighted average price of the Company’s common stock on the five trading days following the announcement of the new offering.

On October 10, 2018, we issued a combined total of 4,629,630 common units and pre-funded units to certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering (the “Second Registered Direct Offering”). Each common unit in the offering was sold at a price of $5.40 and consisted of one share of our common stock and a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $5.40. Each warrant sold in the Second Registered Direct Offering is exercisable immediately and expires five years from the date of issuance. Each pre-funded unit in the Second Registered Direct Offering was sold at a public offering price of $5.39 and consisted of a pre-funded warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.01 per share and a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $5.40. The pre-funded warrants were immediately exercisable and could be exercised at any time until all of the pre-funded warrants were exercised in full. All of the pre-funded warrants were exercised between October 2, 2018 and December 31, 2018. The net proceeds of the Second Registered Direct Offering were approximately $22.4 million, after deducting the underwriting discount and estimated offering expenses payable by us. The Second Registered Direct Offering triggered an adjustment to the exercise price of the warrants issued in the Unit Offering from $6.00 to $4.1798.

On March 12, 2019, we issued a combined total of 4,361,370 common units and pre-funded units to certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering (the “Third Registered Direct Offering”). Each common unit in the Third Registered Direct Offering was sold at a price of $3.21 and consisted of one share of our common stock and 0.70 of a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.21. Each warrant sold in the Third Registered Direct Offering was exercisable immediately and expires five years from the date of issuance. Each pre-funded unit in the Third Registered Direct Offering was sold at a public offering price of $3.20 and consisted of a pre-funded warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.01 per share and 0.70 of a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.21. The pre-funded warrants were immediately exercisable and were able to be exercised at any time until all of the pre-funded warrants are exercised in full. The net proceeds of the Third Registered Direct Offering were approximately $12.7 million, after deducting the underwriting discount and estimated offering expenses payable by us. The Third Registered Direct Offering triggered an adjustment to the exercise price of the warrants issued in the Unit Offering from $4.1798 to $2.7568.

We have financed our operations to date principally through proceeds from issuances of our preferred stock, Registered Direct Offerings, and Unit Offering. As described above, the Company secured net proceeds of $37.4 million through equity sales that occurred during the year ended December 31, 2018. Additionally, in March 2019, we secured net proceeds of approximately $12.7 million through a subsequent equity offering. Accordingly, management believes that the Company has sufficient capital to fund its plan of operations for at least a twelve-month period from the issuance date of our December 31, 2018 financial statements. However, in order to address our capital needs in the long-term, including our planned clinical trials, we must continue to actively pursue additional equity or debt financing, government funding, and monetization of our existing programs through partnership arrangements or sales to third parties

The consolidated financial information presented below includes the accounts of Altimmune, Inc. Altimmune UK, PharmAthene UK and Altimmune France. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

To date, we have not generated any product sales. Our revenues have been derived from license agreements and research grants that generally provide for reimbursement of approved costs as those costs are incurred by the Company. We recognize revenue and related accounts receivable from license agreements when the related services are provided, and from research grants when reimbursable expenses are incurred and the earnings process is complete.

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for the development of our product candidates, which include:

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Costs for certain development activities are recognized based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using information and data provided to us by our vendors, CROs and clinical sites.

We cannot determine with certainty the duration and completion costs of the current or future clinical trials of our product candidates or if, when or to what extent we will generate sales from the commercialization of any of our product candidates if they receive regulatory approval. The successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain and may never result in approved products. The duration, costs and timing of clinical trials and development of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of a product candidate could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate. For example, if the FDA, or another regulatory authority were to require us to conduct clinical trials beyond those that we currently anticipate will be required for the completion of clinical development of a product candidate, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of clinical development.

We plan to increase our research and development expenses for the foreseeable future as we continue the development of clinical and preclinical candidates. Our current planned research and development activities include the following:

To date, a significant portion of our research and development efforts have been related to the development of NasoVAX, NasoShield, SparVax-L, and HepTcell product candidates. We do not allocate personnel-related costs, costs associated with our general research platform improvements, depreciation or other indirect costs to specific programs.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs for personnel, including stock-based compensation and travel expenses for our employees in executive, operational, finance and human resource functions. Other general and administrative expenses include facility-related costs and professional fees for directors, accounting and legal services, and expenses associated with obtaining and maintaining our intellectual property.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as we increase our headcount to support our continued research and development activities. We also anticipate increased expenses related to audit, legal, regulatory and tax-related services associated with maintaining compliance with exchange listing and the SEC requirements, director and officer insurance, investor relations costs and other costs associated with being a public company. Additionally, if and when we believe a regulatory approval of the first product candidate appears likely, we anticipate an increase in staffing and related expenses as a result of our preparation for commercial operations, especially as it relates to the sales and marketing of our product candidates.

