UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015

OR

For the transition period from              to             

001-36548

(Commission file number)

ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(650) 278-8930

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

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

The number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of July 31, 2015 was 28,512,957 shares.

ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

INDEX

2

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

See accompanying notes.

3

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated and Combined Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes.

4

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated and Combined Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes.

5

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“Atara”, “we” or “our”) was incorporated in August 2012 in Delaware. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapeutics for serious unmet medical needs, with an initial focus on muscle wasting conditions, oncology and viral-associated diseases. We have two groups of product candidates: molecularly targeted biologics and allogeneic, or third-party derived, antigen-specific T-cells, a type of white blood cell. Our product candidate portfolio was acquired through licensing arrangements with Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (“MSK”) in exchange for convertible preferred stock, common stock, milestone payments and commitments for future royalties. See Note 4 for further information.

In February 2015, we completed a follow-on offering of 4,147,358 shares of common stock at an offering price to the public of $18.00 per share.  We received net proceeds of approximately $69.5 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

In July 2015, we completed a follow-on offering of 3,980,768 shares of common stock at an offering price to the public of $52.00 per share.  We received net proceeds of approximately $193.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

Basis of Presentation and Recapitalization

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated and combined financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The accounting policies followed in the preparation of the interim condensed consolidated and combined financial statements are consistent in all material respects with those presented in Note 2 to the consolidated and combined financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Atara was originally formed as a management company with the sole purpose of providing management, financial and administrative services for Nina Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“Nina”), Santa Maria Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“Santa Maria”) and Pinta Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“Pinta”).  Prior to March 31, 2014, the accompanying financial statements include the operations of Atara, Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria on a combined basis as the four individual companies were under common ownership and common management since inception. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated.

On March 31, 2014, our board of directors approved and we implemented a recapitalization (the “Recapitalization”) in which (a) all the outstanding shares of common stock of Atara were cancelled and forfeited by existing stockholders and (b) the stockholders of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria exchanged their existing common and convertible preferred stock for newly-issued shares of Atara, with the same rights and privileges as the outstanding capital stock of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. The shares were exchanged on a collective nine-for-one basis. The Recapitalization lacked economic substance as the newly-issued shares have the same rights and privileges as the previously outstanding capital stock of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria and there was no change in ownership percentages of the individual stockholders. As a result of the Recapitalization, Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria became wholly owned subsidiaries of Atara effective March 31, 2014. The Recapitalization is considered a tax-free exchange for US federal income tax purposes.

Because the four individual companies were under common ownership and the Recapitalization lacked economic substance, we accounted for the Recapitalization as a combination of businesses under common control. The assets and liabilities of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria were recorded by Atara at their historical carrying amounts on March 31, 2014 and beginning March 31, 2014, the financial statements of the Company are presented on a consolidated basis.  

6

Liquidity

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and have relied on public and private equity financings to fund our operations. At June 30, 2015, we had an accumulated deficit of $65.0 million. As we continue to incur losses, our transition to profitability will depend on the successful development, approval and commercialization of product candidates and on the achievement of sufficient revenues to support our cost structure. We may never achieve profitability, and unless and until we do, we will need to continue to raise additional capital. Management expects that existing cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2015 will be sufficient to fund our current operating plan for at least the next twelve months.

Net Loss per Common Share

Basic and diluted net loss per common share is presented, giving effect to the Recapitalization, including cancellation of existing Atara common stock and a nine-for-one share exchange. Basic net loss per common share is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period, without consideration of common stock equivalents. Diluted net loss per common share is computed by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock and common share equivalents outstanding for the period. Common share equivalents are only included in the calculation of diluted net loss per common share when their effect is dilutive. Our restricted stock awards are considered to be participating securities as they are entitled to participate in undistributed earnings with shares of common stock. Due to net losses, there is no impact on the net loss per common share calculation in applying the two-class method since the participating securities have no legal requirement to share in any losses.

Potentially dilutive securities, which include convertible preferred stock, unvested restricted common stock awards, unvested restricted stock units and vested and unvested options have been excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share as the effect would be to reduce the net loss per common share and be antidilutive. Therefore, the denominator used to calculate both basic and diluted net loss per common share is the same in all periods presented.

The following shares of potentially dilutive securities give effect to the Recapitalization, and have been excluded from the computations of diluted net loss per common share as the effect of including such securities would be antidilutive:

In addition, 123,433 and 676,158 options have been excluded from the above table for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively, as the exercise prices of the underlying options were greater than the average fair value of our common stock for the periods presented.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2015-03, Interest- Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, that simplifies the presentation of debt issuance costs by requiring that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. The ASU does not affect the recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs. The ASU will be effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and early application is permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other – Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40): Customer’s Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement”, that provides guidance to customers about whether a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license. If such an arrangement includes a software license, then the customer should account for the software license element of the arrangement consistent with the acquisition of other software licenses. If the arrangement does not include a software license, the customer should account for it as a service contract. This ASU will be effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015, and early application is permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements

7

In August 2014, the FASB issued a new accounting standard to provide guidance on the presentation of management’s plans, when conditions or events raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued.  The new standard is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2016.  The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued a new accounting standard, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in the current standard, Revenue Recognition.  The new standard is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.  It also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract.  In July 2015, the FASB deferred the effective date of this standard by one year and the new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017.  We will evaluate the application of this standard on our financial statements and disclosures when we enter into any contracts with customers.

Our financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value are primarily comprised of investments in money market funds, corporate bonds, U.S. government securities, asset-backed securities and commercial paper. The fair value accounting guidance requires that assets and liabilities be carried at fair value and classified in one of the following three categories:

We review the fair value hierarchy classification on a quarterly basis. Changes in the ability to observe valuation inputs may result in a reclassification of levels of certain securities within the fair value hierarchy. We recognize transfers into and out of levels within the fair value hierarchy in the period in which the actual event or change in circumstances that caused the transfer occurs. There were no transfers between Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 for all periods presented.

8

The following table represents the fair value hierarchy for our financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:  

Financial assets and liabilities are considered Level 2 when their fair values are determined using inputs that are observable in the market or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data such as pricing for similar securities, recently executed transactions, cash flow models with yield curves, and benchmark securities. In addition, Level 2 financial instruments are valued using comparisons to like-kind financial instruments and models that use readily observable market data as their basis. Corporate bonds, U.S. government securities, asset-backed securities and commercial paper are valued primarily using market prices of comparable securities, bid/ask quotes, interest rate yields and prepayment spreads and are included in Level 2.

Financial assets and liabilities are considered Level 3 when their fair values are determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, and at least one significant model assumption or input is unobservable. We have no Level 3 financial assets and liabilities.

9

Short-term available-for-sale investments are carried at fair value and are included in the tables above under short-term investments. The aggregate market value, cost basis, and gross unrealized gains and losses of short-term available-for-sale investments by major security type are as follows:

The amortized cost and fair value of short-term available-for-sale investments, by contractual maturity, were as follows:

Amgen License Agreements - In September 2012, we entered into three license agreements with Amgen, one of our investors, for the development, manufacturing, use and distribution of products using certain proprietary compounds. Under the terms of these agreements, we paid $250,000 and issued 5,538,462 shares of Series A-1 convertible preferred stock (615,384 shares after giving effect to the Recapitalization) to Amgen. We are obligated to make additional payments to Amgen of up to $86.0 million upon the achievement of certain development and regulatory approval milestones. Of these milestone payments, $14.0 million relate to milestones for clinical trials. The remaining $72.0  million relate to milestones for regulatory approvals in various territories and are anticipated to be made no earlier than 2017. Thereafter, we are obligated to make tiered payments based on achievement of commercial milestones based upon net sales levels. The maximum payments would be $206.0 million based on sales of over $1.0 billion for each of three products in a calendar year. We are also obligated to pay mid-single-digit percentage tiered royalties on future net sales of products which are developed and approved as defined by the agreements. Our royalty obligations as to a particular licensed product will be payable, on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis, until the later of (a) the date of expiration of the last to expire valid claim within the licensed patents that covers the manufacture, use or sale, offer to sell, or import of such licensed product by us or a sublicense in such country, (b) loss of regulatory exclusivity or (c) 10 years after the first commercial sale of the applicable licensed product in the applicable country. These agreements expire at the end of all royalty obligations to Amgen and, upon expiration, the licenses will be fully paid, royalty-free, irrevocable and non-exclusive. As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, there were no outstanding obligations due to Amgen.

10

At June 30, 2015, Amgen owns approximately 6.0% of our outstanding voting capital stock. Amgen does not have any rights to participate in our product candidates’ development and is not represented on our board of directors.