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires us to make judgments and estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent liabilities in our consolidated financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our judgments and estimates in light of changes in circumstances, facts, and experience. The effects of material revisions in estimates, if any, will be reflected in the consolidated financial statements prospectively from the date of change in estimates.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report, we believe the following accounting policies used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements require the most significant judgments and estimates.

We use our best estimates and assumptions to assign fair value to the tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the acquisition date. Our estimates are inherently uncertain and subject to refinement. During the measurement period, which may be up to one year from the acquisition date, we may record adjustments to the fair value of these tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed, with the corresponding offset to goodwill. In addition, uncertain tax positions and tax-related valuation allowances are initially established in connection with a business combination as of the acquisition date. We collect information and reevaluates these estimates and assumptions quarterly and records any adjustments to our preliminary estimates to goodwill during the measurement period. Upon the conclusion of the measurement period or final determination of the fair value of assets acquired or liabilities assumed, whichever comes first, any subsequent adjustments are recorded to our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. Amounts paid for acquisitions are allocated to the tangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values at the date of acquisition. We allocate the purchase price in excess of net tangible assets acquired to identifiable intangible assets, including purchased research and development. The fair value of identifiable intangible assets is based on detailed valuations that use information and assumptions provided by management. We allocate any excess purchase price over the fair value of the net tangible and intangible assets acquired to goodwill.

Our in-process research and development (“IPR&D”) assets represent the estimated fair value as of the acquisition date of substantive in-process projects that have not reached technological feasibility. The primary basis for determining technological feasibility of these projects is obtaining regulatory approval. The valuation of IPR&D assets is determined using the discounted cash flow method. In determining the value of IPR&D assets, the Company considers, among other factors, the stage of completion of the projects, the technological feasibility of the projects, whether the projects have an alternative future use and the estimated residual cash flows that could be generated from the various projects and technologies over their respective projected economic lives. The discount rate used is determined at the time of acquisition and includes a rate of return which accounts for the time value of money, as well as risk factors that reflect the economic risk that the cash flows projected may not be realized.

We evaluate our long-lived tangible and intangible assets, including IPR&D assets and goodwill, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of such assets may not be recoverable. Impairment of long-lived assets other than goodwill and definite lived intangibles is assessed by comparing the undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the asset to its carrying value. Goodwill is tested for impairment by comparing the estimated fair value of our single reporting unit to its carrying value. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we concluded that our goodwill was impaired and the full amount of its carrying value of $35,919,695 was written off as an impairment charge. We tested goodwill for impairment using a one-step quantitative test. We considered multiple methods including both market and income approaches to determine fair value of our one reporting unit, and primarily relied on fair value estimated based on our market capitalization (a Level 2 input) as of or near the testing date, adjusted for an estimated control premium.

Our IPR&D assets are currently non-amortizing. Until such time as the projects are either completed or abandoned, we test those assets for impairment at least annually at year end, or more frequently at interim periods, by evaluating qualitative factors which could be indicative of impairment. Qualitative factors being considered include, but are not limited to, the current project status, forecasted changes in the timing or amounts required to complete the project, forecasted changes in the future cash flows to be generated by the completed products, and changes to other market-based assumptions, such as discount rates. If impairment indicators are present as a result of our qualitative assessment, we test those assets for impairment under a quantitative test by comparing the fair value of the assets to their carrying value. Upon completion or abandonment, the value of the IPR&D assets will be amortized to expense or the anticipated useful life of the developed products, if completed, or charged to expense when abandoned if no alternative future use exists. During the fourth quarter of 2018, based on the continued decline of our market capitalization following the completion of the equity offerings and a strategic review of our development pipeline at the direction of our new CEO, we concluded under our qualitative assessment that an impairment indicator was present as it related to our three IPR&D assets. Based on our strategic review, management concluded we would discontinue the development of our Oncosyn cancer immunotherapy program and accordingly the entire amount of this IPR&D asset, or $3.1 million, was charged to expense. For our remaining two IPR&D assets related to HepTcell and SparVax-L we calculated fair value using an excess earnings method or discounted cash flow model and compared the fair value to the carrying amount of the indefinite lived asset. Based on our analysis, the fair value of our HepTcell IPR&D asset exceeded its carrying value by an amount greater than 10%. However, we concluded that the fair value of our SparVax-L IPR&D intangible asset was approximately $1 million as compared to the current carrying value of the asset of $22.4 million which resulted in an impairment charge of approximately $21.4 million. Key assumptions used in our analysis included projected cash flows, a probability of success of the ultimate project, and the discount rate.