MSK Agreements – In September 2014, we entered into an exclusive option agreement with MSK under which we had the right to acquire the exclusive worldwide license rights to the three clinical stage T-cell therapies of MSK.  The initial option period was for twelve months, with extensions available to extend the term up to 27 months at the option of Atara.  Under the terms of the option agreement, we were obligated to use reasonable efforts to prepare a request to be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) regarding a meeting to discuss pivotal trials for one of the clinical stage T-cell therapies.  In exchange for the exclusive option, we paid MSK $1.25 million in cash and issued 59,761 shares of our common stock to MSK.  At the time of issuance, we estimated the fair value of the common stock issued to MSK to be $750,000.  This total of $2.0 million was recorded as research and development expense in our condensed consolidated and combined statement of operations and comprehensive loss in the third quarter of 2014.  

In June 2015, we exercised our option and entered into an exclusive license agreement with MSK.  In connection with the execution of the License Agreement, Atara is obligated to make an upfront cash payment to MSK of $4.5 million and this amount has been recorded as research and development expense in our condensed consolidated and combined statement of operations and comprehensive loss in the second quarter of 2015. Atara is obligated to make additional payments of up to $33.0 million to MSK based on achievement of specified development, regulatory and sales-related milestones, as well as escalating mid single-digit royalties based on future sales of products resulting from the development of the licensed product candidates. In addition, under certain circumstances, we must make certain minimum annual royalty payments to MSK, which are creditable against earned royalties owed for the same annual period. We are also obligated to pay a low double-digit percentage of consideration we receive for sublicensing the licensed rights. The license agreement expires on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis on the later of: (i) expiration of the last licensed patent rights related to each licensed product, (ii) expiration of any market exclusivity period granted by law with respect to each licensed product, and (iii) a specified number of years after the first commercial sale of the licensed product in each country. Upon expiration of the license agreement, Atara will retain non-exclusive rights to the licensed products.

Patent Obligations – Under the terms of our license agreements with Amgen and MSK, we pay costs related to the preparation, filing, prosecution, defense and maintenance of the patents covered by the license agreements.  During the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, we incurred expenses of $330,516 and $176,638, respectively, related to the preparation, filing and maintenance of patents. During the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, patent costs were $839,434 and $394,710. These patent costs were recorded in the condensed consolidated and combined statement of operations and comprehensive loss as general and administrative expenses.

Operating Leases

Rent expense for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 was $98,226 and $15,113, respectively.   Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 was $179,446 and $29,753, respectively.

Indemnification Agreements

In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts and agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for indemnification for certain liabilities. The exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves claims that may be made against us in the future but have not yet been made. To date, we have not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to our indemnification obligations. However, we may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations. We also have indemnification obligations to our directors and executive officers for specified events or occurrences, subject to some limits, while they are serving at our request in such capacities. There have been no claims to date and we believe the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Accordingly, we have not recorded any liabilities for these agreements as of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

11

Restricted Common Stock

In August 2012, in connection with our formation, our CEO purchased 9,595,384 shares of restricted common stock at a nominal per share purchase price. The shares were issued subject to certain vesting conditions, restrictions on transfer and a Company right of repurchase of any unvested share at their original purchase price. These shares are placed in escrow until vested, and have rights to vote and participate in dividends and distributions. The combined grant date intrinsic value for this award was $1,704,094 and 7,996,153 of these shares had service and fundraising vesting conditions. Under the service vesting condition, shares vest monthly over 48 months, commencing from the first closing of Series A convertible preferred stock financing on October 22, 2012. 1,599,231 of these shares are subject to performance milestones and fundraising vesting conditions. The fundraising vesting conditions for all shares were satisfied as of December 31, 2013. All shares subject to service vesting conditions are subject to accelerated vesting in the event of certain change of control transactions.

In March 2013, an Atara employee purchased 2,423,074 shares of restricted common stock for $331,170. The shares were issued under our 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (as discussed below) and are subject to certain vesting conditions, restrictions on transfer and a Company right of repurchase of any unvested shares at their original purchase price. These shares are placed in escrow until vested, and have rights to vote and participate in dividends and distributions. Under these agreements, the shares vest as follows: 2,319,228 shares vest over four years, with one-quarter vesting after one year of service and the remainder vesting in equal installments over the subsequent thirty-six months, and 103,846 shares vest upon achievement of certain performance milestones. Vesting of all shares is subject to acceleration of vesting in the event of certain change of control transactions.

The amounts paid for both restricted stock purchases were initially recorded as other long-term liabilities. As shares vest, we reclassify liabilities to equity and report shares as outstanding in the condensed consolidated and combined financial statements. On March 31, 2014, the shares were exchanged for 1,335,384 shares of Atara common stock.  At June 30, 2015, 958,702 shares had vested and are classified as equity. Restricted stock shares not vested at June 30, 2015 totaled 376,683 shares and are expected to vest over two years.

As both the Chief Executive Officer and the Atara employee were consultants of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria through the Recapitalization date, we accounted for these awards as non-employee stock-based awards. Following the Recapitalization, these awards were accounted as employee awards based upon the fair market value of common stock on March 31, 2014. Stock-based compensation expense related to these awards is recorded using an accelerated graded vesting model and was $265,893 and $523,920 for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $589,119 and $3.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  The unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to this unvested restricted stock was $594,642 at June 30, 2015 and this expense is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 0.68 years.  The aggregate intrinsic value of unvested restricted stock is $19.8 million at June 30, 2015.

2014 Equity Incentive Plans

In March 2014, we adopted the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2014 plan”) as part of our Recapitalization. In connection with the Recapitalization, Atara assumed the plans of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria and all outstanding restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and restricted stock awards granted under such plans.  At the date of Recapitalization, RSUs and restricted stock awards issued by Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria to Atara employees became employee awards and the awards’ grant dates were established as the Recapitalization date.  In May 2014, our board of directors amended and restated our 2014 plan and the amended plan became effective on October 15, 2014 upon the pricing of our initial public offering.  The maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued pursuant to stock awards under the 2014 plan is 4,536,797 shares, including 1,294,041 shares that were previously available for issuance under the 2012 plans.

The number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance pursuant to stock awards under our 2014 plan will automatically increase on January 1 of each year for a period of up to ten years, beginning on January 1, 2015 and ending on and including January 1, 2024, by 5% of the number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, or a lesser number of shares determined by our board of directors.  The number of shares of our common stock available for issuance under the 2014 plan is 2,061,228 at June 30, 2015.

Under the terms of the 2014 plan, we may grant options, restricted stock awards and RSUs to employees, directors, consultants and other service providers.  RSUs typically expire at the earlier of seven years from the date of grant or the service termination (or, for RSUs granted prior to February 2014, two years following the service termination date). Stock options are granted at prices no less than 100% of the estimated fair value of the shares on the date of grant as determined by the board of directors, provided, however, that the exercise price of an option granted to a 10% shareholder cannot be less than 110% of the estimated fair value of the shares on the date of grant. Options granted to employees and non-employees generally vest over four years and expire in seven years.

12

Restricted Stock Units and Awards

The RSUs granted prior to our initial public offering had a time-based service condition and a liquidity-based performance condition, and vest when both conditions are met. We determined that the liquidity-based performance condition was not probable of occurring and recorded no stock-based compensation expense related to the RSUs prior to our initial public offering.  Upon the closing of our initial public offering in October 2014, we recorded $3.8 million of stock-based compensation expense in our consolidated and combined statement of operations and comprehensive loss for the quarter ended December 31, 2014.  The remaining unrecognized stock-based compensation expense relating to nonvested RSUs will be recognized as the RSUs vest over the remaining service periods through 2018. As of June 30, 2015, there was $3.1 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to RSUs that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.31 years. The aggregate intrinsic value of the RSUs outstanding at June 30, 2015 was $32.6 million.

The following is a summary of RSU activity, including the restricted stock award discussed above, under our 2014 plan:

Under our RSU net settlement procedures, we withhold shares at settlement to cover the minimum payroll withholding obligations for employee income and other employment taxes.  During 2015, we settled 285,259 RSUs, of which 281,391 RSUs were net settled by withholding 119,684 shares.  The value of these withheld RSUs was $4.4 million, based on the closing price of our common stock on the settlement date.  This amount was remitted to the appropriate taxing authorities and $4.4 million has been reflected as a financing activity in our consolidated and combined statement of cash flows. These withheld shares are no longer considered issued and outstanding, thereby reducing our shares outstanding used to calculated earnings per share, and these shares were returned to the shares reserved for issuance under our 2014 plan and are available for future issuance.

Stock Options

The following is a summary of option activity under our 2014 plan:

Aggregate intrinsic value represents the difference between the closing stock price of our common stock on June 30, 2015 and the exercise price of outstanding, in-the-money options. As of June 30, 2015, there was $14.9 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to stock options that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 3.22 years.  