We follow the guidance in Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standard Codification 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, which defines fair value and establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

Level 1 — Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we can access at the measurement date.

Level 2 — Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are either directly or indirectly observable. If the asset or liability has a specified (contractual) term, a Level 2 input must be observable for substantially the full term.

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs developed using estimates of assumptions developed by the Company, which reflect those that a market participant would use.

To the extent that valuation is based on models or inputs that are less observable or unobservable in the market, the determination of fair value requires more judgment. Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised by the Company in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

Fair value is a market-based measure considered from the perspective of a market participant rather than an entity-specific measure. Therefore, even when market assumptions are not readily available, our own assumptions are set to reflect those that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability at the measurement date. We use prices and inputs that are current as of the measurement date, including during periods of market dislocation. In periods of market dislocation, the observability of prices and inputs may change for many instruments. This condition could cause an instrument to be reclassified within levels in the fair value hierarchy. There were no transfers within the fair value hierarchy during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017.

Research grants are derived from government and foundation grants and contracts that support our efforts on specific research projects. We have determined that the government agencies and foundations providing grants and contracts to us are not our customers. These grants and contracts generally provide for reimbursement of approved costs as those costs are incurred by the Company. Research grants and the related accounts receivable are recognized as earned when reimbursable expenses are incurred and the earnings process is complete. Payments received in advance of services being provided are recorded as deferred revenue.

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development costs include payroll and personnel expense, consulting costs, external contract research and development expenses, raw materials, drug product manufacturing costs and allocated overhead including depreciation and amortization, rent and utilities. Research and development costs that are paid in advance of performance are recorded as a prepaid expense and amortized over the service period as the services are provided.

We account for all stock-based compensation granted to employees and non-employees using a fair value method. Stock-based compensation awarded to employees is measured at the grant date fair value of stock option grants and is recognized over the requisite service period of the awards, usually the vesting period, on a straight-line basis, net of estimated forfeitures. Stock-based compensation awarded to non-employees are subject to revaluation over their vesting terms. For performance-based awards where the vesting of the options may be accelerated upon the achievement of certain milestones, vesting and the related stock-based compensation is recognized as an expense when it is probable the milestone will be met. For awards containing a market condition, the effect of the market condition is reflected in measuring the grant date fair value of the award and is recognized over the requisite service period, which is usually the vesting period, on a straight-line basis, net of estimated forfeitures.

When awards are modified, we compare the fair value of the affected award measured immediately prior to modification to its value after modification. To the extent that the fair value of the modified award exceeds the original award, the incremental fair value of the modified award is recognized as compensation on the date of modification for vested awards, and over the remaining vesting period for unvested awards. We estimate the number of stock-based awards expected to vest, rather than electing to account for forfeitures as they occur to determine the amount of compensation cost to be recognized in each period.

We account for income taxes using the asset and liability approach, which requires the recognition of future tax benefits or liabilities on the temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of our assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets and liabilities represent future tax consequences of temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and the tax basis of assets and liabilities and for loss carryforwards using enacted tax rates expected to be in effect in the years in which the differences reverse. A valuation allowance is established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amounts expected to be realized. We also recognize a tax benefit from uncertain tax positions only if it is “more likely than not” that the position is sustainable based on its technical merits. We account for interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as part of our provision for income taxes. To date, we have not incurred interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions. Should such costs be incurred, they would be classified as a component of provision for income taxes.

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, Leases (“ASU 2016-02”). ASU 2016-02 requires a lessee to separate the lease components from the non-lease components in a contract and recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted. The standard requires a modified retrospective approach or an optional transition to apply the new guidance in the year of transition rather than at the beginning of the earliest period presented. We will adopt ASU 2016-02 in the first quarter of 2019 under the optional transition method. Our current operating leases will be accounted for as operating lease liabilities and right-of-use assets upon adoption. We expect to establish no more than a two million dollar lease liability and corresponding right-of-use asset in the 2019 financial statements.