13

The fair value of options issued during 2015 was estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes valuation model with the following weighted-average assumptions:

Stock-based Compensation Expense

Total stock-based compensation expense related to all employee and non-employee awards was as follows (in thousands):

14

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our audited consolidated and combined financial statements and related notes included  in our 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion and other parts of this quarterly report contain forward-looking statements that involve risk and uncertainties, such as statements of our plans, objectives, expectations and intentions. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of this quarterly report, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapeutics for serious unmet medical needs, with an initial focus on muscle wasting conditions, oncology and viral-associated diseases. We have two groups of product candidates: molecularly targeted biologics and allogeneic, or third-party derived, antigen-specific T-cells, a type of white blood cell. Our molecularly targeted product candidates are biologics that inhibit myostatin and activin, members of the Transforming Growth Factor-Beta, or TGF-ß, protein superfamily, which play roles in the growth and maintenance of muscle and many other body tissues. Our lead molecularly targeted product candidate, PINTA 745, is in a Phase 2 clinical trial for protein energy wasting, a condition affecting many end-stage renal disease patients. Our second molecularly targeted product candidate is STM 434. We commenced a Phase 1 clinical study of STM 434 for ovarian cancer and other solid tumors in 2014. We have five additional molecularly targeted product candidates that modulate the TGF-ß pathway in preclinical development. Our T-cell product candidates arise from a platform technology designed to produce off-the-shelf, partially human leukocyte antigen matched cellular therapeutics. We licensed these product candidates from MSK in June 2015. Our initial T-cell product candidates target viral- or cancer-specific antigens and are designed to harness the body’s immune system to counteract specific viral infections and cancers. Our most advanced T-cell product candidate, EBV-CTL, is in Phase 2 clinical trials for malignancies associated with Epstein-Barr Virus, including EBV-associated lymphoproliferative diseases, or EBV-LPD. EBV-LPD is a cancer affecting some patients who have received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, or HCT, or a solid organ transplant, or SOT, or are otherwise immunocompromised. In February 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, granted Breakthrough Therapy designation for EBV-CTL in the treatment of rituximab-refractory EBV-LPD after HCT, commonly known as bone marrow transplant. Our second T-cell product candidate, CMV-CTL, is in Phase 2 clinical trials for cytomegalovirus, or CMV, infection that occurs in some patients who have received an HCT, SOT, or are otherwise immunocompromised. Our third T-cell product candidate, WT1-CTL, targets cancers expressing the antigen Wilms Tumor 1 and is currently in Phase 1 clinical studies. We intend to license or acquire additional product candidates to develop and commercialize.

Our current product candidate portfolio was acquired through licensing arrangements with Amgen and MSK in exchange for convertible preferred stock, common stock and future milestone payments and royalties. Through these arrangements, we obtained licenses to patent rights and the ability to use certain proprietary know-how to develop and commercialize our portfolio of product candidates.  We are responsible for obtaining all regulatory approvals and developing commercial scale manufacturing processes to enable eventual commercialization of these product candidates.

We have only a limited operating history. Since our inception in 2012, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to identify, acquire and develop our product candidates, including conducting preclinical and clinical studies and providing general and administrative support for these operations.

In February 2015, we completed a follow-on public offering of 4,417,358 shares of common stock at an offering price of $18.00 per share.  We received net proceeds of approximately $69.5 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

In July 2015, we completed a follow-on public offering of 3,980,768 shares of common stock at an offering price of $52.00 per share.  We received net proceeds of approximately $193.9 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

We have never generated revenues and have incurred net losses since inception. Our net loss was $24.1 million for the six months ending June 30, 2015 and as of June 30, 2015, we had an accumulated deficit of $65.0 million. Substantially all of our net losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative expenses associated with our operations. Our cash and cash equivalents and short-term available-for-sale investment balances at June 30, 2015 totaled $155.0 million, which we intend to use to fund our operations.

15

Financial Overview

Basis of Presentation and Recapitalization

Atara was formed as a management company with the sole purpose of providing management, financial and administrative services for Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. Since inception, Atara, Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria have been under common management and common ownership for all periods and as of all dates prior to our recapitalization on March 31, 2014, we have presented the results of operations and financial condition of the four companies on a combined basis. The combined financial statements include the accounts of the four individual companies since inception, with intercompany transactions eliminated.

On March 31, 2014, we implemented a recapitalization in which (a) all the outstanding shares of common stock of Atara were cancelled and forfeited by existing stockholders and (b) the stockholders of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria exchanged their existing common and convertible preferred stock for newly-issued shares of Atara, in the same proportions and with the same rights and privileges as the outstanding capital stock of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria, on a collective nine-for-one basis. Atara assumed the separate equity incentive plans sponsored by Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria and all outstanding RSUs and restricted stock awards granted under such plans. At the time of RSU settlement, each employee or consultant will receive one share of common stock of Atara for three RSUs in each of Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria (collectively, a nine-for-one exchange). We refer to this transaction as our recapitalization. As a result of the recapitalization, Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria became wholly owned subsidiaries of Atara effective March 31, 2014. The recapitalization was accounted for as a combination of businesses under common control and the assets and liabilities of Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria were recorded by Atara at their historical carrying amounts on March 31, 2014. Beginning March 31, 2014, our financial statements are presented on a consolidated basis. Except as otherwise noted, all share and per share amounts presented in this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” give effect to the recapitalization.

Revenues

To date, we have not generated any revenues. We do not expect to receive any revenues from any product candidates that we develop until we obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our products or enter into collaborative agreements with third parties.

Research and Development Expenses

The largest component of our total operating expenses since inception has been our investment in research and development activities, including the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates. Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred in performing research and development activities, including compensation and benefits for research and development employees, including stock-based compensation, an allocation of facility and overhead expenses, expenses incurred under agreements with contract research organizations and investigative sites that conduct clinical trials and preclinical studies, the costs of acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials and other supplies and costs associated with product development efforts, preclinical activities and regulatory operations. Research and development costs are expensed as incurred.

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

In addition, we believe it is important to invest in the development of new product candidates to continue to build the value of our product candidate pipeline and our business. We plan to continue to advance our most promising early product candidates into preclinical development with the objective to advance these early-stage programs to human clinical studies over the next several years.

16

Our expenditures on current and future preclinical and clinical development programs are subject to numerous uncertainties in timing and cost to completion. The duration, costs, and timing of clinical trials and development of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including:

The process of conducting the necessary clinical research to obtain FDA approval is costly and time consuming and the successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs, allocated facilities costs and other expenses for outside professional services, including legal, human resources, audit and accounting services. Personnel costs consist of salaries, benefits and stock-based compensation. We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will continue to increase in the future as we increase our headcount to support our continued research and development and potential commercialization of our product candidates.

Interest and Other Income

Interest and other income consists primarily of interest earned on our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as well as interest on notes receivable issued to one of our employees related to the purchase of restricted common stock.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations are based upon our unaudited condensed consolidated and combined financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these condensed consolidated and combined financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, and expenses. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our critical accounting policies and estimates. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable in the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions and conditions. Our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 of the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated and combined financial statements and in Note 2 to our audited consolidated and combined financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Emerging Growth Company Status

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act, and therefore we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various public company reporting requirements. As an “emerging growth company”:

17

However, we are choosing to irrevocably opt out of the extended transition periods available under the JOBS Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. We will remain an “emerging growth company” for up to five years, although we will cease to be an “emerging growth company” upon the earliest of: (1) December 31, 2019; (2) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues are $1 billion or more; (3) the date on which we have, during the previous rolling three-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt securities; and (4) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Three Months Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses consisted of the following costs by program:

PINTA 745 program costs increased by $0.8 million in 2015 compared to 2014 due to increased clinical development and production costs to support our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial that commenced during the fourth quarter of 2013.  We anticipate that PINTA 745 costs will continue to increase in 2015 as we incur additional costs to manufacture future clinical drug supply to support our ongoing and future clinical trials.

STM 434 program costs decreased by $1.2 million in 2015 as compared to the prior period primarily due to a $1.0 million license payment to Amgen made in the second quarter of 2014.  In addition, we incurred higher outside production costs in 2014 to manufacture clinical drug supply for our Phase 1 clinical study that commenced in the second half of 2014.  We anticipate that STM 434 costs will increase in the second half of 2015 due to the timing of manufacturing costs associated with the production of additional clinical drug supply and continued enrollment of our ongoing clinical trial.

ATA 842 and other pipeline program costs increased by $1.8 million in 2015 as compared to 2014 primarily due to preclinical development and production activities.

T-cell therapy program costs increased by $4.6 million in 2015 due to the June 2015 exercise of our option to license T-cell therapies from MSK.  In connection with the execution of the license agreement, we agreed to make an upfront cash payment of $4.5 million to MSK and this amount has been recorded as research and development expense in the second quarter of 2015.

Employee and overhead costs increased by $2.4 million in 2015 as compared to 2014 primarily as a result of a $1.1 million increase in stock-based compensation and a $0.9 increase in payroll-related costs driven by increased headcount.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses increased $2.2 million in 2015 as compared to 2014 primarily due to a $0.9 million increase in stock-based compensation. Higher legal expenses, payroll-related costs driven by increased headcount and other outside services also contributed to the increase in general and administrative expenses.  

18

Comparison of the Six Months Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses consisted of the following costs by program:

PINTA 745 program costs increased by $1.8 million in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to increased clinical development and production costs to support our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial that commenced during the fourth quarter of 2013.  We anticipate that PINTA 745 costs will continue to increase in 2015 as we incur additional costs to manufacture future clinical drug supply to support our ongoing and future clinical trials.

STM 434 program costs decreased by $1.9 million in 2015 as compared to the prior period due to a $1.0 million license payment to Amgen made in the second quarter of 2014.  In addition, we incurred higher outside production costs in 2014 to manufacture clinical drug supply for our Phase 1 clinical study that commenced in the second half of 2014.  We anticipate that STM 434 costs will increase in the second half of 2015 due to the timing of manufacturing costs associated with the production of additional clinical drug supply and continued enrollment of our ongoing clinical trial.

ATA 842 and other pipeline program costs increased by $2.7 million in 2015 as compared to 2014 primarily due to preclinical development and production activities.

T-cell therapy program costs increased by $4.7 million in 2015 due to the June 2015 exercise of our option to license T-cell therapies from MSK.  In connection with the execution of the license agreement, we agreed to make an upfront cash payment of $4.5 million to MSK and this amount has been recorded as research and development expense in the second quarter of 2015.

Employee and overhead costs increased by $3.8 million in 2015 as compared to 2014 primarily as a result of a $1.7 million increase in stock-based compensation and a $1.4 million increase in payroll-related costs driven by increased headcount.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses increased by $1.7 million in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to higher payroll-related costs driven by increased headcount, higher legal costs and higher director and officer insurance premiums.  This increase was partially offset by a $0.5 million decrease in stock-based compensation due to our use of accelerated graded vesting for compensation expense associated with restricted stock awards, which resulted in higher expenses in the early periods.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We have incurred cumulative losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception in 2012, and we had an accumulated deficit of $65.0 million as of June 30, 2015. It will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization, and we anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for at least the next several years. We expect that our research and development and general and administrative expenses will continue to increase and, as a result, we will need additional capital to fund our operations, which we may raise through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements.

19

Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested in accordance with our investment policy, primarily with a view to liquidity and capital preservation. Currently, our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments are held in bank and custodial accounts and consist of money market mutual funds, corporate bonds and commercial paper.  Management expects that existing cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2015 will be sufficient to fund our current operating plan for at least the next twelve months.

Beginning May 15, 2015 and quarterly thereafter, vested restricted stock units have been settled on a quarterly basis.  We collect payroll taxes based on the fair value of these awards by withholding a pro-rata amount of shares equivalent to the employee’s tax obligation. In the second quarter of 2015, the total payroll taxes collected and remitted on restricted stock settlements was $4.4 million.  We expect the amounts in 2016 and beyond to decrease, as the number of vested and settled RSUs decreases.

Working capital was $149.0 million as of June 30, 2015 and included in working capital were cash, cash equivalents, and short-term available-for-sale investments of $155.0 million.

Our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments balances were as follows:

Cash Flows

Comparison of the Six Months Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014

The following table details the primary sources and uses of cash for each of the periods set forth below:

Operating activities

For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, we used $12.9 million and $7.6 million, respectively, of net cash in operating activities. The $5.3 million increase in cash used in operating activities was primarily due to the $12.5 million increase in net loss, partially offset by the $4.5 million accrual related to our June 2015 license agreement with MSK and a $1.2 million increase in stock-based compensation expense.

Investing activities

Net cash used in investing activities during the six months ended June 30, 2015 consisted primarily of $111.3 million invested in short-term available-for-sale investments, offset by maturities of $63.4 million.  Net cash used in investing activities during the six months ended June 30, 2014 consisted primarily of $25.0 million invested in short-term available-for-sale investments.

Financing activities

Net cash provided by financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2015 was $65.0 million, consisting primarily of $69.5 million proceeds from the sale of common stock, net of offering costs.  These net proceeds were offset by $4.5 million used to pay taxes related to the net share settlement of restricted stock units in the second quarter of 2015. Net cash provided by financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2014 was $12.7 million, consisting primarily of the $13.5 million proceeds from the sale of shares of Series B convertible preferred stock, net of offering costs.

20

Operating Capital Requirements and Plan of Operations

To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales. We do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue from product sales. We do not expect to generate significant revenue from product sales unless and until we obtain regulatory approval of and commercialize one of our current or future product candidates. We anticipate that we will continue to generate losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect the losses to increase as we continue the development of and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates, and begin to commercialize any approved products. We are subject to all of the risks inherent in the development of new products, and we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company and we anticipate that we will need substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations.

We expect that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to enable us to complete planned preclinical and clinical trials for our lead product candidates through the second half of 2018. In order to complete the process of obtaining regulatory approval for our lead product candidates and to build the sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure that we believe will be necessary to commercialize our lead product candidates, if approved, we will require substantial additional funding.

We have based our projections of operating capital requirements on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect and we may use all of our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with research, development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products, we are unable to estimate the exact amount of our operating capital requirements. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Contractual Obligations and Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

During the six months ended June 30, 2015, there were no material changes to our contractual obligations reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined in the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

During the six months ended June 30, 2015, there were no material changes to our market risk disclosures reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

21

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Under the supervision of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) of the Exchange Act as of June 30, 2015.  Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of June 30, 2015 to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely discussion regarding required disclosure.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There have been no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting during the six months ended June 30, 2015 that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, believes that our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and are effective at the reasonable assurance level. However, our management does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by the collusion of two or more people or by management override of controls. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

22

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

We are not currently party to any material litigation or other material legal proceedings.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Risk factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider all of the risk factors and uncertainties described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including the section of this report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated and combined financial statements and related notes, before investing in our common stock.  If any of the following risks materialize, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be seriously harmed.  In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or a part of your investment.  

Risks Related to Our Financial Results and Capital Needs

We have incurred substantial losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial and increasing losses for the foreseeable future.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that a product candidate will fail to prove effective, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We do not have any products approved by regulatory authorities and have not generated any revenues from product sales to date, and have incurred significant research, development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations and expect to continue to incur such expenses. As a result, we have not been profitable and have incurred significant operating losses in every reporting period since our inception. For the six months ended June 30, 2015, we reported a net loss of $24.1 million and we had an accumulated deficit of $65.0 million at June 30, 2015.

We do not expect to generate revenues for many years, if at all. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate these losses to increase as we continue to research, develop and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and any additional product candidates we may acquire, and potentially begin to commercialize product candidates that may achieve regulatory approval. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues. If any of our product candidates fails in clinical trials or does not gain regulatory approval, or if approved, fails to achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. We anticipate that our expenses will increase in the future as we continue to invest in research and development of our existing product candidates, investigate and potentially acquire new product candidates and expand our manufacturing and commercialization activities.

We have a limited operating history, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our company was formed in August 2012. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring product and technology rights and conducting product development activities for our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization for any of our product candidates. In addition, the adoptive immunotherapy technology underlying our T-cell product candidates, EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL, is new and largely unproven. Any predictions about our future success, performance or viability, particularly in view of the rapidly evolving cancer immunotherapy field, may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or approved products on the market.

In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition. We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

23

We currently have no source of revenues. We may never generate revenues or achieve profitability.

To date, we have not generated any revenues from product sales or otherwise. Even if we are able to successfully achieve regulatory approval for our product candidates, we do not know when we will generate revenues or become profitable, if at all. Our ability to generate revenues from product sales and achieve profitability will depend on our ability to commercialize products, including any of our current product candidates, and other product candidates that we may develop, in-license or acquire in the future. Our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability also depends on a number of additional factors, including our ability to:

Our revenues for any product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to get reimbursement at any price, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable disease patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, even if approved. In addition, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. As a result, even if we generate revenues, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and may be forced to reduce our operations.

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

We expect to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future continuing the clinical development and manufacturing of PINTA 745, STM 434, EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL and the advancement and expansion of our preclinical research pipeline, including ATA 842. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, potentially acquiring new product candidates or technologies, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials and potentially obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing products, as well as marketing and selling products approved for sale, if any. Under the terms of our license agreements with Amgen and MSK, we are obligated to make an upfront payment to MSK of $4.5 million and additional milestone payments of up to $86.0 million to Amgen and up to $33.0 million to MSK with respect to the three licensed clinical stage T-cell programs upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory approval or commercial milestones. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the design and 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.