In June 2018, FASB issued ASU No. 2018-07, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718)—Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting (“ASU 2018-07”). ASU 2018-07 expands the scope of Topic 718 to include share-based payment transactions for acquiring goods and services from nonemployees. ASU 2018-07 is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within that fiscal year. We do not expect there will be a material impact to our financial statements upon adoption

In August 2018, FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) – Disclosure Framework – Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement, was issued to modify and enhance the disclosure requirements for fair value measurements. This update is effective in fiscal years, including interim periods, beginning after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is permitted. We are still completing its assessment of the impacts and anticipated adoption date of this guidance.

	For the Year Ended December 31,
(in thousands except percentages)	2018			2017			Increase (Decrease)
Revenue
Research grants and contracts	$	10,311		$	10,697		$	(386	)	(4	)	%
License revenue		20			42			(22	)	(52	)	%
Total revenue		10,331			10,739			(408	)	(4	)	%
Operating expenses
Research and development		18,459			18,406			53		0		%
General and administrative		9,766			8,458			1,308		15		%
Impairment charges		24,941			35,920			(10,979	)	(31	)	%
Total operating expenses		53,166			62,784			(9,618	)	(15	)	%
Loss from operations		(42,835	)		(52,045	)		9,210		(18	)	%
Other income (expense):
Changes in fair value of warrant liability		(2,878	)		98			(2,976	)	(3,037	)	%
Changes in fair value of imbedded derivative		185			(7	)		192		(2,743	)	%
Interest expense		(297	)		(162	)		(135	)	83		%
Interest income		227			48			179		373		%
Other income, net		278			6			272		4,533		%
Total other (expense) income, net		(2,485	)		(17	)		(2,468	)	14,518		%
Net loss before tax benefit		(45,320	)		(52,062	)		6,742		(13	)	%
Income tax benefit		6,150			5,638			512		9		%
Net loss		(39,170	)		(46,424	)		7,254		(16	)	%
Other comprehensive income (loss) — foreign currency translation adjustments		(463	)		2,998			(3,461	)	(115	)	%
Comprehensive loss	$	(39,633	)	$	(43,426	)	$	3,793		(9	)	%

Revenue from grants and contracts for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 consisted primarily of research grants from BARDA and NIAID in the United States for our anthrax vaccine product candidates.

	For the Year Ended December 31,
(in thousands except percentages)	2018		2017		Increase (Decrease)
Revenue
Research grants and contracts	$	10,311	$	10,697	$	(386	)	(4	)	%
License revenue		20		42		(22	)	(52	)	%
Total revenue	$	10,331	$	10,739		(408	)	(4	)	%

Revenue decreased by $0.4 million, or 4% for the year ended December 31, 2018 as compared to 2017. The decrease was primarily the result of:

Research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 consisted primarily of expenses related to product candidate development. Research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 are summarized as follows:

Research and development expenses increased by $0.1 million, or 0%, during the year ended December 31, 2018 as compared to 2017. The increased expense was primarily due to:

The following is a summary of general and administrative expenses for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017:

General and administrative expenses increased by $1.3 million, or 15%, during the year ended December 31, 2018 as compared to 2017. The increased expense is primarily due to increases in severance, professional services, insurance, and board of director fees; offset by a decrease in reorganization expenses related to the 2017 Merger, which were incurred in 2017.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, we concluded that our goodwill was impaired and the full amount of its carrying value of $35.9 million was written off as an impairment charge. During the year ended December 31, 2018, we finalized the purchase accounting from the Mergers and an additional $0.5 million of goodwill was written off as an impairment charge.

Following the Unit Offering and the First Registered Direct Offering, we experienced a significant decline in the trading price of our common stock which we determined was an indicator of impairment of our long-lived assets. We performed a quantitative assessment of our IPR&D assets and have determined that a portion of our IPR&D assets were impaired as of December 31, 2018. As a result, $24.5 million was written off as an impairment charge which was classified as a component of operating exp

910 Clopper Road, Suite 201S, Gaithersburg, MD		20878
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Title of Each Class:		Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered:
Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share		The NASDAQ Global Market


		Page
	PART I
Item 1.	Business	2
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	23
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	59
Item 2.	Properties	59
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	59
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	59

	PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	60
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	60
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	61
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	74
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	75
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	110
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	110
Item 9B.	Other Information	110

	PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	111
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	117
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	122
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	124
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	125

	PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	127
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	130
	Signatures	131

Large Accelerated Filer	☐	Accelerated Filer	☐
Non-Accelerated Filer	☐	Smaller Reporting Company	☒
		Emerging growth company	☐