24

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, together with the net proceeds from this offering, will be sufficient to fund our projected operating requirements through the second half of 2018. As of June 30, 2015, we had cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $155.0 million. However, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need additional funds sooner than planned. In addition, we may 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. We do not have any committed external source of funds. 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 on a timely basis, 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 our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through private and public equity offerings and debt financings. 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 financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds from third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts for our product candidates, or grant to others the rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

25

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future and we may never achieve profitability. To the extent that we continue to generate taxable losses, unused losses will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. At December 31, 2014, we had federal and state net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards of approximately $20.6 million, which, if not utilized, begin to expire in various amounts beginning in the year 2032. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, if over a rolling three-year period, the cumulative change in our ownership exceeds 50% (as determined under applicable Treasury regulations), our ability to utilize our US NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset future taxable income or taxes may be limited. We have experienced at least one ownership change since inception and our utilization of NOL carryforwards will therefore be subject to annual limitation. Our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards may be further limited as a result of subsequent ownership changes, including potential changes in connection with this offering. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. Further, other provisions of the Code may limit our ability to utilize NOLs incurred before the recapitalization to offset income or gain realized after the recapitalization, unless such income or gain is realized by the same entity that originally incurred such NOLs. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited. Such limitations could result in the expiration of our carryforwards before they can be utilized and, if we are profitable, our future cash flows could be adversely affected due to our increased tax liability.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

We are very early in our development efforts and have only five product candidates in clinical development. All of our other product candidates are still in preclinical development. If we or our collaborators are unable to successfully develop and commercialize product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business may be materially harmed.

We are very early in our development efforts. We have five product candidates, PINTA 745, STM 434, EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL, in clinical development. All of our other product candidates are currently in preclinical development. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in identifying and developing potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies, clinical trials and manufacturing activities. Our ability to generate revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could materially harm our business.

26

Our future success is dependent on the regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We do not have any products that have gained regulatory approval. Currently, our only clinical-stage product candidates are PINTA 745, EBV-CTL and CMV-CTL, which are in Phase 2 clinical trials, and STM 434 and WT1-CTL, which are in Phase 1 clinical studies. Our business is substantially dependent on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, to successfully commercialize our product candidates in a timely manner. We cannot commercialize product candidates in the United States without first obtaining regulatory approval for the product from the FDA; similarly, we cannot commercialize product candidates outside of the United States without obtaining regulatory approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate for a target indication, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence gathered in preclinical and clinical studies, generally including two well-controlled Phase 3 trials, that the product candidate is safe and effective for use for that target indication and that the manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate with respect to such product candidate.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of preclinical studies and clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any future product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval from the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority for many reasons, including:

The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may require more information, including additional preclinical or clinical data to support approval, which may delay or prevent approval and our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development program. If we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request (including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications), may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate.

Even if a product candidate were to successfully obtain approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, any approval might contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for one of our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding to continue the development of that product or generate revenues attributable to that product candidate. Also, any regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn.

27

Our T-cell product candidates, EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL, represent new therapeutic approaches that present significant challenges.

Our future success is dependent in part on the successful development of T-cell immunotherapies in general and our EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL product candidates in particular. Because these programs represent a new approach to immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer and other diseases, developing and commercializing our product candidates subject us to a number of challenges, including:

We cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes used in connection with our T-cell product candidates, EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL, will yield satisfactory products that are safe and effective, scalable or profitable.

Moreover, public perception of therapy safety issues, including adoption of new therapeutics or novel approaches to treatment, may adversely influence the willingness of subjects to participate in clinical trials, or if approved, of physicians to subscribe to the novel treatment mechanics. Physicians, hospitals and third-party payors often are slow to adopt new products, technologies and treatment practices that require additional upfront costs and training. Physicians may not be willing to undergo training to adopt this novel therapy, may decide the therapy is too complex to adopt without appropriate training and may choose not to administer the therapy. Based on these and other factors, hospitals and payors may decide that the benefits of this new therapy do not or will not outweigh its costs.

28

The results of preclinical testing or earlier clinical studies are not necessarily predictive of future results. Our existing product candidates in clinical studies or trials, and any other product candidate we advance into clinical studies or trials, may not have favorable results in later clinical studies or trials or receive regulatory approval.

Success in preclinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of an investigational drug. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after seeing promising results in earlier preclinical studies or clinical studies or trials. Despite the results reported in earlier preclinical studies or clinical studies or trials for our product candidates, we do not know whether the clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety to result in regulatory approval to market PINTA 745, STM 434, EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL or WT1-CTL or any of our other product candidates in any particular jurisdiction. For example, our EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL product candidates have only been evaluated in single-center studies under investigator-sponsored INDs held by MSK, and the findings may not be reproducible in multi-center studies conducted under commercially-sponsored INDs. In addition, the Phase 2 clinical trials with EBV-CTL enrolled a heterogeneous group of patients with a variety of EBV-associated malignancies, including but not limited to EBV-LPD after HCT and EBV-LPD after SOT. These Phase 2 studies were not prospectively designed to evaluate the efficacy of EBV-CTL in the treatment of a single disease state for which we may later seek approval. Efficacy data from prospectively designed studies may differ significantly from those obtained from retrospective subgroup analyses. If later-stage clinical trials do not produce favorable results, our ability to achieve regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be adversely impacted. Even if we believe that we have adequate data to support an application for regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may not agree and may require that we conduct additional clinical trials.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical and clinical studies and early clinical trials.

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical studies or trials and we do not know whether planned clinical studies or trials will begin or enroll subjects on time, will need to be redesigned or will be completed on schedule, if at all. There can be no assurance that the FDA will not put clinical studies or trials of any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. Clinical studies or trials may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated for a variety of reasons, such as:

29

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical studies or trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the severity of the disease under investigation, the proximity of subjects to clinical sites, the patient referral practices of physicians, the eligibility criteria for the study or trial, the design of the clinical study or trial, ability to obtain and maintain patient consents, risk that enrolled subjects will drop out before completion, competing clinical studies or trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages and risks of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. We may not be able to initiate or continue to support clinical trials of PINTA 745, EBV-CTL or CMV-CTL or clinical studies for STM 434 or WT1-CTL or any future product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible participants in these studies or trials as required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical studies or trials, if the pace of enrollment is slower than we expect, the development costs for our product candidates may increase and the completion of our studies may be delayed or our studies or trials could become too expensive to complete. We rely on CROs, other vendors and clinical study or trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical studies and trials, and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance.

If we experience delays in the completion or termination of any clinical study or trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidate will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from such product candidate will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical studies or trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any delays in completing our clinical studies or trials for the product candidates we have licensed from Amgen or MSK may also decrease the period of commercial exclusivity under our corresponding product candidate license from Amgen or MSK. In addition, many of the factors that could cause a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical studies or trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Our product candidates, the methods used to deliver them or their dosage levels may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences following any regulatory approval.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates, their delivery methods or dosage levels could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority. As a result of safety or toxicity issues that we may experience in our clinical studies or trials in the future, we may not receive approval to market any product candidates, which could prevent us from ever generating revenues or achieving profitability. Results of our studies or trials could reveal an unacceptably high severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our studies or trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and future prospects.

30

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including that:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved.

We may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. We have applied for orphan drug status for STM 434 for ovarian cancer and for EBV-CTL for rituximab-refractory EBV-LPD after HCT. In addition, we may seek orphan drug status for EBV-CTL in EBV-LPD after SOT, for CMV-CTL in refractory CMV infection after HCT and for WT1-CTL in AML and multiple myeloma.

Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first regulatory approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a new drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad.

In addition to regulations in the United States, to market and sell our products in the European Union, many Asian countries and other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. We have had no significant interactions with foreign regulatory authorities to date. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. Clinical trials accepted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. In addition, many countries outside the United States require that a product be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. We may not be able to obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market. If we are unable to obtain approval of any of our product candidates by regulatory authorities in the European Union, Asia or elsewhere, the commercial prospects of that product candidate may be significantly diminished, our business prospects could decline and this could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

31

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may still face future development and regulatory difficulties.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, it would be subject to ongoing requirements by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities governing the manufacture, quality control, further development, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, adverse event reporting, safety surveillance, import, export, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and reporting of safety and other post-market information. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance by our contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and CROs for any post-approval clinical trials that we conduct. For example, if labeling is ultimately approved for PINTA 745, it will likely include restrictions on use due to the specific patient population and manner of use in which the product candidate was evaluated and the safety and efficacy data obtained in those evaluations. In addition, PINTA 745 may be required to include a boxed warning, or “black box,” regarding PINTA 745 being teratogenic, or causing fetal or embryotic malformations, in animal studies. The safety profile of any product will continue to be closely monitored by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities after approval. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities become aware of new safety information after approval of any of our product candidates, they may require labeling changes or establishment of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance.

In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, current Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, current good tissue practices, or GTPs, and other regulations. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. If we, our product candidates or the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our products and generate revenues.

Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the United States will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the DOJ, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. Additionally, advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For example, in the event PINTA 745 obtains regulatory approval, we believe these authorities will closely monitor the use of this product candidate to determine whether it is being used impermissibly as a muscle-builder by athletes and others. Violations, including actual or alleged promotion of our products for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with labeling and promotion requirements may have a negative impact on our business.

32

In the United States, engaging in impermissible promotion of our products for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines and agreements that would materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute our drug products. These false claims statutes include the federal False Claims Act, which allows any individual to bring a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the federal government alleging submission of false or fraudulent claims, or causing to present such false or fraudulent claims, for payment by a federal program such as Medicare or Medicaid. If the government prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in any fines or settlement funds. Since 2004, these False Claims Act lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements based on certain sales practices promoting off-label drug uses. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a pharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we are not successful in defending against such actions, those actions could compromise our ability to become profitable or adversely affect our ability to operate our business.

We are subject to a multitude of manufacturing risks, any of which could substantially increase our costs and limit supply of our product candidates.

Concurrent with the license of our existing product candidates, we acquired manufacturing process know-how and certain intermediates, as well as certain supplies intended for clinical use, from Amgen and MSK. We are in the process of planning for the manufacture of additional drug substance and drug product for our preclinical and clinical studies using the know-how and supplies we received from Amgen and MSK. Our CMOs will need to conduct significant development work to prepare each of our product candidates for studies, trials and commercial readiness.

The processes by which our product candidates are manufactured were initially developed by Amgen and MSK for clinical purposes. We intend to evolve these existing processes for more advanced clinical trials or commercialization. Developing commercially viable manufacturing processes is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lost consistency and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. The manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates will be made could be adversely affected by earthquakes and other natural disasters, equipment failures, labor shortages, power failures, and numerous other factors.

Additionally, the process of manufacturing biologics and cellular therapies is complex, highly regulated and subject to several risks, including but not limited to:

Any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, withdrawals or recalls or other interruptions in the supply of our drug substance and drug product. We may also have to write off inventory, incur other charges and expenses for supply of drug product that fails to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts, or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Inability to meet the demand for our products could damage our reputation and the reputation of our products among physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical community, including major operators of dialysis and cancer clinics, which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

33

We may not successfully identify, acquire, develop or commercialize new potential product candidates.

Part of our business strategy is to expand our product candidate pipeline by identifying and validating new product candidates, which we may develop ourselves, in-license or otherwise acquire from others. In addition, in the event that our existing product candidates do not receive regulatory approval or are not successfully commercialized, then the success of our business will depend on our ability to expand our product pipeline through in-licensing or other acquisitions. We may be unable to identify relevant product candidates. If we do identify such product candidates, we may be unable to reach acceptable terms with any third party from which we desire to in-license or acquire them.

We may not realize the benefits of strategic alliances that we may form in the future.

We may form strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. These relationships, or those like them, may require us to incur nonrecurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic alliances and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic alliance or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If we license products or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenues or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new strategic alliances agreements related to our product candidates could also delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical and clinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, or if we lose any of our CROs, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis, if at all.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third-party CROs and contractors to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. For example, our collaborating investigators at MSK manage the conduct of the ongoing clinical studies and trials of EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL as well as perform the analysis, publication and presentation of data and results related to these programs. We are also relying on CROs to perform similar services for our ongoing clinical trial of PINTA 745 and clinical study of STM 434. We have also relied on studies previously conducted by Amgen and MSK. We rely on these parties for the execution of our preclinical and clinical trials, and we control only some aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We also rely on third parties to assist in conducting our preclinical studies in accordance with Good Laboratory Practices, or GLP, and the Animal Welfare Act requirements. We and our CROs are required to comply with federal regulations, GCP, which are international standards meant to protect the rights and health of patients that are enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development, and cGTP, which are standards designed to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable diseases. Regulatory authorities enforce GCP and cGTP through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP or cGTP, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our regulatory applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP or cGTP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP requirements. We are also required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, clinicaltrials.gov, within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat preclinical and clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and result in adverse publicity.

34

Our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources, including experienced staff, to our ongoing clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. They may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. For example, there was an error in the randomization of patients and inventory distribution to our clinical sites for our Phase 2 clinical trial for PINTA 745, resulting in the unblinding of the initial six patients and a restart of the trial. CRO or contractor errors could cause our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates to be harmed, our costs to increase and our ability to generate revenues to be delayed.

Our internal capacity for clinical trial execution and management is limited and therefore we have relied on third parties. Outsourcing these functions involves risk that third parties may not perform to our standards, may not produce results or data in a timely manner or may fail to perform at all. For example, in July 2014, we became aware of a draft report for a preclinical study conducted with STM 217, a compound similar to STM 434 that we also licensed from Amgen. Results from this study led to the amendment of our planned clinical trial for STM 434. Other data from studies previously conducted by Amgen or MSK may emerge in the future. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated. We currently have a small number of employees, which limits the internal resources we have available to identify and monitor our third-party providers. To the extent we are unable to identify and successfully manage the performance of third-party service providers in the future, our business may be adversely affected. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

Our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated. Identifying, qualifying and managing performance of third-party service providers can be difficult, time consuming and cause delays in our development programs. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work and the new CRO may not provide the same type or level of services as the original provider. If any of our relationships with our third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms.

35

We have no experience manufacturing our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale and have no manufacturing facility. We are dependent on third parties for the manufacturing of our product candidates and our supply chain, and if we experience problems with any of these third parties, the manufacturing of our product candidates could be delayed.

We do not own or operate facilities for the manufacturing of our product candidates. We currently have no commitments to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We currently rely on single source CMOs for the production of the product candidates we have licensed from Amgen and on single source suppliers of some of the materials incorporated in these product candidates. In the case of EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL, we rely on MSK for the production of these product candidates and acquisition of the materials incorporated in these product candidates. To meet our projected needs for clinical supplies to support our activities through regulatory approval and commercial manufacturing of PINTA 745, STM 434 and the other product candidates we have licensed from Amgen, the CMOs with whom we currently work will need to increase the scale of production and demonstrate comparability of the material produced by these CMOs to the material that was previously produced by Amgen. To meet our projected needs for clinical and commercial materials to support our activities through regulatory approval and commercial manufacturing of EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL, we will need to transition the manufacturing of such materials to a CMO or our own facility, and such CMOs or we will need develop relationships with suppliers of critical starting materials, increase the scale of production and demonstrate comparability of the material produced at these facilities to the material that was previously produced by MSK. Moreover, we will need to transfer the manufacturing know-how developed by and housed at MSK.  If we are not able to successfully transfer this know-how our ability to manufacture EBV-CMV, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL may be negatively impacted. We need to identify CMOs for the production of EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL and may need to identify additional CMOs for continued production of supply for all of our product candidates. In addition, given the manufacturing process for our T-cell product candidates, the number of CMOs who possess the requisite skill and capability to manufacture our T-cell product candidates is limited. We have not yet identified alternate suppliers in the event the current CMOs that we utilize are unable to scale production, or if we otherwise experience any problems with them. Manufacturing biologic drugs is complicated and tightly regulated by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities around the world, and although alternative third-party suppliers with the necessary manufacturing and regulatory expertise and facilities exist, it could be expensive and take a significant amount of time to arrange for alternative suppliers, transfer manufacturing procedures to these alternative suppliers, and demonstrate comparability of material produced by such new suppliers. New manufacturers of any product would be required to qualify under applicable regulatory requirements. These manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our compounds at costs, or in quantities, or in a timely manner necessary to complete development of our product candidates or make commercially successful products. If we are unable to arrange for alternative third-party manufacturing sources, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner, we may not be able to complete development of our product candidates, or market or distribute them. In addition, should the FDA not agree with our physical quality specifications and comparability assessments for these materials, further clinical development of our product candidate could be substantially delayed and we would incur substantial additional expenses.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates ourselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility that the third-party manufacturer does not maintain the financial resources to meet its obligations under the manufacturing agreement, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control, including a failure to synthesize and manufacture our product candidates or any products we may eventually commercialize in accordance with our specifications, misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how, and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our product candidates and any products that we may eventually commercialize be manufactured according to GMP, and GTP-and similar foreign standards. These requirements include, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation. The FDA or similar foreign regulatory agencies may also implement new standards at any time, or change their interpretations and enforcement of existing standards for manufacture, packaging or testing of products. We have little control over our manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards. Any failure by our third-party manufacturers to comply with GMP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of product candidates in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of any of our product candidates. In addition, such failure could be the basis for the FDA to issue a warning letter, withdraw approvals for product candidates previously granted to us, or take other regulatory or legal action, including recall or seizure of outside supplies of the product candidate, total or partial suspension of production, suspension of ongoing clinical trials, refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, detention or product, refusal to permit the import or export of products, injunction or imposing civil and criminal penalties.

Any significant disruption in our supplier relationships could harm our business. Any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate or its key materials for an ongoing clinical study could considerably delay completion of our clinical studies, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these key materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial launch of our product candidates could be delayed or there could be a shortage in supply, which could impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates.

36

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our product candidates, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection is not sufficiently broad, our ability to commercialize our product candidates successfully and to compete effectively may be adversely affected.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technology and product candidates. For our two most advanced molecularly targeted product candidates, PINTA 745 and STM 434, we own or license a number of issued patents and pending patent applications covering the product candidates’ compositions of matter and methods of use. For PINTA 745, the expected expiration dates range from 2026 to 2035 for US patents and patent applications, if issued, and from 2023 to 2035 for patents and patent applications, if issued, in jurisdictions outside the United States, exclusive of possible patent term extensions. For STM 434, the expected expiration dates range from 2027 through 2035 for US patents and patent applications, if issued, and from 2026 through 2035 for patents and patent applications, if issued, in jurisdictions outside the United States, exclusive of possible patent term extensions. The T-cell product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from MSK are protected primarily as confidential know-how and trade secrets. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. The patentability of inventions and the validity, enforceability and scope of patents in the biotechnology field is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal, scientific and factual considerations, and it has in recent years been the subject of significant litigation. Moreover, the standards applied by the US Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and non-US 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.

Consequently, 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 for many reasons. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. We may be unaware of prior art that could be used to invalidate an issued patent or prevent our pending patent applications from issuing as patents. There also may be prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim of one of our patents or patent applications, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of such claim.

Even if patents have issued or do successfully issue from patent applications, and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held to be unenforceable. No assurance can be given that if challenged, our patents would be declared by a court to be valid or enforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. The possibility exists that others will develop products on an independent basis which have the same effect as our product candidates and which do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights, or that others will design around the claims of patents that we have had issued that cover our product candidates. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold, license or pursue with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could threaten our ability to commercialize our product candidates. In addition, the USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Any of these outcomes could have an adverse impact on our business.

37

If patent applications that we hold or in-license with respect to our technology or 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 have recently filed several patent applications covering our product candidates. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will be issued with respect to these pending patent applications, the breadth of any such patents, whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Any successful challenge to these patents or any other patents owned by or exclusively licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidate that we or our collaborators may develop. Because 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 we were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by the USPTO or a third party to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. Similarly, we could become involved in derivation proceedings before the USPTO to determine inventorship with respect to our patent applications. We may also become involved in similar opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office or counterpart offices in other jurisdictions regarding our intellectual property rights. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent generally occurs 20 years after it is filed. Although various extensions may be available if certain conditions are met, the life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. If we encounter delays in our clinical trials or in obtaining regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could exclusively market any of our product candidates under patent protection, if approved, could be reduced. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be vulnerable to competition from biosimilar products. Any loss of 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 or identical to our product candidates, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability.

Furthermore, the research resulting in certain of our licensed patent rights and technology was funded by the US government. As a result, the government may have certain rights, or march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for non-commercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations or to give preference to US industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of such rights could harm our competitive position, business, results of operations, financial condition and future prospects.

If we are sued for infringing the intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could be costly and time-consuming and could prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on us and our collaborators not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interference or derivation proceedings, oppositions, inter partes reexamination and review proceedings before the USPTO and corresponding non-US patent offices. Numerous US and non-US 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 third parties’ patent rights as it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform or predictable.

38

Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights, alleging that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacturing of our product candidates that we failed to identify. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000, and certain 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 date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge. In addition, pending patent applications that have been published, including some of which we are aware, could be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or their use or manufacture. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities and believe that we are free to operate in relation to any of our product candidates, but our competitors may obtain issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, which may block our efforts or potentially result in any of our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products and methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted, which could have a material adverse effect on us. If any issued third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the relevant product candidate until such patent expired. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonably terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property licensed to us. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product candidate, or be 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. This could harm our business significantly.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. 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. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent, or to redesign our infringing product candidates which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We may also elect to enter into license agreements in order to settle patent infringement claims prior to litigation, and any such license agreement may require us to pay royalties and other fees that could be significant.

We may face claims that we misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of a 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, which could limit our ability to develop our product candidates. We are not aware of any material threatened or pending claims related to these matters, but in the future litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. 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, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our common stock may decline.

39

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

Filing, prosecuting, enforcing and defending patents on all of our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Our or our licensors’ intellectual property rights in certain countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our and our licensors’ inventions in countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing infringing products made using our and our licensors’ inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our and our licensors’ 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 and our licensors have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These infringing products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we or our licensors have no issued patents and our patent claims and other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us and our licensors to stop the infringement of our and our licensors’ patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our and our licensors’ proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our and our licensors’ patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our attention from other aspects of our business, could put our and our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our and our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors. We or our licensors may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate, and even if we or our licensors are successful the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

We have in-licensed a significant portion of our intellectual property from Amgen and MSK. If we breach any of our license agreements with Amgen or MSK, we could lose the ability to continue the development and potential commercialization of one or more of our product candidates.

We hold rights under a number of license agreements with Amgen and MSK that are important to our business. Our discovery and development platform is built, in part, around patent rights exclusively in-licensed from Amgen and MSK. The Amgen agreements generally grant us an exclusive (except as to the licenses to Amgen know-how, which are non-exclusive and limited as to their field of use), worldwide (except with regard to PINTA 745 in Japan, which was previously licensed to Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited) license to research, develop, improve, make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, export or otherwise exploit several classes of novel compounds, including PINTA 745 and STM 434. The MSK agreement generally grants us an exclusive license to research, develop, make, use, offer for sale, sell and import, EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL. Under our existing Amgen and MSK license agreements, we are subject to various obligations, including diligence obligations with respect to development and commercialization activities, payment obligations upon achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales, as well as other material obligations. If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of nonperformance between us and Amgen or MSK regarding our rights or obligations under the license agreements, including any such conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to satisfy diligence or payment obligations under any such agreement, we may be liable to pay damages and Amgen or MSK may have a right to terminate the affected license. The loss of any or all of our license agreements with Amgen or our license agreement with MSK could materially adversely affect our ability to proceed to utilize the affected intellectual property in our drug discovery and development efforts, our ability to enter into future collaboration, licensing and/or marketing agreements for one or more affected product candidates and our ability to commercialize the affected product candidates. The risks described elsewhere pertaining to our patents and other intellectual property rights also apply to the intellectual property rights that we license, and any failure by us or our licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce these rights could have a material adverse effect on our business.

40

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful and have a material adverse effect on the success of our business and on our stock price.

Third parties may infringe our patents, the patents of our licensors, or misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensors’ intellectual property rights. Our and our licensors’ patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. In the future, we or our licensors may elect to initiate legal proceedings to enforce or defend our or our licensors’ intellectual property rights, to protect our or our licensors’ trade secrets or to determine the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. Any claims that we assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights. In addition, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us or our licensors to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. The proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming. Many of our or our licensors’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors can. Accordingly, despite our or our licensors’ efforts, we or our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect our rights as fully as in the United States. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned by or licensed to us is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly.

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties, brought by us or our licensors or collaborators, or brought by the USPTO or any non-US patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions or other matters of inventorship with respect to our patents or patent applications. We may also become involved in other proceedings, such as reexamination or opposition proceedings, inter partes review or other preissuance or post-grant proceedings in the USPTO or its foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceeding could require us or our licensors to cease using the related technology and commercializing our product candidates, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors a license on commercially reasonable terms if any license is offered at all. Even if we or our licensors obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our or our licensors’ patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Even if we successfully defend such litigation or proceeding, we may incur substantial costs and it may distract our management and other employees. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent.

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. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of shares of our common stock.

Changes in patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain. The Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our and our licensors’ ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Depending on future decisions by the US Congress, or Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may weaken our and our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents and patents we and our licensors or collaborators may obtain in the future.

41

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to US patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and other proprietary information, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected and our business could be harmed.

In addition to seeking the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and other elements of our technology, discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. The T-cell product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from MSK are protected primarily as confidential know-how and trade secrets. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, including by enabling them to develop and commercialize products substantially similar to or competitive with our EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL or WT1 product candidates, thus eroding our competitive position in the market. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and outside scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific advisors might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secrets or confidential, proprietary information to competitors. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. If any of our confidential proprietary information were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position.

Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights such as trade secrets to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets to third parties could impair our competitive advantage in the market and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and major operators of dialysis and cancer clinics.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates that we may develop or acquire in the future, the product may not gain market acceptance among physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical community, including major operators of dialysis and cancer clinics. Market acceptance of any of our product candidates for which we receive approval depends on a number of factors, including:

42

If any of our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors or major operators of dialysis and cancer clinics, we will not be able to generate significant revenues, which would compromise our ability to become profitable. In particular, the dialysis industry is dominated by two companies, DaVita Healthcare Partners and Fresenius. In the event PINTA 745 fails to be accepted by either of these companies, our ability to generate revenues from PINTA 745 and become profitable could be adversely affected.

Even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, the products may not receive coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors in the United States and in other countries in which we seek to commercialize our products, which could harm our business.

Our ability to commercialize any product successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations.

Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, determine which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the healthcare industry is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors may also seek additional clinical evidence, beyond the data required to obtain regulatory approval, demonstrating clinical benefits and value in specific patient populations before covering our products for those patients. We cannot be sure that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain regulatory approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain regulatory approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors in the United States often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Recently enacted and future legislation, including potentially unfavorable pricing regulations or other healthcare reform initiatives, may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain regulatory approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

The regulations that govern, among other things, regulatory approvals, coverage, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to successfully sell any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval.

43

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or Medicare Modernization Act, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician- administered drugs. In particular, all Medicare payments for dialysis treatments to ESRD patients are now made under a single bundled payment rate that provides a fixed payment rate to encompass all goods and services provided during the dialysis treatment, including pharmaceuticals that were historically separately reimbursed to the dialysis providers, irrespective of the level of pharmaceuticals administered or additional services performed. Most lab services that used to be paid directly to laboratories are also included in the bundled payment. Unless we are able to secure an exemption, PINTA 745 may be subject to the bundled payment system. In recent years, Congress has considered further reductions in Medicare reimbursement for drugs administered by physicians. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency that runs the Medicare program, also has the authority to revise reimbursement rates, including under the bundled payment system, and to implement coverage restrictions for some drugs. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products, which in turn would affect the price we can receive for those products. While the Medicare Modernization Act and Medicare regulations apply only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from federal legislation or regulation may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, or the Affordable Care Act, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and impose additional health policy reforms. The Affordable Care Act expanded manufacturers’ rebate liability to include covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, increased the minimum rebate due for innovator drugs from 15.1% of average manufacturer price, or AMP, to 23.1% of AMP, and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100% of AMP. The Affordable Care Act and subsequent legislation also changed the definition of AMP. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act imposes a significant annual, nondeductible fee on companies that manufacture or import certain branded prescription drug products. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance have also been enacted, which may affect our business practices with healthcare practitioners, and a significant number of provisions are not yet, or have only recently become, effective. Although it is too early to determine the effect of the Affordable Care Act, it appears likely to continue the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. More recently, in August 2011, the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, creates the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, starting in 2013. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In March 2013, the President signed an executive order implementing sequestration, and in April 2013, the 2% Medicare reductions went into effect. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the regulatory approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be.

In the United States, the European Union and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which has resulted in lower average selling prices. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the European Union will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

44

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

In some countries, particularly member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on 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 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 prices. In some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. 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 face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

We face competition from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions for our current product candidates. Our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Competition could result in reduced sales and pricing pressure on our product candidates, if approved, which in turn would reduce our ability to generate meaningful revenues and have a negative impact on our results of operations. In addition, significant delays in the development of our product candidates could allow our competitors to bring products to market before us and impair any ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Products are currently marketed or used off-label for the muscle wasting-related indications for which the products in our pipeline are being developed, and a number of companies are or may be developing new treatments for muscle wasting indications. These products, as well as promotional efforts by competitors and clinical trial results of competitive products, could significantly diminish any ability to market and sell PINTA 745 and other product candidates focused on muscle wasting-related indications. Today’s treatment for protein-energy wasting and cancer cachexia often involves the administration of readily available nutritional supplements and appetite stimulants including, in some jurisdictions, medical marijuana. In addition, there are two commercially available steroids, nandrolone and oxandrolone, that are sometimes prescribed off-label for the treatment of weight loss in cancer patients. A number of companies are developing drug candidates for muscle wasting applications, including, but not limited to: Eli Lilly & Co., which is conducting Phase 1 clinical studies and Phase 2 clinical trials for LY2495655, and Pfizer Inc., which is conducting Phase 1 clinical studies for PF-06252616, both of which are myostatin antibodies, to evaluate their ability to increase and improve muscle mass in various patient populations; Novartis Corporation, which is conducting Phase 1 clinical studies and Phase 2 clinical trials for BYM338, an ActR2B antibody, to evaluate its ability to build muscle in patients with various muscle-wasting conditions; Ligand Pharmaceuticals, which is developing LGD-4033, a selective androgen receptor modulator, for muscle wasting; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is developing REGN1033, a myostatin antibody, in collaboration with Sanofi-Aventis for sarcopenia; Acceleron Pharma, Inc., which is developing ACE-083, a modified cysteine knot ligand trap of the TGF-ß superfamily, for diseases in which improved muscle strength may provide a clinical benefit, such as inclusion body myositis and certain forms of muscular dystrophy; and GTx, Inc., which is developing ostarine, a selective androgen receptor modulator for cachexia.

There are numerous approved products and therapies for ovarian cancer, and a number of companies are or may be developing new treatments for ovarian cancer and other solid tumors. These therapies, as well as promotional efforts by competitors and clinical trial results of competitive products, could significantly diminish any ability to market and sell STM 434. Approved drug therapies for ovarian cancer include: chemotherapy with platinum compounds such as cisplatin or carboplatin and taxane compounds such as paclitaxel or docetaxel; bevacizumab in combination with a chemotherapy compound such as liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel or topotecan; olaparib in patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline breast cancer susceptibility gene, known as BRCA, mutated advanced ovarian cancer who have been treated with three or more prior lines of chemotherapy; and hormone therapies including goserelin, leuprolide, tamoxifen, letrozole, anastrozole and exemestane. A number of companies are developing drug candidates for ovarian cancer and other solid tumors, including, but not limited to Genentech/Roche, which is developing bevacizumab (Avastin) and other potential drug therapies.

There currently are no FDA or EMA approved products for the treatment of EBV-LPD. However, some approved products and therapies are used off-label in the treatment of EBV-LPD, such as rituximab and combination chemotherapy regimens. In addition, a number of companies and academic institutions are developing drug candidates for EBV-LPD and other EBV associated diseases including: Cell Medica Ltd., or Cell Medica, which is conducting Phase 2 clinical studies for Cytorex EBV, an autologous EBV specific T-cell therapy in NK/T-cell lymphoma; Adcyte LLC, or Adcyte, which has licensed multi-virus specific T-cells from Baylor University that are currently in clinical trials sponsored by Baylor and ViraCyte, which has licensed virus specific T-cells from Baylor University that are currently in clinical trials sponsored by Baylor.

45

Drug therapies approved or commonly used for CMV infection include antiviral compounds such as ganciclovir, valganciclovir, cidofovir and foscarnet. In addition, a number of companies and academic institutions are developing drug candidates for CMV infection and other CMV-associated diseases, including: Shire Plc, or Shire, which is conducting Phase 2 clinical trials of maribavir, a UL97 protein kinase inhibitor; Merck & Co. Inc., or Merck, which is conducting Phase 3 clinical trials of letermovir, a CMV terminase inhibitor; Chimerix, Inc., or Chimerix, which is conducting Phase 3 clinical trials for brincidofovir, a lipid conjugated nucleotide analogue of cidofovir; Cell Medica, which is conducting Phase 3 clinical trials for Cytovir CMV, a CMV-specific cell therapy product derived from primary HCT transplant donors; Adcyte, which has licensed multi-virus specific T-cells from Baylor University that are currently in clinical trials sponsored by Baylor and ViraCyte, which has licensed virus specific T-cells from Baylor University that are currently in clinical trials sponsored by Baylor.

Many of the approved or commonly used drugs and therapies for muscle wasting, ovarian cancer, EBV-LPD and CMV are well-established and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and other drugs and nutritional supplements are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that, if any of these product candidates is approved, it will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. This pricing premium may make it difficult for us to differentiate these products from currently approved or commonly used therapies and impede adoption of our product, which may adversely impact our business. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will become as our products continue in clinical development.

Many of our competitors or potential competitors have significantly greater established presence in the market, financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do, and as a result may have a competitive advantage over us. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies and technology licenses complementary to our programs or advantageous to our business.

As a result of these factors, these competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products before we are able to obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights, which will limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are safer, more effective, more widely used and cheaper than ours, and may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. These appreciable advantages could render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive before we can recover the expenses of development and commercialization.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate any revenue.

We do not currently have an organization for the sale, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products and the cost of establishing and maintaining such an organization may exceed the cost-effectiveness of doing so. In order to market any products that may be approved by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we must build our sales, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. There are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. If we are unable to establish adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, whether independently or with third parties, we may not be able to generate product revenues and may not become profitable. We will be competing with many companies that currently have extensive and well-funded sales and marketing operations. Without an internal commercial organization or the support of a third party to perform sales and marketing functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies. If we are not successful in commercializing our current or future product candidates either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we would incur significant additional losses.

46

We will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of June 30, 2015, we had 31 employees. We need to grow the size of our organization in order to support our continued development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. In particular, we will need to add substantial numbers of additional personnel and other resources to support our development and potential commercialization of EBV-CTL, CMV-CTL and WT1-CTL as a result of our recent exercise of our option to license these programs from MSK. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies continue to develop, or as a result of any future acquisitions, our need for additional managerial, operational, manufacturing, sales, marketing, financial and other resources will increase. Our management, personnel and systems currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including: