atra-10k_20171231.htm

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☐

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐ NO ☒

The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing sales price for such stock on June 30, 2017 as reported by The Nasdaq Stock Market, was $271,251,806. This calculation excludes 10,528,420 shares held by executive officers, directors and stockholders that the Registrant has concluded are affiliates of the Registrant. Exclusion of such shares should not be construed to indicate that any such person possesses the power, direct or indirect, to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the registrant or that such person is controlled by or under common control with the Registrant.

The number of outstanding shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock as of February 15, 2018 was 38,825,835.

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report where indicated. Such proxy statement will be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year to which this report relates.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Such forward-looking statements, which represent our intent, belief or current expectations, involve risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. In some cases you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “predict,” “plan,” “expect” or the negative or plural of these words or similar expressions. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, statements about:

These statements are only current predictions and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from those anticipated by the forward-looking statements. We discuss many of these risks in this report in greater detail under the heading “1A. Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risks and uncertainties.

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless the context requires otherwise, “Atara,” “Atara Biotherapeutics,” “Company,” “we,” “our,” and “us” means Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. and, where appropriate, its subsidiaries.

Atara Biotherapeutics is a leading T-cell immunotherapy company developing novel treatments for patients with cancer, autoimmune and viral diseases. The Company's off-the-shelf, or allogeneic, T-cells are bioengineered from donors with healthy immune function and allow for rapid delivery from inventory to patients without a requirement for pretreatment. Atara's T-cell immunotherapies are designed to precisely recognize and eliminate cancerous or diseased cells without affecting normal, healthy cells. Atara's most advanced T-cell immunotherapy in development, tabelecleucel (formerly known as ATA129), is being developed for the treatment of patients with Epstein-Barr virus, or EBV, associated post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder, or EBV+ PTLD, who have failed rituximab, as well as other EBV associated hematologic and solid tumors, including nasopharyngeal carcinoma, or NPC. Off-the-shelf ATA188 and autologous, or patient derived, ATA190, the Company's T-cell immunotherapies using a complementary targeted antigen recognition technology, target specific EBV antigens believed to be important for the potential treatment of multiple sclerosis, or MS. Atara's clinical pipeline also includes ATA520 targeting Wilms Tumor 1, or WT1, and ATA230 directed against cytomegalovirus, or CMV.

Our technology allows for rapid delivery of a T-cell immunotherapy product that has been manufactured in advance and stored in inventory, with each manufactured lot of cells providing therapy for numerous potential patients. This differs from autologous, or patient-derived, treatments, in which each patient’s own cells must be extracted, modified outside the body and then delivered back to the patient. We utilize a proprietary cell selection algorithm to select the appropriate set of cells for use based on a patient’s unique immune profile, and, unlike many other T-cell programs, there is neither a requirement for pre-treatment before our cells are administered nor is there extended monitoring following administration. For example, in our ongoing trials with our most advanced product candidate, tabelecleucel, patients are monitored for one to two hours following receipt of tabelecleucel. Our T-cell immunotherapy platform is applicable to a broad array of targets and diseases. With more than 200 patients treated across the platform, we have observed clinical proof of concept across both viral and non-viral targets in conditions ranging from liquid and solid tumors to infectious and autoimmune diseases. We have also observed a safety profile characterized by few treatment-related serious adverse events, or SAEs, and no evidence of cytokine release syndrome to date.

Our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates are engineered from cells donated by healthy individuals with normal immune function. Once cells are collected from a donor, they are bioengineered to expand those T-cells that recognize the antigens of interest. The resulting expanded T-cells are then characterized and held as inventory. From inventory, these cells can be selected, distributed and prepared for infusion in a partially human leukocyte antigen, or HLA, matched patient in approximately 3-5 days. Following administration, our T-cells home to their target, undergo target-controlled proliferation, eliminate diseased cells and eventually recede. Target-controlled proliferation means that our T-cells expand in number when they encounter diseased cells in a patient’s body that express the antigen the cells are designed to recognize.

We have two technology platforms. One of our technology platforms was developed from more than a decade of experience at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, or MSK. The other was developed at QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, or QIMR Berghofer, in Australia. We licensed rights to certain know-how and T-cell product candidates from MSK in June 2015. Our most advanced product candidate, tabelecleucel, targets EBV. Tabelecleucel received Breakthrough Therapy Designation, or BTD, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and Priority Medicines, or PRIME, designation from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and is currently being evaluated as monotherapy in two Phase 3 trials for the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD. We believe that tabelecleucel has the potential to be the first commercially available off-the-shelf T-cell immunotherapy and the first FDA and EMA approved therapy for EBV+ PTLD. With a European conditional marketing authorization application planned for the first half of 2019 and U.S. biologics licensing applications planned following the completion of one of our ongoing Phase 3 trials, we are currently developing the infrastructure to commercialize tabelecleucel globally in EBV+ PTLD. We are also evaluating the potential utility of tabelecleucel in patients with other EBV associated cancers, such as NPC, to continue its development in solid tumors. Additional product candidates derived from the collaboration with MSK are being developed to treat various cancers and severe viral infections.

In October 2015 and September 2016, we licensed rights to certain know-how and technology from QIMR Berghofer that are complementary to those we which was licensed from MSK. This know-how and technology uses targeted antigen recognition to create off-the-shelf T-cell immunotherapy product candidates applicable to a variety of diseases, including autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis, or MS. We are also working with QIMR Berghofer on the development of EBV and other virally targeted T-cells. Through this technology, we are expanding the role of immunotherapy beyond oncology and viral infections to autoimmune disease. Our most advanced off-the-shelf T-cell product candidate utilizing this technology, ATA188, targets select antigens of EBV and is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1 trial in an initial cohort for the treatment of patients with progressive MS. In connection with the initial license from QIMR Berghofer, we received an option to exclusively license an autologous version of ATA188, also known as ATA190, which recently demonstrated clinical activity in a Phase 1 trial in progressive MS. We expect to broadly explore the utility of our targeted antigen recognition technology in EBV and other virally driven diseases, and additional product candidates derived from our collaboration with QIMR Berghofer are being developed.

Overall, we believe that Atara is a leading allogeneic T-cell immunotherapy company with a robust and late stage oncology pipeline and potentially transformative T-cell immunotherapies for MS and other viral diseases. With tabelecleucel poised to potentially become the first approved off-the-shelf T-cell therapy and a robust pipeline of high potential candidates, our ambition is to be recognized as the leader in off-the-shelf T-cell immunotherapy.

Since its discovery as the first human oncovirus, EBV has been implicated in the development of a wide range of diseases, including lymphomas and other cancers. EBV is widespread in human populations and persists as a lifelong, asymptomatic infection. In healthy individuals, a small percentage of T-cells are devoted to keeping EBV in check. In contrast, immunocompromised patients, such as those undergoing hematopoietic cell transplants, or HCT, or solid organ transplants, or SOT, have a reduced ability to control EBV. Left without appropriate immune surveillance, EBV transformed cells can, in some patients, proliferate and cause an aggressive, life-threatening cancer called EBV+ PTLD. Nearly all cases of PTLD that occur following HCT are EBV positive while approximately 70% of PTLD cases that occur following SOT are EBV positive. Approximately 10-15% of PTLD patients are children. Patients with EBV+ PTLD are currently treated with rituximab or rituximab plus chemotherapy when systemic treatment is indicated, with approximately 50-60% of patients either not responding to or progressing following this first line of therapy. Historical studies suggest a high unmet medical need for improved therapies in patients with EBV+ PTLD who have failed rituximab. Median overall survival in patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT who have failed rituximab-based first line therapy is 16-56 days, with a one-year survival rate of approximately 23% based on our evaluation of available historical outcomes data. One- and two-year survival following incomplete response to rituximab in patients with high-risk EBV+ PTLD after SOT is 36% and 0%, respectively. The use of chemotherapy in patients with EBV+ PTLD who have failed rituximab is frequently associated with significant rates of treatment-related mortality due to the frailty of the patients and severe toxicities associated with chemotherapy.

We believe that the global commercial opportunity for PTLD is attractive. We expect the number of EBV+ PTLD patients to grow over time as a result of increases in the number of transplant procedures and an increasing rate of PTLD following these procedures. Based on our market research, we estimate that in 2019, approximately 164,000 HCT and SOT transplant procedures are expected to be performed in the United States, the European Union, or EU, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, with this number expected to increase to approximately 207,000 by 2024, predominantly due to increases in bone marrow, peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood donation and more haploidentical transplants. Similarly, the number of cases of EBV+ PTLD is expected to increase from approximately 4,700 in 2019 to 6,000 in 2024 due to the use of more potent immuno-suppression in haploidentical transplants.

Our most advanced T-cell immunotherapy product candidate, tabelecleucel, is an allogeneic EBV-specific T-cell immunotherapy that is currently being investigated for the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD who have failed rituximab. In February 2015, the FDA granted tabelecleucel BTD in the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD after HCT who have failed rituximab. BTD is an FDA process designed to accelerate the development and review of drugs intended to treat a serious condition when early trials show that the drug may be substantially better than current treatment. In October 2016, tabelecleucel was accepted into the EMA PRIME regulatory pathway for the same indication, providing enhanced regulatory support. In addition, tabelecleucel has received orphan status in the United States and European Union for the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT or SOT. In December 2016, we announced that we had reached agreement with the FDA on the designs of two Phase 3 trials for tabelecleucel intended to support approval in two separate indications, the treatment of EBV+ PTLD following HCT and SOT in patients who have failed rituximab. In December 2017, following discussion with the FDA of manufacturing and comparability data generated on material manufactured by our contract manufacturing organization, we initiated these trials in the United States. We expect to expand these trials geographically to include Europe, Canada, and Australia.

The Phase 3 MATCH trial (EBV+ PTLD following HCT) is a multicenter, open label, single arm trial designed to enroll approximately 35 patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT who have failed rituximab. The Phase 3 ALLELE trial (EBV+ PTLD following SOT) is a multicenter, open label trial with two non-comparative cohorts. Each cohort is designed to enroll approximately 35 patients. The first cohort will include patients who previously received rituximab monotherapy, and the second cohort will include patients who previously received rituximab plus chemotherapy. Both cohorts are planned to enroll concurrently. The primary endpoint of both the MATCH and ALLELE trials is confirmed best objective response rate, or ORR, defined as the percent of patients achieving either a complete or partial response to treatment with tabelecleucel confirmed after the initial tumor assessment showing a response. The protocols are designed to rule out a 20% ORR as the null hypothesis. This means that if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval on ORR among patients receiving at least one dose of tabelecleucel exceeds 20% at the end of the study, then the trial would be expected to meet the primary endpoint for the treatment of PTLD. For example, assuming anticipated enrollment of 35 patients in MATCH, an observed ORR above approximately 37% would be expected to meet the primary endpoint. In ALLELE, each of the two cohorts with an anticipated enrollment of 35 patients will be analyzed separately with respect to the primary endpoint and, similarly, as an example, with 35 patients enrolled in either cohort, an observed ORR above approximately 37% would be expected to meet the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints for both trials include duration of response, overall survival, safety, quality of life metrics, and other measures to evaluate its health economic impact. A safety committee will meet periodically to monitor for safety. Results from the first tabelecleucel Phase 3 study, or cohort in the case of ALLELE, to reach the primary endpoint are expected to be available in the first half of 2019.

In clinical trials conducted at MSK that have enrolled patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT and SOT, efficacy following treatment with tabelecleucel monotherapy compared favorably with historical data in these patient populations. Patients with EBV+ PTLD after HCT who have failed rituximab and were treated with tabelecleucel had one-year overall survival of approximately 70% in two separate clinical trials. In the setting of EBV+ PTLD after SOT in patients who have failed rituximab, similar results were observed, with one-year overall survival of approximately 60% in tabelecleucel-treated patients. A response rate of greater than or equal to 50% was observed in HCT and SOT patients in these studies. In June 2016, we opened a multicenter expanded access protocol, or EAP, trial. The trial is currently open at more than ten clinical sites in the United States. The primary objective of this trial is to provide tabelecleucel monotherapy to patients with EBV-associated diseases or certain EBV positive malignancies for whom there are no other therapeutic options. Key secondary objectives include evaluation of efficacy and safety through a robust collection of data. We recently announced the presentation of positive interim results from this multicenter EAP trial at the 59th American Society of Hematology, or ASH, Annual Meeting. Efficacy results in 11 patients from the planned Phase 3 populations with EBV+ PTLD following HCT and SOT who had failed rituximab were consistent with the single-institution safety profile and response rates previously reported by our collaborating investigators at MSK. The response rates in both the five evaluable HCT patients treated in the EAP and the six evaluable SOT patients was greater than 70%. An additional patient with EBV+ PTLD following HCT remains alive but was not evaluable due to lack of post-baseline assessment. We believe these results are consistent with the tabelecleucel profile observed in the Phase 2 trials conducted at MSK. The Phase 3 trials for tabelecleucel are expected to enroll the same EBV+ PTLD patient populations. Tabelecleucel was generally well tolerated in this study population. In this study, five patients experienced treatment-related SAEs. One patient died due to PTLD disease progression. Two possibly related cases of graft versus host disease, or GvHD, in patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT were reported. A tumor flare was observed in one patient with EBV+HIV-associated plasmablastic lymphoma that resolved without clinical sequelae.

With respect to the total safety population following treatment with tabelecleucel, few treatment-related SAEs have been observed. Among 173 patients treated with tabelecleucel in clinical trials, there have been 12 patients with possibly related SAEs, with no infusion related toxicities, no cytokine release syndrome and three possibly related cases of GvHD.

We are also pursuing marketing approval of tabelecleucel in the European Union. In March 2016, the EMA issued a positive opinion for orphan drug designation for tabelecleucel for the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD. In October 2016, the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and the Committee for Advanced Therapies granted tabelecleucel access to the EMA’s recently established PRIME regulatory initiative for the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT who have failed rituximab. PRIME provides early enhanced regulatory support to facilitate regulatory applications and accelerate the review of medicines that address a high unmet need. In January 2017, we received parallel scientific advice from the EMA’s Scientific Advice Working Group and several national Health Technology Assessment agencies in the EU, including those in the United Kingdom, Germany and France. Based on these discussions, we plan to submit an application for Conditional Marketing Authorization, or CMA, of tabelecleucel in the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT who have failed rituximab in the first half of 2019. The CMA will be based on clinical data from Phase 1 and 2 trials conducted at MSK and supported by available data from our Phase 3 MATCH and ALLELE trials in patients with EBV+ PTLD after HCT and SOT who have failed rituximab, which will be ongoing at the time of filing.

In 2017, we began pre-commercial preparation to support the planned tabelecleucel EU CMA submission. For example, we are developing a proprietary, web-based, off-the-shelf delivery solution for commercial use that we call Atara MatchMe™. The Atara MatchMe system will be a portal for health care professionals and institutions that allows for order input including the provision of required patient HLA and other information, the execution of our cell selection algorithm, product shipment and tracking, as well as the capture of data on outcomes following treatment. In the first quarter of 2017, we also signed a lease for an approximately 90,580 square foot facility in Thousand Oaks, California. We are building out a multi-product cellular therapy manufacturing facility with operations expected to commence in 2018. Overall, we believe that tabelecleucel monotherapy has a compelling value proposition in the treatment of patients with EBV+ PTLD who have failed rituximab. We expect to pursue approvals globally for tabelecleucel in patients with EBV+ PTLD following HCT and SOT who have failed rituximab and may seek partners to aid in our commercialization efforts in select markets. In addition, we expect to pursue development of tabelecleucel in earlier lines of therapy, including first line EBV+ PTLD in combination with rituximab.

NPC, is a type of head and neck cancer that is primarily EBV associated. Standard treatment for NPC includes radiation therapy with or without platinum-based chemotherapy. In the setting of metastatic disease after the failure of chemotherapy, median survival is approximately five to 11 months based on historical data, and there are no approved therapeutic agents available to treat this disease today. Based on our market research, we estimate that in 2015 there were approximately 9,400 patients with metastatic or recurrent Type III NPC in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain and approximately 93,000 in Asia. Treatment with tabelecleucel as a monotherapy has been evaluated in 14 patients with metastatic NPC after failure of one to three lines of chemotherapy in the studies conducted by MSKCC. An ORR of 21% was observed in these patients with one complete response and two partial responses. In addition, 11 of the 14 patients were alive at a median follow up of 18 months with a Kaplan-

Meier survival estimate of 84% at two years. Tabelecleucel was administered to this immune competent patient population without prior lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Additionally, evidence of T-cell expansion following administration was observed. In April 2017, we entered into an agreement with Merck (known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada) to provide drug supply for a trial sponsored and conducted by us to evaluate tabelecleucel in combination with Merck’s anti-PD-1 (programmed death receptor-1) therapy, KEYTRUDA ® (pembrolizumab), in patients with platinum-resistant or recurrent EBV-associated NPC. The Phase 1/2 trial will evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of the combination and is planned for initiation in the second half of 2018.

MS is a chronic disorder of the central nervous system, or CNS, that disrupts the myelination and normal functioning of the brain, optic nerves and spinal cord through inflammation and tissue loss. The evolution of MS results in an increasing loss of both physical and cognitive (e.g., memory) function. This has a substantial negative impact on the approximately 2.3 million people worldwide affected by MS.

There are two categories of MS: progressive MS, or PMS; and relapsing-remitting MS, or RRMS. PMS is a severe form of MS with few therapeutic options. Within PMS there are two types of MS: secondary progressive MS, or SPMS; and primary progressive MS, or PPMS. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, there are approximately one million people affected by PMS. Both types of PMS are characterized by persistent progression and worsening of MS symptoms and physical disability over time. PPMS occurs when the patient has a disease course characterized by steady and progressive worsening after disease onset. SPMS initially begins as RRMS, but once patients have continuous progression of their disease, they have developed SPMS. This is distinct from RRMS, where patients have flares of the disease that are followed by periods of recovery and quiescence during which the disease does not progress. There is substantial unmet medical need for new and effective therapies for patients with PMS. Most of the treatment options that work well in reducing the flares in RRMS have not been shown to be effective in slowing or reversing the progression of disability in PMS. The two approved therapeutic options for PMS patients have a modest impact on symptoms and disease progression and, therefore, we believe that unmet need remains. In the United States, mitoxantrone is approved for SPMS and ocrelizumab was approved in March 2017 for PPMS. Siponimod is currently being studied in Phase 3 trials for SPMS.

There is a strong biologic connection between EBV and MS. EBV is present in nearly all patients with MS. For example, in an international study of patients with clinically isolated syndrome, a CNS demyelinating event isolated in time that is compatible with the possible future development of MS, only one patient out of 1,407 was seronegative for, or not infected with, EBV. In addition, in separate studies, clusters of EBV infected B-cells and plasma cells were evident in the brains of MS patients but not found in brains of patients without MS. In these studies, the EBV infected B-cells and plasma cells were in close proximity to areas of active demyelination. Studies suggest that EBV positive B-cells and plasma cells in the CNS have the potential to catalyze an autoimmune response and the MS pathophysiology. In patients with MS, their T-cells may be unable to control EBV positive B-cells and plasma cells so that B-cells and plasma cells could then accumulate in the brain and generate antibodies that attack and destroy myelin, the protective layer that insulates nerves in the brain and spinal cord. This loss of myelin ultimately leads to MS symptoms. MS disease course has also been shown to correlate with measures of EBV activity. The role of B-cells in MS is supported by the recent approval by the FDA of ocrelizumab for PPMS which broadly targets B-cells through their expression of a cell surface marker known as CD20. Low vitamin D also suppresses T-cells and is associated with MS.

Our second T-cell immunotherapy product candidate, ATA188, is an off-the-shelf EBV-specific T-cell that utilizes a targeted antigen recognition technology that enables the T-cells we administer to selectively identify cells expressing the EBV antigens that we believe are important for the potential treatment of MS. We are also developing an autologous version of this product candidate that we call ATA190. ATA190 utilizes the same approach to targeted antigen recognition as ATA188. These product candidates are designed to selectively target only those cells which are EBV positive while sparing those that are not. We believe that eliminating only EBV positive B-cells, including plasma cells, has the potential to benefit some patients with MS through enhanced efficacy and a better side-effect profile. In October 2015, we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize allogeneic T-cell immunotherapy product candidates targeting EBV, including ATA188, utilizing technology and know-how developed by QIMR Berghofer. In connection with this license, we also received an option to exclusively license the autologous version of EBV product candidates, including ATA190.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, we initiated an open label, single arm, multi-center, multi-national Phase 1 trial with allogeneic ATA188 for patients with MS and in January 2018 received clearance of our investigational new drug, or IND, application from the FDA to proceed with patient enrollment at U.S. sites. The primary objective of this Phase 1 trial is to assess the safety of ATA188 in patients followed for at least one year after the first dose. Key secondary endpoints in the trial include measures of clinical improvement such as Expanded Disability Status Scale, or EDSS, and annualized relapse rate, or ARR, as well as MRI imaging. The trial is expected to enroll a total of 60 patients across the United States, Australia and Europe: 30 patients with PMS, either PPMS or SPMS, and 30 patients with RRMS. We expect to announce results from our ATA188 Phase 1 trial in patients with PMS in the first half of 2019.

In addition, based on the Phase 1 clinical results observed to date with ATA190, we believe the continued development of ATA190 will enhance our understanding of the potential therapeutic utility of targeting EBV in the treatment of MS and further inform and complement our development of ATA188, and we are planning a multicenter Phase 1/2 trial with ATA190 in PMS.

Our collaborating investigators at QIMR Berghofer are currently conducting a Phase 1 trial utilizing autologous ATA190 for the treatment of patients with PMS. We believe this is the first clinical trial to prospectively explore both the feasibility and potential utility of targeting EBV in MS. The trial is designed to:

Each patient receives four escalating doses of ATA190 over six weeks, with each individual dose given once every two weeks. Patients are followed for 20 weeks after the last dose. An abstract from our collaborating investigators describing interim results from this Phase 1 trial was selected for inclusion in the Emerging Science Program during the 69th American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting in April 2017 and updated interim results for all ten patients were recently presented at the MSParis 2017 Congress, the 7th Joint Meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Results presented include data on five SPMS patients and five PPMS patients. Clinical improvements were reported in six of the ten patients treated and these improvements were observed within two to fourteen weeks after the first dose. Three patients improved their EDSS score. EDSS is a method for quantifying disability and monitoring changes over time. Reduction in fatigue was a consistent observation in responding patients. Five of the six patients who showed clinical improvements received ATA190 with greater than or equal to 7% EBV reactivity, or T-cell reactivity against target EBV antigens following manufacturing. This suggests that EBV reactivity may be an important product characterization metric for future development. ATA190 was well-tolerated, and no significant treatment-related adverse events were observed. A summary of study results is highlighted in the table below.

Overall, we believe these results are encouraging and support the continued development of ATA188 and ATA190 in MS.

Our third T-cell immunotherapy product candidate, ATA520, is an off-the-shelf WT1 specific T-cell immunotherapy, that targets cancers expressing the antigen WT1 and is currently in Phase 1 clinical trials. WT1 is an intracellular protein that is overexpressed in a number of cancers, including hematological malignances as well as solid tumors. MSK has two Phase 1 clinical trials evaluating ATA520. The first trial is a dose escalation trial of ATA520 for residual or relapsed leukemia after HCT. The second trial is a dose escalation trial of ATA520 following T-cell depleted HCT for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, including plasma cell leukemia, or PCL. Based on data from these trials, we intend to develop ATA520 in a select set of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Given the advances of our EBV-related pipeline programs in NPC and MS, as well as the opportunity to pursue a conditional marketing authorization in the EU for tabelecleucel, we expect to initiate an additional clinical trial with

ATA520 following the further process development of ATA520 as well as the clinical and regulatory advancement of tabelecleucel and ATA188.

Our fourth T-cell immunotherapy product candidate, ATA230, is an off-the-shelf CMV specific T-cell immunotherapy, that is in Phase 2 clinical trials for refractory CMV infection that occurs in some patients who have received an HCT or SOT or are otherwise immunocompromised. We met with the FDA for an end of Phase 2 meeting to discuss late stage development of ATA230 for the treatment of anti-viral refractory or resistant CMV infection following either HCT or SOT. Our collaborating investigators presented updated ATA230 results from 50 post-transplant patients with refractory CMV viremia and disease, including those with disease in the central nervous system, at the 59th ASH Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, in December 2017. Results reported include a response rate of approximately 60% in all patients, which was similar in those with CMV viremia and disease. Patients who responded to ATA230 showed improved 6- and 12-month survival rates of approximately 80% and 60%, respectively, versus those patients who did not respond to treatment. One of the 32 patients who responded died of CMV disease. ATA230 was generally well tolerated. Five patients experienced grade 4 or higher adverse events deemed possibility related to ATA230. Recently, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for ATA230 for the treatment of CMV viremia and disease in immunocompromised patients as well as Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for the treatment of congenital CMV infection. The EMA has also granted us orphan status for ATA230 for CMV infection in patients with impaired cell-mediated immunity. Given the opportunity to pursue a CMA in the EU for tabelecleucel, we have decided to prioritize our EBV related programs ahead of ATA230 at this time, and plan to further evaluate our development strategy for ATA230 in 2018.

Through our ongoing collaboration with QIMR Berghofer, we recently developed a new T-cell immunotherapy product candidate, ATA621, for BK and JC virus associated diseases. These two viruses are closely related and there are no available antiviral agents approved for use in BK or JC associated diseases. JC virus is associated with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, or PML, which occurs in transplant, HIV and cancer patients as well as in patients treated with other immunosuppressive therapies, including certain therapies utilized for the treatment of MS. Based on our market research, we estimate that there are approximately 7,800 cases of PML annually, worldwide. BK virus is associated with hemorrhagic cystitis, or BKVHC, which mainly occurs following HCT or cyclophosphamide treatment as well as BK virus associated nephropathy, or BKVAN, which is a disease most commonly associated with kidney transplant. Based on Atara market research, we estimate that there are approximately 2,100 cases of BKVAN and 2,300 cases of BKVHC annually, worldwide. We are currently conducting investigational new drug application enabling manufacturing process development and plan to initiate a Phase 1 trial with ATA621 in 2019.

We believe our T-cell technology platform will have utility beyond the current set of targets to which it has been directed. We expect to further research and develop additional cellular therapies, which may include T-cell programs targeted against other antigens as well as engineered T-cell immunotherapies such as chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR-T, cell programs. We believe that viral antigens are well suited to adoptive immunotherapy given that people with normal immune systems are able to mount robust responses to these viral targets, but immunocompromised patients and some cancer patients are not. We also intend to license or acquire additional product candidates or technologies to enhance our existing T-cell technology platform.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our innovative technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and public and private research institutions. Some of these potential competitors may have a more established presence in the market and significantly greater financial, technical and human resources than we have. Our commercial opportunity 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.

Should our T-cell product candidates be approved for use, we will face substantial competition. In addition to the current standard of care for patients, commercial and academic clinical trials are being pursued by a number of parties in the field of immunotherapy. Early results from these trials have fueled continued interest in T-cell immunotherapy. In addition, if approved, our T-cell programs would compete with currently marketed drugs and therapies used for treatment of the following indications, and potentially with drug candidates currently in development for the same indications.

There are currently no FDA or EMA approved products for the treatment of EBV+ PTLD. However, some approved products and therapies are currently used off-label in this setting. Companies and academic institutions that may license therapies to companies in the future are or may be developing new treatments. These therapies, as well as promotional efforts by competitors and clinical trial results of competitive products, could diminish the ability to market and sell tabelecleucel. The current treatment for EBV+ PTLD involves administration of rituximab as a single agent or in the SOT setting, in combination with chemotherapy regimens. Additionally, companies and academic institutions are developing drug candidates for EBV+ PTLD and other EBV associated diseases, including Cell Medica Ltd., or Cell Medica, which is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for baltaleucel-T, an autologous EBV specific T-cell therapy in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and Viracta Therapeutics, Inc., or Viracta, which has initiated Phase 1b/2 clinical trials for VRx-3996 in relapsed/refractory EBV⁺lymphomas.

Competition in the MS market is high with fourteen therapies approved for the treatment of RRMS in the United States and European Union. There are many U.S. and international competitors in the RRMS market, including major multi-national fully-integrated pharmaceutical companies and established biotechnology companies. Most recently, Ocrevus^®, marketed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, was approved for the treatment of relapsing MS in the United States and European Union. There are numerous other development candidates in Phase 3 trials for RRMS including Novartis’ anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab; Alkermes’ monomethyl fumarate prodrug ALKS 8700; Teva’s laquinimod, and Actelion’s next-generation sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor, or S1PR, agonist ponesimod. Celgene recently reported positive results from Phase 3 clinical trials evaluating ozamimod, a S1PR agonist, in relapsing MS.

Only three therapies have been approved for the treatment of progressive MS. Recently, Ocrevus^® was approved in the United States and European Union for the treatment of PPMS. Extavia^® (marketed by Novartis) is approved in the United States and European Union for the treatment of SPMS. Betaseron^®(marketed by Bayer AG) is also approved in the European Union. Few therapies have been approved for progressive MS because many candidates have failed during clinical trial testing. In the United States, there is one drug (mitoxantrone) approved to treat SPMS.

The SPMS and PPMS markets have active development pipelines and additional novel agents could be approved in the future. Several development candidates are being evaluated in clinical trials including a number of Phase 3 programs: MedDay SA is evaluating MD-1003, a concentrated form of biotin, for progressive MS; AB Science is evaluating masitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for progressive MS; and Novartis is evaluating siponimod, an S1P1 modulator, for SPMS; and Actelion Pharmaceuticals is evaluating ponesimod, for SPMS.

Several products are approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, or MM, including immunomodulatory drugs, or IMIDs, such as Thalomid^® (Celgene Corporation), Revlimid^® (Celgene Corporation) and Pomalyst^® (Celgene Corporation); monoclonal antibodies such as Darzalex^® (Janssen Research & Development, LLC) and Empliciti^® (Bristol Myers Squibb); and proteasome inhibitors such as Velcade^® (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Kyprolis^® (Amgen Inc.).

A number of companies and institutions are pursuing development programs for relapsed or refractory MM. These development programs include drug candidates being evaluated in clinical trials as a monotherapy or in combination with other approved agents. In addition, many groups are developing novel T-cell therapies such as autologous CAR T-cell or autologous TCR T-cell candidates. These include bluebird bio, Inc., which is conducting Phase 2 clinical trials testing bb2121, an anti-BCMA CART; Gilead Sciences, Inc., which is testing KTE-585, an anti-BCMA CART in Phase 1 clinical trials; Juno Therapeutics, which is testing an anti-BCMA CART in Phase 1 clinical trials; Autolus Limited, which is testing AUTO-2, a bi-specific anti-BCMA/TACI CART in Phase 1 clinical trials and Adaptimmune Therapeutics PLC, which is testing an anti-NY-ESO TCR in Phase 1/2 clinical trials.

There are numerous approved products and therapies for the treatment of CMV infection, and a number of companies and academic institutions that may license therapies to companies in the future are or may be developing new treatments for CMV infection. 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 the CMV T-cell immunotherapy. Drug therapies approved or commonly used for CMV infection include antiviral compounds such as Prevymis®, marketed by Merck & Co. Inc.; ganciclovir, valganciclovir, cidofovir or foscarnet.

Additionally, a number of companies and academic institutions are developing drug candidates for CMV infection and other CMV-associated diseases, including Shire Plc which is conducting Phase 3 clinical trials of maribavir, a UL97 protein kinase inhibitor; Vical Inc., recently announced ASP0113, a therapeutic bivalent plasma DNA CMV vaccine being evaluated in patients undergoing an allogeneic stem cell transplant, failed to meet primary or secondary endpoints in Phase 3 clinical trials. In addition, Helocyte, Inc., is conducting two Phase 2 clinical trials for a CMV MVA-vaccine and a CMV peptide vaccine in patients undergoing an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant; Merck is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for V160, a CMV DNA vaccine; VBI Vaccines Inc., has completed Phase 1 clinical trials for VBI-1501A, an eVLP vaccine; Hookipa Biotech, is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for HB101, a bivalent vaccine, ViraCyte, is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for Viralym-C, a CMV-specific allogeneic cell therapy product; Fate Therapeutics is conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for ProTmune, a small molecule programmed mobilized peripheral blood graft; Chimerix is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for intravenous Brincidofovir (BCV IV), a nucleotide analog and Moderna Therapeutics is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for mRNA-1647, an mRNA based prophylactic vaccine.

In September 2014, we entered into an exclusive option agreement with MSK under which we acquired the right to exclusively license from MSK the worldwide rights to three clinical stage T-cell programs. The initial option period was for 12 months. 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. We and MSK also agreed to collaborate on further research to develop additional cellular therapies, which may include T-cell programs targeted against other antigens and/or CAR-T, and which we also would hold an option to license, if developed.

In June 2015, we exercised the option and entered into a license agreement with MSK. Under the terms of the license agreement, MSK granted us a worldwide, exclusive license under certain patent rights, know-how and a library of T-cells and cell lines, to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize T-cell products specific to CMV, EBV or WT1 that comprise or are based on or made using such licensed rights. MSK also agreed to transfer certain INDs related to the licensed products to us. We have agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the licensed products and, if commercialized, continue active marketing efforts for any commercialized licensed product through the term of the license agreement.

In connection with the option exercise and the execution of the license agreement, we made an upfront cash payment to MSK of $4.5 million. We are obligated to make additional milestone payments of up to $33.0 million with respect to the three licensed clinical stage T-cell programs based on achievement of specified development, regulatory and sales-related milestones. We are also required to make escalating mid to high single-digit royalty payments to MSK based on sales of any licensed products. 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 for each licensed T-cell product on a licensed product-by-licensed product basis and a country-by-country basis, on the latest of: (i) expiration of the last licensed patent rights related to such licensed product in such country, (ii) expiration of any market exclusivity period granted by law with respect to such licensed product in such country, and (iii) a specified number of years after the first commercial sale of the licensed product in such country. Upon expiration of the license agreement, the licenses granted to us will become non-exclusive royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable. MSK may terminate the license agreement if we materially breach the agreement and does not cure such breach within a specified period or if we experience certain insolvency events.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and non-U.S. patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we expect to benefit from a variety of statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe and other countries that relate to the regulation of biosimilar molecules and orphan drug status. These statutory frameworks provide certain periods of regulatory exclusivity for qualifying molecules. See “Government Regulation.”

We seek composition-of-matter and/or associated method patents, including method-of-treatment patents, for each of our product candidates in key therapeutic areas. The United States patent system permits the filing of provisional and non-provisional patent applications. A provisional patent application is not examined for patentability by the USPTO and automatically expires 12

months after its filing date. As a result, a provisional patent application cannot mature into an issued patent. Provisional patent applications are often used, among other things, to establish an early effective filing date for a later-filed non-provisional patent application. A non-provisional patent application is examined by the USPTO and can mature into a patent once the USPTO determines that the claimed invention meets the standards of patentability.

Individual patents extend for varying periods of time depending on the date of filing of the patent application, the priority date claimed and the legal term of patents as determined by the applicable law in the countries in which those patents are obtained. Generally, patents issued from applications filed in the United States are effective for 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period; however, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. Additionally, patent term adjustments can extend term to account for certain delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, during prosecution before that office. The duration of non-U.S. patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically, the life of a non-U.S. patent is 20 years from the earliest international filing date, not inclusive of any patent term extension that may be available. The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country to country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of extensions of patent term, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

National and international patent laws concerning protein-based biologics such as our products remain highly unsettled. No consistent policy regarding the patent-eligibility or the breadth of claims allowed in such patents has emerged to date among the United States, Europe and other countries. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries can diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive intellectual property litigation. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our product candidates and technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims for any patent and enforcing those claims once a patent is granted. We do not know whether any of the patent applications that we may file or license from third parties will result in the issuance of any patents. The issued patents that we own or may receive in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop and commercialize similar drugs or duplicate our technology, business model or strategy without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of any drug we may develop from our product candidates, it is possible that, before any of our drugs can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. The patent positions for our product candidates are summarized below:

Our global patent estate consists of both issued patents and pending patent applications and includes wholly-owned patent applications, in-licensed patents and patent applications to which we generally hold exclusive commercial rights, and patents and patent applications to which we hold an exclusive option to license commercial rights. Regarding our tabelecleucel for EBV+PTLD following HCT or SOT, tabelecleucel for NPC, ATA188, ATA190, ATA520, ATA230 and ATA621 programs, and our platform technologies underlying these programs, our global patent estate is directed to compositions of matter and/or associated methods, including methods of treatment, and consists of 25 patent families having a total of 95 issued patents or patent applications. The issued patents and patent applications (if issued) of our global patent estate are expected to expire between 2023 and 2038, not inclusive of any patent term extension that may be available is any associated jurisdiction.

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed by an employee. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or any unauthorized disclosure of our proprietary information. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

The preclinical studies and clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, advertising, promotion, export, marketing and sales, among other things, of our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. In the United States, pharmaceutical products are regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act.

Our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates, including tabelecleucel (formerly known as ATA129), are regulated by the FDA as biologics, reviewed by the Center for Biological Evaluation and Research, and will require the submission of BLAs and approval by the FDA prior to being marketed in the United States. For T-cell immunotherapy trials conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant DNA research, prior to the submission of an IND to the FDA, a protocol and related documents must be submitted to, and the study registered with, the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities, or the OBA, pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, or the NIH Guidelines. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA. However, many companies and other institutions, not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines, voluntarily follow them. The NIH is responsible for convening the recombinant DNA advisory committee, or RAC, that discusses protocols that raise novel or particularly important scientific, safety or ethical considerations at one of its quarterly public meetings. The OBA will notify the FDA of the RAC’s decision regarding the necessity for full public review of a protocol. RAC proceedings and reports are posted to the OBA website and may be accessed by the public.

Failure to comply with FDA requirements, both before and after product approval, may subject us or our partners, contract manufacturers, and suppliers to administrative or judicial sanctions, including FDA refusal to approve applications, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, fines and/or criminal prosecution.

The steps required before a biologic may be approved for marketing of an indication in the United States generally include:

Before conducting studies in humans, laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the biologic candidate must be conducted. Preclinical toxicology studies in animals must be conducted in compliance with FDA regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the preclinical testing, the IND will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase or phases of the clinical trial lend themselves to an efficacy determination. The IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA within the 30-day time period places the IND on clinical hold because of safety concerns about the product candidate or the conduct of the trial described in the clinical protocol included in the IND. The IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can proceed.

All clinical trials for new drugs and biologics must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified principal investigators in accordance with GCP. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the applicable phase of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually. Sponsors must also report to the FDA, within certain timeframes, serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or

investigator’s brochure, or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product candidate. An institutional review board, or IRB, at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution, approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative, and monitor the trial until completed.

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap and different trials may be initiated with the same product candidate within the same phase of development in similar or differing patient populations.

Phase 1 clinical studies may be conducted in a limited number of patients or healthy volunteers, as appropriate. The product candidate is initially tested for safety and, as appropriate, for absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.

Phase 2 usually involves trials in a larger, but still limited, patient population to evaluate preliminarily the efficacy of the product candidate for specific, targeted indications to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage and to identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks.

Phase 3 trials are undertaken to further evaluate clinical efficacy of a specific endpoint and to test further for safety within an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3 testing might not be completed successfully within any specific time period, if at all, with respect to any of our product candidates. Results from one trial are not necessarily predictive of results from later trials. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

The results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture and composition of the product, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product candidate for a proposed indication. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act the fees payable to the FDA for reviewing a BLA, as well as annual fees for commercial manufacturing establishments and for approved products, can be substantial but are subject to certain limited deferrals, waivers and reductions that may be available. The fees typically increase each year. Each BLA submitted to the FDA for approval is reviewed for administrative completeness and reviewability within 60 days following receipt by the FDA of the application. If the BLA is found complete, the FDA will file the BLA, triggering a full review of the application. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission. The FDA’s established goal is to review 90% of priority BLA applications within six months after the application is accepted for filing and 90% of standard BLA applications within 10 months of the acceptance date, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA, however, may not approve a product candidate within these established goals and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. Further, the outcome of the review, even if generally favorable, may not be an actual approval but a “complete response letter” that describes additional work that must be done before the application can be approved. Before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect the facility or facilities at which the product is manufactured and will not approve the product unless the facility complies with cGMP. The FDA may deny approval of a BLA if applicable statutory or regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or may require additional testing or information, which can extend the review process. FDA approval of any application may include many delays or never be granted. If a product is approved, the approval may impose limitations on the uses for which the product may be marketed, may require that warning statements be included in the product labeling, may require that additional studies be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval, and may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. The FDA must approve a BLA supplement or a new BLA before a product may be marketed for other uses or before certain manufacturing or other changes may be made. Further post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of a product is required. Also, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety or manufacturing problems occur following initial marketing. In addition, new government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development.

Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, a statutory pathway has been created for licensure, or approval, of biological products that are biosimilar to, and possibly interchangeable with, earlier biological products licensed under the Public Health Service Act. Also under the BPCIA, innovator manufacturers of original reference biological products are granted 12 years of exclusivity before biosimilars can be approved for marketing in the United States. The approval of a biologic product biosimilar to one of our products could have a material adverse impact on our business as it may be significantly less costly to bring to market and may be priced significantly lower than our products.

Both before and after the FDA approves a product, the manufacturer and the holder or holders of the BLA for the product are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight. For example, quality control and manufacturing procedures must conform, on an ongoing basis, to cGMP and GTP requirements, as applicable and the FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with these standards. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to spend time, money and effort to maintain compliance.

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to manufacturers to develop and market drugs for rare diseases and conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States at the time of application for orphan drug designation. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the holder of the approval is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that product except in very limited circumstances. For example, a drug that the FDA considers to be clinically superior to, or different from, another approved orphan drug, even though for the same indication, may also obtain approval in the United States during the seven-year exclusive marketing period. In addition, holders of exclusivity for orphan drugs are expected to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of their orphan drugs to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in the withdrawal of marketing exclusivity for the drug.

Legislation similar to the Orphan Drug Act has been enacted outside the United States, including in the EU. The orphan legislation in the EU is available for therapies addressing chronic debilitating or life-threatening conditions that affect five or fewer out of 10,000 persons or are financially not viable to develop. The market exclusivity period is for ten years, although that period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, available evidence establishes that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. The market exclusivity may be extended to 12 years if the sponsor completes a pediatric investigation plan agreed upon with the relevant committee of the EMA.

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track and Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, priority review and accelerated approval, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for developing and reviewing promising drugs, or to provide for the approval of a drug on the basis of a surrogate endpoint. Even if a drug qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be shortened. Generally, drugs that are eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. For example, Fast Track and RMAT are processes designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and fill unmet medical needs. Priority review is designed to give drugs that offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists an initial review within six months as compared to a standard review time of 10 months. Although Fast Track, RMAT, and priority review do not affect the standards for approval, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor of a Fast Track designated drug and expedite review of the application for a drug designated for priority review. Accelerated approval provides for an earlier approval for a new drug that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and that fills an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a laboratory measurement or physical sign used as an indirect or substitute measurement representing a clinically meaningful outcome. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to confirm the clinically meaningful outcome as predicted by the surrogate marker trial.

In addition to the Fast Track, accelerated approval and priority review programs discussed above, breakthrough therapy designation may be pursued. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives: intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program; intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review; and rolling review.

In both domestic and foreign markets, sales and reimbursement of any approved products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of such products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing

cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. For example, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Further, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. In addition, there is significant uncertainty regarding the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare products. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, the payors may not cover our products after approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

Within the United States, if we obtain appropriate approval in the future to market any of our current product candidates, we may seek approval and coverage for those products under Medicaid, Medicare and the Public Health Service, or PHS, pharmaceutical pricing program and also seek to sell the products to federal agencies.

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that is administered by the states for low income and disabled beneficiaries. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, manufacturers are required to pay a rebate for each unit of product reimbursed by the state Medicaid programs. The amount of the rebate for each product is set by law and may be subject to an additional discount if certain pricing increases more than inflation.

Medicare is a federal program administered by the federal government that covers individuals age 65 and over as well as those with certain disabilities. Medicare Part D provides coverage to enrolled Medicare patients for self-administered drugs (i.e., drugs that do not need to be administered by a physician). Medicare Part D is administered by private prescription drug plans approved by the U.S. government and each drug plan establishes its own Medicare Part D formulary for prescription drug coverage and pricing, which the drug plan may modify from time-to-time.

Medicare Part B covers most injectable drugs given in an in-patient setting, and some drugs administered by a licensed medical provider in hospital outpatient departments and doctors’ offices. Medicare Part B is administered by Medicare Administrative Contractors, which generally have the responsibility of making coverage decisions. Subject to certain payment adjustments and limits, Medicare generally pays for Part B covered drugs based on a percentage of manufacturer-reported average sales price.

Drug products are subject to discounted pricing when purchased by federal agencies via the Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS.

FFS participation is required for a drug product to be covered and paid for by certain federal agencies and for coverage under Medicaid, Medicare Part B and the PHS pharmaceutical pricing program. FSS pricing is negotiated periodically with the Department of Veterans Affairs. FSS pricing is intended to not exceed the price that a manufacturer charges its most-favored non-federal customer for its product. In addition, prices for drugs purchased by the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense (including drugs purchased by military personnel and dependents through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program), Coast Guard, and PHS are subject to a cap on pricing (known as the “federal ceiling price”) and may be subject to an additional discount if pricing increases more than inflation.

To maintain coverage of drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, manufacturers are required to extend discounts to certain purchasers under the PHS pharmaceutical pricing program. Purchasers eligible for discounts include hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of financially needy patients, community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the PHS.

The United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the Affordable Care Act, which included changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government health care programs. Some of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act have been

enacted. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. Additionally, on January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain mandated fees under the Affordable Care Act, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. Congress also could consider additional legislation to repeal or replace other elements of the Affordable Care Act. Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for our products will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates or products to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts. Third-party payors are challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit reimbursement for newly-approved health care products. Recent budgetary pressures in many European Union countries are also causing governments to consider or implement various cost-containment measures, such as price freezes, increased price cuts and rebates. If budget pressures continue, governments may implement additional cost-containment measures. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for products that we may develop or sell, which would result in lower product revenues or royalties payable to us. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products.

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

Certain countries outside of the United States have a process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, or CTA, much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a CTA must be submitted to the competent national health authority and to independent ethics committees in each country in which a company intends to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed in that country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and other applicable regulatory requirements.

Under European Union regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. As with accelerated approval in the U.S., conditional marketing authorization in the European Union is permitted based on incomplete clinical data for a limited number of medicinal products for human use, including products designated as orphan medicinal products under EU law, if (1) the risk-benefit balance of the product is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. Specific obligations, including with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data, may be specified in the conditional marketing authorization. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions.

As in the United States, we may apply for designation of a product as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the European Union before the application for marketing authorization is made. Orphan drugs in Europe enjoy economic and marketing benefits, including up to 11 years of exclusivity for the approved indication unless another applicant can show that its product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan designated product. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, initiative was established by the EMA to help promote and foster the development of new medicines in the European Union that demonstrate potential for a major therapeutic advantage in areas of unmet medical need. Benefits from the PRIME designation include early confirmation of potential for accelerated assessment, early dialogue and increased interaction with relevant regulatory committees to discuss development options, scientific advice at key development milestones, and proactive regulatory support from the EMA.

As a pharmaceutical company, even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We are also subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential federal, state or local regulations. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological and chemical substances used in, and waste generated by, our operations. Our research and development involves the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals and viruses. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources.

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biological products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system of the United States. It is uncertain what legislative proposals will be adopted or what actions federal, state or private payers for medical goods and services may take in response to any healthcare reform proposals or legislation. We cannot predict the effect medical or healthcare reforms may have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms will not have a material adverse effect.

Our initial strategy is to outsource the manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storage, and distribution for our preclinical studies and clinical trials. In selecting contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to manufacture our product candidates, we generally strive to select the CMO based on the particular technical needs of the product candidate and quality and regulatory compliance. In addition, we aim to work with CMOs that possess the requisite scale, expertise and experience to support clinical as well as commercial product manufacturing. We have transferred the manufacturing processes for tabelecleucel (formerly known as ATA129) from MSK to our CMO. The transfer of manufacturing processes to our CMO includes modifications to the processes, improvements in the manufacturing process as well as product testing. Moreover, we are currently developing commercial-scale manufacturing processes for tabelecleucel for the Phase 3 trials, with the proposed dose and schedule to be used in clinical practice and at a cost sufficient to support profitable commercialization. In December 2017, following discussion with the FDA of manufacturing and comparability data generated on material manufactured by our contract manufacturing organization, we initiated these trials in the United States.

We are building our own manufacturing facility, which is designed to support clinical production and ultimately commercialization of tabelecleucel, if approved. In addition, we would expect our facility to support the supply needs for our other cellular therapy product candidates. We would expect to maintain our relationships with our CMOs in order to have redundant sources of supply. Our internal capabilities and experience in manufacturing encompass a broad range of activities including cell line development, process, analytical and formulation development, clinical and commercial scale GMP manufacturing, quality control and quality assurance. We are building the internal technical expertise in the manufacture of cellular therapeutics through hiring well experienced staff. This breadth of experience will allow us to effectively oversee our own manufacturing facility as well as direct the activities of our contract manufacturers and testing facilities. Benefits of owning our own facility may include improved cost of goods, increased control and oversight of manufacturing and supply chain activities, greater control over maintenance and management of production capacity across multiple products, development of redundant supply capabilities to reduce risk, and reduced reliance on third parties.

Our T-cell product candidates require blood from healthy, consenting third-party donors as starting materials. The manufacturing process involves co-culturing and incubating viral or cancer specific antigen transformed B-cells collected from the blood of third party-donors with T-cells collected from the same donor, all under Good Tissue Practices, or GTPs. GTPs are FDA regulations and guidance documents that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing.

Pursuant to our June 2015 license agreement with MSK, we acquired the right to use certain manufacturing process know-how related to producing clinical research-related drug supply. This included materials to support the manufacturing of clinical trial material including key starting materials and intermediates as well as existing inventory of clinical trial materials. We have also entered into a supply agreement with a third party to ensure we have the necessary blood donated from healthy consenting third-party donors.

As of February 15, 2018, we had 185 full-time employees consisting of research and development, regulatory affairs, technical operations, commercial operations, medical affairs and general administrative functions. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

We were incorporated in Delaware in 2012 and completed our initial public offering in October 2014. Our principal corporate offices are located at 611 Gateway Blvd., Suite 900, South San Francisco, CA 94080 and our telephone number at that address is (650) 278-8930.

Our website address is www.atarabio.com. We file Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other materials with the SEC. We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act and file or furnish reports, proxy statements, and other information with the SEC. Such reports and other information filed by the Company with the SEC are available free of charge on our website at investors.atarabio.com.

The public may also read and copy any materials filed by Atara with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K, 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.

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 year ended December 31, 2017, we reported a net loss of $119.5 million and we had an accumulated deficit of $296.7 million as of December 31, 2017.

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, consistently 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 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, any of our quarterly or annual periods’ results are not indicative of future operating performance.

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 successfully 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 to continue the clinical development and manufacturing of our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates, and the advancement and expansion of our preclinical research pipeline. We also expect to continue to expend resources for the development and manufacturing of product candidates and the technology we have licensed or have an exclusive right to license from QIMR Berghofer, including ATA188 and ATA190, which are in development for the treatment of MS. 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 each of MSK and QIMR Berghofer, we are obligated to make payments upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and 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.

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our planned operations into the first half of 2020. As of December 31, 2017, we had total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $166.1 million, and in January 2018, we completed an underwritten public offering, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $131.4 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, entering into licensing arrangements, 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.

We are very early in our development efforts and have only a small number of 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, and only a small number of our product candidates are 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.

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 tabelecleucel (formerly known as ATA129), for which we recently initiated Phase 3 clinical trials in the United States, ATA188, which is in a Phase 1 clinical trial, ATA190, which is in a Phase 1 clinical trial conducted by QIMR Berghofer, and ATA230, which is in Phase 2 clinical trials. 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 studies and clinical trials, 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.

Our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates, represent new therapeutic approaches that could result in heightened regulatory scrutiny, delays in clinical development or delays in or our inability to achieve regulatory approval or commercialization of our product candidates.

Our future success is dependent on the successful development of T-cell immunotherapies in general and our 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 immunotherapy product candidates will yield a sufficient supply of satisfactory products that are safe and effective, comparable to those T-cells produced by MSK or QIMR Berghofer historically, scalable or profitable.

Moreover, actual or perceived of 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.

The results of preclinical studies or earlier clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results. Our existing product candidates in clinical trials, and any other product candidate we advance into clinical trials, may not have favorable results in later clinical 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 trials. For example, in December 2015, we announced that our Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial of PINTA 745 did not meet its primary endpoint even though earlier clinical trials and preclinical studies had indicated that it might be effective to treat protein energy wasting in patients with end stage renal disease. Despite the results reported in earlier preclinical studies or clinical 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 tabelecleucel, ATA520, ATA188, ATA190, ATA230 or any of our other product candidates in any particular jurisdiction. Tabelecleucel has been predominantly evaluated in a single-center trial under investigator-sponsored INDs held by MSK, utilizing a different response criteria and endpoints from those we may utilize in later clinical trials. For example, the primary endpoint of both the MATCH and ALLELE trials is confirmed best objective response rate defined as the percent of patients achieving either a complete or partial response to treatment with tabelecleucel confirmed after the initial tumor assessment showing a response. In contrast, the prior MSK trials did not include response confirmation. The findings may not be reproducible in multi-center trials we conduct. For regulatory approvals, we are using independent radiologist and/or oncologist assessment of responses which may not correlate with the MSK reported assessments. In addition, the Phase 2 clinical trials with tabelecleucel enrolled a heterogeneous group of patients with a variety of EBV-associated malignancies, including but not limited to EBV+ PTLD after HCT and EBV+ PTLD after SOT. These Phase 2 trials were not prospectively designed to evaluate the efficacy of tabelecleucel in the treatment of a single disease state for which we may later seek approval. Moreover, final trial results may not be consistent with interim trial results. Efficacy data from prospectively designed trials may differ significantly from those obtained from retrospective subgroup analyses. In addition, clinical data obtained from a clinical trial with an autologous product candidate may not yield the same or better results with an allogeneic product candidate. 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 trials.

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical 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 trials of any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated for a variety of reasons, such as:

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical 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 trial, the design of the clinical trial, ability to obtain and maintain patient consents, risk that enrolled subjects will drop out or die before completion, competition for patients from other clinical trials, risk that we do not have an appropriately matched HLA cell line, competing clinical 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 tabelecleucel, ATA188, ATA520, ATA230 or any future product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible participants in these 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 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 trials may be delayed or our trials could become too expensive to complete. We rely on CROs, other vendors and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical 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 trial of our product candidates, the approval and 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 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 trials for our product candidates may also decrease the period of commercial exclusivity. In addition, many of the factors that could cause a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical 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. For example, hypoxia has been observed in some patients receiving ATA230 for the treatment of their CMV pneumonitis. As a result of safety or toxicity issues that we may experience in our clinical trials, we may not receive approval to market any product candidates, which could prevent us from ever generating revenues or achieving profitability. Results of our trials could reveal an unacceptably high severity and incidence of side effects. In such an event, our 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.

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 or maintain 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. Both the FDA and the EMA have granted us orphan status for tabelecleucel for EBV+ PTLD after HCT or SOT. EMA has granted us orphan status for ATA230 for CMV infection in patients with impaired cell-mediated immunity and FDA has granted us orphan status for the ATA230 for the treatment of CMV viremia and disease in immunocompromised patients.

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 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 be maintained or 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. 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. A product candidate that has been approved for sale in a particular country may not receive reimbursement approval 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.

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-marketing information. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance by us and/or our contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and CROs for any post-approval clinical trials that we conduct. 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 initial and 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 cGTP, 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 successfully 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. 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.

Regulations, guidelines and recommendations published by various government agencies and organizations may affect the use of our product candidates.

Although treatment with EBV specific T-cells is recognized as a recommended treatment for persistent or progressive EBV+ PTLD as set forth in the 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines, future guidelines from governmental agencies, professional societies, practice management groups, private health/science foundations and organizations involved in various diseases may relate to such matters as product usage, dosage, and route of administration and use of related or competing therapies. Changes to these recommendations or other guidelines advocating alternative therapies could result in decreased use of our product candidates, which may adversely affect our results of operations.

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.

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 MSK and QIMR Berghofer. To facilitate the manufacture of additional drug product for our Phase 3 clinical trials using the MSK manufacturing testing and process know-how, we undertook the process of transferring this know-how to our CMO. Transferring manufacturing testing and processes and know-how is complex and involves review and incorporation of both documented and undocumented processes that may have evolved over time. In addition, transferring production to different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. We and our CMOs will need to conduct significant development work to transfer these processes and manufacture each of our product candidates for studies, trials and commercial launch readiness. We cannot be certain that all relevant know-how has been adequately incorporated into the manufacturing process until the completion of studies (and the related evaluations) intended to demonstrate the comparability of material previously produced by MSK with that generated by our CMO. The inability to manufacture comparable drug product by us or our CMO could delay the continued development of our product candidates. Although we believe we have manufactured material that is comparable to that previously produced by MSK, the FDA, EMA, and other comparable regulatory authorities may not agree.

The processes by which our product candidates are manufactured were initially developed by MSK or QIMR Berghofer for clinical purposes. We and our CMO 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-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, 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 product which could delay the development of our product candidates. 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 product candidates could damage our reputation and the reputation of our products among physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical community, and cancer treatment centers, which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We intend to manufacture at least a portion of our product candidates ourselves. Delays in building, commissioning and receiving regulatory approvals for our manufacturing facility could delay our development plans and thereby limit our ability to generate revenues.

In February 2017, we entered into a lease to build a manufacturing facility in Thousand Oaks, California, which we intend to use to manufacture preclinical and clinical trial materials for our product candidates. This new manufacturing facility is expected to be completed to support clinical production in 2019. This project may result in unanticipated delays and cost more than expected due to a number of factors, including regulatory requirements. If construction or regulatory approval of our new facility is delayed, we may not be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of our drug candidates, which would limit our development activities and our opportunities for growth. Cost overruns associated with constructing our manufacturing facility could require us to raise additional funds from other sources.

In addition to the similar manufacturing risks described in "Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties," our manufacturing facility will be subject to ongoing, periodic inspection by the FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with cGMP and GTP. Our failure to follow and document our adherence to such cGMP and GTP regulations or other regulatory requirements may lead to significant delays in the availability of products for clinical or, in the future, commercial use, may result in the termination of or a hold on a clinical trial, or may delay or prevent filing or approval of marketing applications for our drugs. We also may encounter problems with the following:

Failure to comply with applicable regulations could also result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, a requirement to suspend or put on hold one or more of our clinical trials, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approval of our drug candidates, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of drug candidates, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could harm our business.

Developing advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls is required to fully utilize our facility. Advances in manufacturing techniques may render our facility and equipment inadequate or obsolete, without further investment.

In order to produce our drugs in the quantities that we believe will be required to meet anticipated market demand of any of our drug candidates if approved, we will need to increase, or "scale up," the production process by a significant factor over the initial level of production. If we are unable to do so, are delayed, or if the cost of this scale up is not economically feasible for us or we cannot find a third-party supplier, we may not be able to produce our drugs in a sufficient quantity to meet future demand.

If our sole clinical manufacturing facility is damaged or destroyed or production at this facility is otherwise interrupted, our business and prospects would be negatively affected.

If our manufacturing facility or the equipment in it is damaged or destroyed, we may not be able to quickly or inexpensively replace our manufacturing capacity or replace it at all. In the event of a temporary or protracted loss of this facility or equipment, we may not be able to transfer manufacturing to a third party. Even if we could transfer manufacturing to a third party, the shift would likely be expensive and time-consuming, particularly since the new facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements and we would need FDA approval before selling any products manufactured at that facility. Such an event could delay our clinical trials or reduce our product sales.

Currently, we maintain insurance coverage against damage to our property and to cover business interruption and research and development restoration expenses. However, our insurance coverage may not reimburse us, or may not be sufficient to reimburse us, for any expenses or losses we may suffer. We may be unable to meet our requirements for our product candidates if there were a catastrophic event or failure of our current manufacturing facility or processes.

We rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical 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 trials for ATA520 as well as perform the analysis, publication and presentation of data and results related to this program and the tabelecleucel and ATA230 programs. We also rely on studies previously conducted by MSK. Our collaborating investigators at QIMR Berghofer manage the conduct of the ongoing clinical trials for ATA190. We are utilizing a CRO for our EAP trial of tabelecleucel and for our open Phase 3 trials for EBV+ PTLD after HCT and SOT. We rely on these parties for the execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we control only some aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials 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 partners or 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 and cGTP 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 studies and clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and result in adverse publicity.

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. 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. Other data from studies or trials previously conducted by MSK or QIMR Berghofer 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 timely or on commercially reasonable terms.

We have limited experience manufacturing our product candidates on a clinical scale and no experience manufacturing on a commercial scale. We are, and expect to continue to be, 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 currently operate our own facilities for the manufacturing of our product candidates. In the case of tabelecleucel, we currently rely on our CMO for the production of this product candidate and the acquisition of materials incorporated in or used in the manufacturing or testing of these product candidates. In the case of ATA230, we currently rely on MSK for the production of this product candidate and acquisition of the materials incorporated in or used in the manufacturing or testing. In the case of ATA520, we currently rely on our CMO for the production of this product candidate. In the case of ATA188 and ATA190, we currently rely on an affiliate of QIMR Berghofer for the production of these product candidates and acquisition of the materials incorporated in or used in the manufacturing or testing. Our CMOs or partners are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CMOs or partners, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources, including experienced staff, to the manufacturing of supply for our ongoing clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. To meet our projected needs for clinical and commercial materials to support our activities through regulatory approval and commercial manufacturing of ATA188, ATA190, ATA520 and ATA230, we will need to transition the manufacturing of such materials to a CMO and/or our own facility, and such CMOs or we will need to develop relationships with suppliers of critical starting or other materials, increase the scale of production and demonstrate comparability of the material produced at these facilities to the material that was previously produced. Transferring manufacturing processes and know-how is complex and involves review and incorporation of both documented and undocumented processes that may have evolved over time. In addition, transferring production to different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. We would expect additional comparability work will also need to be conducted to support the transfer of certain manufacturing processes and process improvements. We cannot be certain that all relevant know-how and data has been adequately incorporated into the manufacturing process until the completion of studies (and the related evaluations) intended to demonstrate the comparability of material previously produced with that generated by our CMO. For example, we generated and evaluated data from new material manufactured by our CMO and identified certain assays that need refinement prior to initiating the Phase 3 trials. We have generated comparability data using our refined assays and cell lines produced by our CMO which data we believe supports the demonstration of comparability, and we recently initiated the Phase 3 trials in the U.S. following discussions with FDA.

If we are not able to successfully transfer this know-how and produce comparable product candidates our ability to further develop and manufacture our product candidates may be negatively impacted. We may need to identify additional CMOs for continued production of supply for all of our product candidates. In addition, given the manufacturing processes for our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates, the number of CMOs who possess the requisite skill and capability to manufacture our T-cell immunotherapy 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. In February 2017, we entered into a lease agreement to build our own cellular therapy manufacturing facility in Thousand Oaks, CA. At this facility, we intend to manufacture our product candidates for clinical or commercial use, if approved. Manufacturing cellular therapies 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 product candidate 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 cGMP, cGTP and similar jurisdictional 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 cGMP or cGTP 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 for an ongoing clinical trial could considerably delay initiation or completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase 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.

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. The T-cell immunotherapy product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from MSK and QIMR Berghofer 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 U.S. 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. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications is known to us or has been found in the instances where searching was done. We may be unaware of prior art that could be used to invalidate an issued patent or prevent a pending patent application from issuing as a patent. 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. There is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain a license from this other entity on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If this entity licenses its rights elsewhere, our competitors might gain access to this intellectual property. Also, 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 jeopardize 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.

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 filed a number of 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 that have never had a claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications or patents. Similarly, we could become involved in derivation proceedings before the USPTO to determine inventorship with respect to our patent applications. We may become involved in inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings in the USPTO regarding our intellectual property rights. We may also become involved in 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 U.S. government. As a result, the government has certain rights, such as 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 practice the invention for or on behalf of the United States. 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 U.S. 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 and other adversarial proceedings, 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, and inter partes and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO and non-U.S. patent offices. Numerous U.S. and non-U.S. 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.

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 on or 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 in a district court proceeding requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents, and proving invalidity in an inter partes

review proceeding in the USPTO requires a showing of a preponderance of the evidence. 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.

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 or where we do not have exclusive rights under the relevant patent(s) 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 or where we do not have exclusive rights under the relevant patent(s), or 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 MSK and QIMR Berghofer. If we breach any of our license agreements with MSK or QIMR Berghofer, we could lose the ability to continue the development and potential commercialization of one or more of our product candidates.

We hold rights under license agreements with MSK and QIMR Berghofer that are important to our business. Our discovery and development platform is built, in part, around patent rights exclusively in-licensed from MSK and QIMR Berghofer. The MSK agreement generally grants us an exclusive license to research, develop, make, use, offer for sale, sell and import, tabelecleucel, ATA520 and ATA230. Under our existing MSK license agreement, 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 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 MSK may have a right to terminate the affected license. The loss 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.

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 licensor’s intellectual property rights. Our and our licensor’s 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 licensor’s 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 or that our intellectual property rights are invalid. 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 licensor’s 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 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, post-grant review or other preissuance or post-grant proceedings in the USPTO or its foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property 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 licensor’s 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 are 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 U.S. Congress, the federal courts and/or 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.

Patent reform legislation that has occurred 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.

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 immunotherapy product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from MSK and QIMR Berghofer 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 product candidates, thus eroding our competitive position in the market. 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.

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

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 cancer treatment centers. Market acceptance of any of our product candidates for which we receive approval depends on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors or cancer treatment centers, we will not be able to generate significant revenues, which would compromise our ability to become profitable.

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. In particular, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively, the Affordable Care Act, was enacted, which substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for certain drugs and biologics, including our product candidates, that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013, and will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or the ATRA, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to numerous provisions of the Affordable Care Act, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act have been enacted. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. Additionally, on January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain mandated fees under the Affordable Care Act, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. Congress may consider other legislation to repeal and replace elements of the Affordable Care Act. Any repeal and replace legislation may have the effect of limiting the amounts that government agencies will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure, or may lead to significant deregulation, which could make the introduction of competing products and technologies much easier. Policy changes, including potential modification or repeal of all or parts of the Affordable Care Act or the implementation of new health care legislation could result in significant changes to the health care system, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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. For example, in the United States, there have been several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Further, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. 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.

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.

There are currently no FDA or EMA approved products for the treatment of EBV+ PTLD. However, some approved products and therapies are used off-label in the treatment of EBV+ PTLD, such as rituximab and combination chemotherapy regimens. In addition, a number of companies and academic institutions are developing drug candidates for EBV+ PTLD and other EBV associated diseases including: Cell Medica Ltd., which is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for baltaleucel-T, an autologous EBV specific T-cell therapy in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and Viracta Therapeutics, Inc., or Viracta, which has initiated Phase 1b/2 clinical trials for VRx-3996 in relapsed/refractory EBV⁺lymphomas. In addition, Tessa Therapeutics Pte Ltd. is developing TT10, an autologous EBV specific T-cell therapy, which is currently being evaluated in Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

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. These companies and academic institutions are in various stages of development with their product candidates with Merck & Co, Inc. completing Phase 3 clinical trials of letermovir, a CMV terminase inhibitor; Shire Plc which is conducting Phase 3 clinical trials of maribavir, a UL97 protein kinase inhibitor; Vical Inc., recently announced ASP0113, a

therapeutic bivalent plasma DNA CMV vaccine being evaluated in patients undergoing an allogeneic stem cell transplant, failed to meet primary or secondary endpoints in Phase 3 clinical trials. In addition, Helocyte, Inc., is conducting two Phase 2 clinical trials for a CMV MVA-vaccine and a CMV peptide vaccine in patients undergoing an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant; a monoclonal antibody combination therapy; Merck is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for V160, a CMV DNA vaccine; VBI Vaccines Inc., has completed Phase 1 clinical trials for VBI-1501A, an eVLP vaccine; Hookipa Biotech, is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for HB101, a bivalent vaccine, ViraCyte, is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for Viralym-C, a CMV-specific allogeneic cell therapy product; Fate Therapeutics is conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for ProTmune, a small molecule programmed mobilized peripheral blood graft; Chimerix is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for intravenous Brincidofovir (BCV IV), a nucleotide analog and Moderna Therapeutics is conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for mRNA-1647, an mRNA based prophylactic vaccine.

Competition in the MS market is high with fourteen therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the U.S. and European Union. There are many U.S. and international competitors in the RRMS market, including major multi-national fully-integrated pharmaceutical companies and established biotechnology companies. Most recently, Ocrevus®, marketed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, was approved for the treatment of relapsing MS in the U.S. and European Union. There are numerous other development candidates in Phase 3 trials for RRMS including Novartis’ anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab; Alkermes’ monomethyl fumarate prodrug ALKS 8700; Teva’s laquinimod, and Actelion’s next-generation sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) agonist ponesimod. Celgene recently reported positive results from Phase 3 clinical trials evaluating ozamimod, a S1PR agonist, in relapsing MS.

Only three therapies have been approved for the treatment of progressive MS. Recently, Ocrevus® was approved in the U.S. and European Union for the treatment of primary progressive MS (PPMS). Extavia® (marketed by Novartis) is approved in the U.S. and European Union for the treatment of secondary progressive MS (SPMS). Betaseron® (marketed by Bayer AG) is also approved in the European Union. Few therapies have been approved for progressive MS because many candidates have failed during clinical trial testing. In the U.S., there is one drug (mitoxantrone) approved to treat SPMS.

Several products are approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) including immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDs) such as Thalomid^® (Celgene Corporation), Revlimid^® (Celgene Corporation) and Pomalyst^® (Celgene Corporation); monoclonal antibodies such as Darzalex^® (Janssen Research & Development, LLC) and Empliciti^® (Bristol Myers Squibb); and proteasome inhibitors such as Velcade^® (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Kyprolis^® (Amgen Inc.).

Many of the approved or commonly used drugs and therapies for EBV+ PTLD, CMV and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma 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.

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

As of February 15, 2018, we had 185 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 our product candidates. 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:

As our operations expand, we will also need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners, suppliers and other third parties. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and preclinical studies and clinical trials effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, research and development, manufacturing, administrative and sales and marketing personnel. Our failure to accomplish any of these tasks could prevent us from successfully growing our company.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain our executive officers and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent upon our personnel, including Isaac E. Ciechanover, M.D., our President, Chief Executive Officer and founder, and Christopher Haqq, Ph.D., M.D., our EVP, Chief Scientific Officer. Our employment agreements with Drs. Ciechanover

and Haqq are at-will and do not prevent them from terminating their employment with us at any time. The loss of the services of either of them could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Our future growth and success depend on our ability to recruit, retain, manage and motivate our employees. The loss of any member of our senior management team or the inability to hire or retain experienced management personnel could compromise our ability to execute our business plan and harm our operating results. Because of the specialized scientific and managerial nature of our business, we rely heavily on our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and managerial personnel. The competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceutical field is intense and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the development of our business.

Our relationships with customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, privacy and other laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would market, sell and distribute our products. As a pharmaceutical company, even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply

with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct, including intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. Product liability claims may be brought against us by subjects enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, healthcare providers or others using, administering or selling our products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold product liability insurance coverage at a level that we believe is customary for similarly situated companies and adequate to provide us with insurance coverage for foreseeable risks, but which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. We intend to expand our insurance coverage for products to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in development, but we may be unable to obtain commercially reasonable product liability insurance for any products that receive regulatory approval. Large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us, particularly if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and adversely affect our business.

If we and our third-party manufacturers fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We and our third-party manufacturers are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our or our third-party manufacturers’ use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials with a policy limit that we believe is customary for similarly situated companies and adequate to provide us with insurance coverage for foreseeable risks, this insurance may not provide adequate cover age against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological or hazardous materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures or security breaches.

Our internal computer systems, and those of MSK, QIMR Berghofer, our CROs, our CMOs, and other business vendors on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We exercise little or no control over these third parties, which increases our vulnerability to problems with their systems. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, the further development of our product candidates could be delayed and our business could be otherwise adversely affected.

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

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law new tax legislation, or the Tax Act, which significantly reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Tax Act, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%; limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense to 30% of adjusted earnings (except for certain small businesses); limitation of the deduction of net operating losses generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 to 80% of taxable income, indefinite carryforward of net operating losses generated in tax years after 2018 and elimination of net operating loss carrybacks; changes in the treatment of offshore earnings regardless of whether they are repatriated; current inclusion in U.S. federal taxable income of certain earnings of controlled foreign corporations, mandatory capitalization of research and development expenses beginning in 2022; immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time; further deduction limits on executive compensation; and modifying, repealing and creating many other business deductions and credits, including the reduction in the orphan drug credit from 50% to 25% of qualifying expenditures. We continue to examine the impact this tax reform legislation may have on our business. Notwithstanding the reduction in the corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of the Tax Act is uncertain and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected. The impact of this tax reform on holders of our common stock is also uncertain and could be adverse. This periodic report does not discuss any such tax legislation or the manner in which it might affect us or our stockholders in the future. We urge our stockholders to consult with their legal and tax advisors with respect to such legislation.

Our ability to use net operating loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income, and our ability to use tax credit carryforwards, may be subject to certain limitations.

Our ability to use our federal and state net operating losses, or NOLs, to offset potential future taxable income and related income taxes that would otherwise be due is dependent upon our generation of future taxable income, and we cannot predict with certainty when, or whether, we will generate sufficient taxable income to use all of our NOLs.

As of December 31, 2017, we reported U.S. federal and state NOLs of approximately $76.0 million, $231.4 million, respectively. These federal NOLs generated prior to 2018 will continue to be governed by the NOL tax rules as they existed prior to the adoption of the new Tax Act, which means that generally they will expire 20 years after they were generated if not used prior thereto. Many states have similar laws. Accordingly, these federal and state NOLs could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax

liabilities. Under the newly enacted Tax Act, federal NOLs incurred in 2018 and in future years may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOL’s is limited to 80% of current year taxable income. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the newly enacted federal tax law.

In addition, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, our ability to utilize these NOLs and other tax attributes, such as federal tax credits, in any taxable year may be limited if we have experienced an “ownership change.” Generally, a Section 382 ownership change occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who owns at least 5% of a corporation’s stock increases its ownership by more than 50 percentage points over its lowest ownership percentage within a three-year testing period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. We completed a Section 382 study of transactions in our stock through December 31, 2017 and concluded that we have experienced an ownership change that we believe under Section 382 of the Code will result in limitations in our ability to use certain of our NOLs and credits. In addition, we may experience future ownership changes as a result of future offerings or other changes in the ownership of our stock, some of which are beyond our control. As a result, the amount of the NOL’s and tax credit carryforwards presented in our financial statements could be limited and, in the case of NOL’s generated in 2017 and before, may expire unused. Any such material limitation or expiration of our NOL’s may harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenues and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or manmade disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. Two of our corporate locations are located in California, an area prone to earthquakes. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our product candidates. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of product candidates could be disrupted, if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.

Our stock price has been and will likely continue to be volatile and may decline regardless of our operating performance.

Our stock price has fluctuated in the past and can be expected to be volatile in the future. From October 16, 2014, the first date of trading of our common stock, through December 31, 2017, the reported sale price of our common stock has fluctuated between $9.66 and $65.56 per share. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may experience losses on their investment in our common stock. The market price of our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including the following:

We may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management attention.

The market price of our common stock has been volatile, and in the past companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

Our executive officers, directors and stockholders own a significant portion of our outstanding voting stock. These stockholders may be able to determine the outcome of all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interest as one of our stockholders. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with your interests or the interests of other stockholders and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including seeking a premium value for their common stock, and might affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Moreover, certain holders of shares of our common stock will have rights, subject to certain conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. We have registered and intend to continue to register all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. Once we register these shares, they can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

We are an “emerging growth company” and are taking advantage of reduced disclosure and governance requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, which could result in our common stock being less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we are taking advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company, which in certain circumstances could be for up to five years from the date of our initial public offering. 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 Exchange Act.

Our status as an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act may make it more difficult to raise capital as and when we need it.

Because of the exemptions from various reporting requirements provided to us as an “emerging growth company” we may be less attractive to investors and it may be difficult for us to raise additional capital as and when we need it. Investors may be unable to compare our business with other companies in our industry if they believe that our financial accounting is not as transparent as other

companies in our industry. If we are unable to raise additional capital as and when we need it, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

We have incurred and will continue to incur increased costs as a result of being a public company and our management expects to devote substantial time to public company compliance programs.

As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and The Nasdaq Stock Market to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the SEC has adopted and will adopt additional rules and regulations, such as mandatory “say on pay” voting requirements, that will apply to us when we cease to be an emerging growth company. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the potential for future regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.

The rules and regulations applicable to public companies have substantially increased our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. To the extent these requirements divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The increased costs will decrease our net income or increase our net loss, and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of potential gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To raise capital, we may sell substantial amounts of common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable for common stock. These future issuances of common stock or common stock-related securities, together with the exercise of outstanding options and any additional shares issued in connection with acquisitions or in-licenses, if any, may result in material dilution to our investors. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock.

Pursuant to our equity incentive plans, our compensation committee is authorized to grant equity-based incentive awards to our employees, non-employee directors and consultants. Future grants of RSUs, options and other equity awards and issuances of common stock under our equity incentive plans will result in dilution and may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

Some provisions of our charter documents and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, or certificate of incorporation, and amended and restated bylaws, or bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders, or remove our current management. These include provisions that will:

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, who are responsible for appointing the members of our management. For example, our board is divided into three classes. Each class has a three-year term. These classes make it more difficult to replace a majority of our directors in a short period of time. Because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which may discourage, delay or prevent someone from acquiring us or merging with us whether or not it is desired by or beneficial to our stockholders. Under Delaware law, a corporation may not, in general, engage in a business combination with any holder of 15% or more of its capital stock unless the holder has held the stock for three years or, among other things, the board of directors has approved the transaction. Any provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. In the event securities or industry analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Our corporate headquarters are currently located in South San Francisco, California and consists of approximately 13,670 square feet of leased office space. The lease is expected to expire in April 2021. We also lease office space in Westlake Village, California under a lease agreement that expires in April 2019. In February 2017, we entered into a lease agreement for approximately 90,580 square feet of office, lab and cellular therapy manufacturing space in Thousand Oaks, California. The term of the lease commences upon the substantial completion of landlord’s work as defined under the agreement, which is currently estimated to be in the second quarter of 2018. Upon the commencement of the lease, the initial term of the lease is fifteen years.

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

Our common stock has been listed on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol "ATRA" since October 16, 2014. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth for the indicated periods the high and low intra-day sales prices per share for our common stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market.

On February 15, 2018, there were 11 stockholders of record of our common stock and the closing price of our common stock was $47.05 per share as reported on The Nasdaq Global Select Market. We are unable to estimate the total number of stockholders represented by these record holders, as many of our shares are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of our stockholders.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not intend to declare or pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any further determination to pay dividends on our capital stock will be at the discretion of our board of directors, subject to applicable laws, and will depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our board of directors considers relevant.

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Set forth below is a graph comparing the cumulative total return on an indexed basis of a $100 investment in the Company’s common stock, the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index commencing on October 16, 2014 (the date our common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market) and continuing through December 31, 2017. The graph assumes our closing sale price on October 16, 2014 of $10.65 per share as the initial value of our common stock for indexing purposes. Points on the graph represent the performance as of the last business day of each of the fiscal quarters indicated.

This performance graph shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or incorporated by reference into any filing of Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing. The past performance of our common stock is no indication of future performance.

Among Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index

The following selected consolidated and combined financial data of the Company for each of the periods indicated are derived from the Company’s audited consolidated and combined financial statements. The consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 and for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, and the related reports of the independent registered public accounting firm are included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The data presented below should be read in conjunction with the Company’s financial statements, the notes thereto, and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" included elsewhere in this report.

	Year ended			Year ended			Year ended			Year ended			Year ended
Consolidated and Combined Statements of Operations	December 31,			December 31,			December 31,			December 31,			December 31,
and Comprehensive Loss Data:	2017			2016			2015			2014			2013
	(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Operating expenses:
Research and development	$	81,206		$	56,514		$	41,618		$	15,446		$	4,859
General and administrative		40,326			24,728			16,830			12,710			3,756
Total operating expenses		121,532			81,242			58,448			28,156			8,615
Loss from operations		(121,532	)		(81,242	)		(58,448	)		(28,156	)		(8,615	)
Interest and other income, net		2,027			2,203			1,218			125			12
Loss before provision for income taxes		(119,505	)		(79,039	)		(57,230	)		(28,031	)		(8,603	)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		(14	)		10			(9	)		(25	)		170
Net loss	$	(119,491	)	$	(79,049	)	$	(57,221	)	$	(28,006	)	$	(8,773	)
Other comprehensive loss:
Unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities		32			335			(418	)		(100	)		—
Comprehensive loss	$	(119,459	)	$	(78,714	)	$	(57,639	)	$	(28,106	)	$	(8,773	)
Basic and diluted net loss per common share	$	(4.00	)	$	(2.75	)	$	(2.24	)	$	(5.62	)	$	(9.08	)

	As of December 31,
Consolidated and Combined Balance Sheet Data:	2017			2016			2015			2014			2013
				(In thousands)
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments	$	166,096		$	255,682		$	320,482		$	104,116		$	51,615
Working capital	$	144,544		$	250,878		$	314,888		$	103,302		$	50,284
Total assets	$	217,779		$	263,914		$	324,975		$	106,122		$	51,828
Long-term liabilities	$	12,269		$	503		$	166		$	216		$	230
Convertible preferred stock	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	61,091
Total stockholders' equity (deficit)	$	177,864		$	253,736		$	315,100		$	103,182		$	(11,017	)

Item 7. 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 financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion and other parts of this Annual 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 Annual 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.

Atara Biotherapeutics is a leading T-cell immunotherapy company developing novel treatments for patients with cancer, autoimmune and viral diseases. The Company's off-the-shelf, or allogeneic, T-cells are bioengineered from donors with healthy immune function and allow for rapid delivery from inventory to patients without a requirement for pretreatment. Atara's T-cell immunotherapies are designed to precisely recognize and eliminate cancerous or diseased cells without affecting normal, healthy cells. Atara's most advanced T-cell immunotherapy in development, tabelecleucel (formerly known as ATA129), is being developed for the treatment of patients with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) associated post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (EBV+ PTLD), who have failed rituximab, as well as other EBV associated hematologic and solid tumors, including nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Off-the-shelf ATA188 and autologous ATA190, the Company's T-cell immunotherapies using a complementary targeted antigen recognition technology, target specific EBV antigens believed to be important for the potential treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Atara's clinical pipeline also includes ATA520 targeting Wilms Tumor 1 (WT1) and ATA230 directed against cytomegalovirus (CMV).

Our technology allows for rapid delivery of a T-cell immunotherapy product that has been manufactured in advance and stored in inventory, with each manufactured lot of cells providing therapy for numerous potential patients. This differs from autologous, or patient-derived, treatments, in which each patient’s own cells must be extracted, modified outside the body and then delivered back to the patient. We utilize a proprietary cell selection algorithm to select the appropriate set of cells for use based on a patient’s unique immune profile, and, unlike many other T-cell programs, there is no requirement for pre-treatment before our cells are administered nor is there extended monitoring following administration. For example, in our ongoing trials with our most advanced product candidate, tabelecleucel, patients are monitored for two hours following receipt of tabelecleucel. Our T-cell immunotherapy platform is applicable to a broad array of targets and diseases. With more than 200 patients treated across the platform, we have observed clinical proof of concept across both viral and non-viral targets in conditions ranging from liquid and solid tumors to infectious and autoimmune diseases. We have also observed a safety profile characterized by few treatment-related serious adverse events, or SAEs, and no evidence of cytokine release syndrome to date.

Our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates are engineered from cells donated by healthy individuals with normal immune function. Once cells are collected from a donor, they are bioengineered to expand those T-cells that recognize the antigen of interest. The resulting expanded T-cells are then characterized and held as inventory. From inventory, these cells can be selected, distributed and prepared for infusion in a partially human leukocyte antigen, or HLA, matched patient in approximately 3-5 days. Following administration, our T-cells home to their target, undergo target-controlled proliferation, eliminate diseased cells and eventually recede. Target-controlled proliferation means that our T-cells expand in number when they encounter diseased cells in a patient’s body that express the antigen the cells are designed to recognize.

We have two technology platforms. One of our technology platforms was developed from more than a decade of experience at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, or MSK. The other was developed at QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, or QIMR Berghofer, in Australia. We licensed rights to certain know-how and T-cell product candidates from MSK in June 2015. Our most advanced product candidate, tabelecleucel, targets Epstein-Barr virus, or EBV. Tabelecleucel received Breakthrough Therapy Designation, or BTD, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and Priority Medicines, or PRIME, designation from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and is currently being evaluated as monotherapy in two Phase 3 trials for the treatment of patients with EBV associated post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, or EBV+ PTLD who have failed rituximab. We believe that tabelecleucel has the potential to be the first commercially available off-the-shelf T-cell immunotherapy and the first FDA and EMA approved therapy for EBV+ PTLD. With a European conditional marketing authorization application planned for the first half of 2019 and U.S. biologics licensing applications planned following the completion of one of our ongoing Phase 3 trials, we are currently developing the infrastructure to commercialize tabelecleucel globally in EBV+ PTLD. We are also evaluating the potential utility of tabelecleucel in patients with other EBV associated cancers, such as nasopharyngeal carcinoma, or NPC, to continue its development in solid tumors. Additional product candidates derived from the collaboration with MSK are being developed to treat various cancers and severe viral infections.

In October 2015 and September 2016, we licensed rights to certain know-how and technology from QIMR Berghofer that is complementary to that which was licensed from MSK. This know-how and technology uses targeted antigen recognition to create off-the-shelf T-cell immunotherapy product candidates applicable to a variety of diseases, including autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis, or MS. We are also working with QIMR Berghofer on the development of EBV and other virally targeted T-cell immunotherapies. Through this technology, we are expanding the role of immunotherapy beyond oncology and viral infections to

autoimmune disease. Our most advanced off-the-shelf T-cell product candidate utilizing this technology, ATA188, targets select antigens of EBV and is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1 trial initially for the treatment of patients with progressive MS. In connection with the initial license from QIMR Berghofer, we received an option to exclusively license an autologous version of ATA188, also known as ATA190, which recently demonstrated clinical activity in a Phase 1 trial in progressive MS. We expect to broadly explore the utility of our targeted antigen recognition technology in EBV and other virally driven diseases, and additional product candidates derived from our collaboration with QIMR Berghofer are being developed.

Overall, we believe that Atara is a leading allogeneic T-cell immunotherapy company with a robust and late stage oncology pipeline and potentially transformative T-cell immunotherapies for MS and other viral associated diseases. With tabelecleucel poised to potentially become the first approved off-the-shelf T-cell therapy and a robust pipeline of high potential candidates, our ambition is to be recognized as the leader in off-the-shelf T-cell immunotherapy.

We have 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 studies and clinical trials and providing general and administrative support for these operations.

We have never generated revenues and have incurred losses since inception. Our net losses were $119.5 million, $79.0 million and $57.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $296.7 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. As of December 31, 2017, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaled $166.1 million, which we intend to use to fund our operations. In January 2018, we completed an underwritten public offering of 7,675,072 shares of common stock at $18.25 per share, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $131.4 million.

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.

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 primarily of compensation and benefits for research and development employees, including stock-based compensation; 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; payments under licensing and research and development agreements; other outside services and consulting costs; and an allocation of facilities, information technology and overhead expenses. Research and development costs are expensed as incurred.

We plan to increase our research and development expenses 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 trials over the next several years.

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. The risks and uncertainties associated with our research and development projects are discussed more fully in the section of this report titled “1A. Risk Factors.” As a result of these risks and uncertainties, we are unable to determine with any degree of certainty the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects, or if, when, or to what extent we will generate revenues from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of compensation and benefits for general and administrative employees, including stock-based compensation; outside professional service costs, including legal, patent, human resources, audit and accounting services; other outside services and consulting costs; and allocated information technology and facilities costs. 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 the potential commercialization of one or more of our product candidates.

Interest and other income, net consists primarily of interest earned on our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments.

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions 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 judgments and estimates are detailed below, and our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 of the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law new tax legislation, or the Tax Act, which significantly reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. As of December 31, 2017, we have made a reasonable estimate of the effects on our existing deferred taxes and related disclosures for the reduction in corporate tax rate and adjustments to the expected deductibility of executive compensation. Due to current year taxable losses and our federal valuation allowance position, we did not recognize any income tax expense or benefit as a result of the Tax Act. Due to accumulated foreign deficits the Company does not expect a current inclusion in U.S. federal taxable income for the transition tax on earnings of controlled foreign corporations.

The SEC staff has issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, Income Tax Accounting Implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (SAB 118), which allows us to record provisional amounts during a measurement period not to extend beyond one year of the enactment date. We consider the key estimates on the deferred tax remeasurement and the impact of the changes to the deductibility of executive compensation to be provisional due to expected forthcoming guidance from federal and state tax authorities, our continuing analysis of final year-end data and tax positions, as well as further guidance expected for the associated income tax accounting. We expect to complete our analysis within the measurement period in accordance with SAB 118.

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”,

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 $1.07 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 Exchange Act.

Research and development expenses by program for the periods indicated were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31,						Increase (Decrease)
	2017		2016		2015		2017 compared to 2016			2016 compared to 2015
	(in thousands)
Tabelecleucel (formerly known as ATA129)	$	15,078	$	8,821	$	970	$	6,257			7,851
ATA188		2,697		-		-		2,697			-
ATA230		2,493		2,572		78		(79	)		2,494
T-cell manufacturing and other T-cell program expenses		22,239		18,673		9,123		3,566			9,550
Molecular program expenses		389		1,110		18,511		(721	)		(17,401	)
Employee and overhead costs		38,310		25,338		12,936		12,972			12,402
Total research and development	$	81,206	$	56,514	$	41,618	$	24,692		$	14,896

Tabelecleucel costs were $15.1 million in 2017 as compared to $8.8 million in 2016 and $1.0 million in 2015. The increases in 2017 and 2016 were primarily due to manufacturing and outside service costs related to the preparation for the two Phase 3 clinical trials of tabelecleucel in patients with EBV+ PTLD who have failed rituximab and ongoing costs for our tabelecleucel EAP clinical trial, which was initiated in mid-2016. We anticipate that tabelecleucel costs will increase in 2018 due to the initiation of two Phase 3 clinical trials for this product candidate in December 2017.

ATA188 costs were $2.7 million in 2017 as compared to zero in 2016 and 2015. The increase in 2017 was primarily related to clinical manufacturing and preparations for the Phase 1 clinical trial of allogeneic ATA188, which was initiated in October 2017. We anticipate that ATA188 costs will increase in 2018 as the Phase 1 trial expands into additional territories.

ATA230 costs were $2.5 million in 2017 as compared to $2.6 million in 2016 and $0.1 million in 2015. The decrease in 2017 was primarily due to decreased clinical trial activity in the year. The increase in 2016 was primarily related to outside services costs associated with the Phase 2 clinical trial for this product candidate. We anticipate that ATA230 costs will decrease in 2018 as we are prioritizing our EBV related programs ahead of ATA230 at this time.

T-cell manufacturing and other T-cell program expenses were $22.2 million in 2017 as compared to $18.7 million in 2016 and $9.1 million in 2015. The increase of $3.5 million in 2017 was primarily due to increased tabelecleucel production to prepare for the pivotal trials and increased spending on our BKV and HPV programs through our collaboration with QIMR Berghofer. The increase of $9.6 million in 2016 was primarily due to an increase of $14.1 million for manufacturing-related activities, including the technical transfer of tabelecleucel manufacturing to a third party CMO, partially offset by a $4.5 million license payment made to MSK in 2015. Expenses in 2016 included cash payments to QIMR Berghofer of $3.3 million related to the license of additional T-cell immunotherapy programs and the option to license additional technologies from them. Expenses in 2015 included a $4.5 million cash payment to MSK to exercise our option to license certain T-cell immunotherapy programs, and $3.0 million paid to QIMR Berghofer for an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize allogeneic T-cell immunotherapy programs utilizing technology and know-how developed by them. We anticipate that T-cell manufacturing and other T-cell program expenses will continue to increase in 2018 due to an increase in manufacturing activity, the continued development of our manufacturing processes, and the development of products obtained from our collaboration with QIMR Berghofer.

Molecular program expenses were $0.4 million in 2017 as compared to $1.1 million in 2016 and $18.5 million in 2015. The decrease of $0.7 million in 2017 and $17.4 million in 2016 were primarily due to the suspension of the PINTA 745 and ATA 842 programs in December 2015 and the STM 434 program in the third quarter of 2017.

Employee and overhead costs were $38.3 million in 2017 as compared to $25.3 million in 2016 and $12.9 million in 2015. The increases of $13.0 million in 2017 and $12.4 million in 2016 were primarily a result of higher compensation-related costs from increased headcount in support of our continuing expansion of research and development activities. In particular, payroll and related costs increased by $8.0 million in 2017 as compared to 2016, and by $8.5 million in 2016 as compared to 2015, from increased headcount. Also, facility related costs and other outside services costs increased by $3.4 million and $0.8 million, respectively, in 2017 as compared to 2016, and by $2.3 million and $1.2 million, respectively, in 2016 as compared to 2015. We anticipate that employee and overhead costs will continue to increase in future periods as we continue to expand our research and development activities.

General and administrative expenses were $40.3 million in 2017 compared to $24.7 million in 2016 and $16.8 million in 2015. The increase of $15.6 million in 2017 was primarily due to a $10.1 million increase in compensation-related costs driven by increased headcount, a $4.7 million increase in professional services costs and a $0.8 million increase in travel and other related costs. The increase of $7.9 million in 2016 was primarily due to a $7.0 million increase in compensation-related costs driven by increased headcount, a $1.1 million increase in professional services costs, partially offset by a $0.2 million decrease in travel and other related costs. We expect that general and administrative costs will continue to increase in 2018 as we continue to expand our operations.

The following table sets forth our unaudited consolidated statement of operations data for each of the eight quarters in the period ended December 31, 2017. The unaudited quarterly statement of operations data set forth below have been prepared on a basis consistent with our audited annual consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and include, in our opinion, all normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the financial information contained in those statements. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected in the future. The following quarterly financial data should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

	Three months ended
	March 31			June 30			September 30			December 31
2017	(In thousands)
Operating expenses:
Research and development	$	17,541		$	18,296		$	20,598		$	24,771
General and administrative		8,620			9,613			11,062			11,031
Total operating expenses		26,161			27,909			31,660			35,802
Loss from operations		(26,161	)		(27,909	)		(31,660	)		(35,802	)
Interest and other income, net		509			481			564			473
Loss before provision for income taxes		(25,652	)		(27,428	)		(31,096	)		(35,329	)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		2			—			—			(16	)
Net loss		(25,654	)		(27,428	)		(31,096	)		(35,313	)
Other comprehensive loss:
Unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities		31			38			26			(63	)
Comprehensive loss	$	(25,623	)	$	(27,390	)	$	(31,070	)	$	(35,376	)

Basic and diluted net loss per common share	$	(0.88	)	$	(0.94	)	$	(1.02	)	$	(1.15	)

	Three months ended
	March 31			June 30			September 30			December 31⁽¹⁾
2016	(In thousands)
Operating expenses:
Research and development	$	11,247		$	12,991		$	18,802		$	13,474
General and administrative		5,814			6,494			7,140			5,280
Total operating expenses		17,061			19,485			25,942			18,754
Loss from operations		(17,061	)		(19,485	)		(25,942	)		(18,754	)
Interest and other income, net		503			605			576			519
Loss before provision for income taxes		(16,558	)		(18,880	)		(25,366	)		(18,235	)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		3			—			7			—
Net loss		(16,561	)		(18,880	)		(25,373	)		(18,235	)
Other comprehensive loss:
Unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities		569			142			(158	)		(218	)
Comprehensive loss	$	(15,992	)	$	(18,738	)	$	(25,531	)	$	(18,453	)

Basic and diluted net loss per common share	$	(0.58	)	$	(0.66	)	$	(0.88	)	$	(0.63	)

Since our inception in 2012, we have funded our operations primarily through the issuance of common and preferred stock.

In March 2017, we entered into a sales agreement, or the ATM facility, with Cowen and Company, LLC, or Cowen, under which we may offer and sell, in our sole discretion, shares of our common stock, having an aggregate offering price of up to $75.0 million through Cowen, as our sales agent. We will pay Cowen a commission of up to 3.0% of the gross sales proceeds of any common stock sold under the ATM facility. The issuance and sale of these shares by us pursuant to the ATM facility are deemed “at the market” offerings and are available under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, we sold an aggregate of 1,349,865 shares of common stock, under the ATM facility, at an average price of approximately $14.82 per share, for gross proceeds of $20.0 million, and net proceeds of $19.2 million, after deducting commissions and other offering expenses. As of December 31, 2017, $55.0 million of common stock remained available to be sold under this facility, subject to certain conditions as specified in the agreement.

In January 2018, we completed an underwritten public offering of 7,675,072 shares of common stock, including 675,072 from the exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares, at an offering price of $18.25 per share. We received net proceeds of approximately $131.4 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

We have incurred losses and negative cash flows from operations in each year since inception. As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $296.7 million. 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. We may borrow funds on terms that may include restrictive covenants, including covenants that restrict the operation of our business, liens on assets, high effective interest rates and repayment provisions that reduce cash resources and limit future access to capital markets. In addition, we expect to continue to opportunistically seek access to the equity capital markets to support our development efforts and operations. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. To the extent that we raise additional funds through collaboration or partnering arrangements, we may be required to relinquish some of our rights to our technologies or rights to market and sell our products in certain geographies, grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us, or issue equity that may be substantially dilutive to our stockholders.

Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested in accordance with our written investment policy, primarily with a view to liquidity and capital preservation. Currently, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are held in bank and custodial accounts and consist of money market funds, U.S. Treasury, government agency and corporate debt obligations, commercial paper and asset-backed securities. In 2018, we expect to spend approximately $21.3 million of cash to complete the build-out of our office, lab and cellular therapy manufacturing space in Thousand Oaks, California. Management expects that our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of December 31, 2017, along with the proceeds from the public offering completed in January 2018, will be sufficient to fund our planned operations into the first half of 2020.

Our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments balances as of the dates indicated were as follows:

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

Net cash used in operating activities was $87.5 million in 2017 as compared to $60.0 million in 2016. The increase of $27.5 million was primarily due to a $40.4 million increase in net loss, partially offset by a $6.3 million increase stock-based compensation, a $4.3 million increase in accrued research and development expenses, a $1.2 million increase in accounts payable and a $0.8 million increased in accrued compensation.

Net cash used in operating activities was $60.0 million in 2016 as compared to $37.2 million in 2015. The increase of $22.9 million was primarily due to a $21.8 million increase in net loss and a $7.0 million decrease in accrued research and development expenses, partially offset by a $6.5 million increase in stock-based compensation.

Net cash provided by investing activities in 2017 consisted primarily of $189.0 million received from maturities and $107.6 million from sales of available-for-sale securities, partially offset by $176.5 million used to purchase available-for-sale securities and $20.2 million used to purchase property and equipment.

Net cash provided by investing activities in 2016 consisted primarily of $149.0 million received from maturities and $242.6 million from sales of available-for-sale securities, partially offset by $304.9 million used to purchase available-for-sale securities and $3.0 million used to purchase property and equipment.

Net cash used in investing activities in 2015 consisted primarily of $379.8 million of purchases of short-term available-for-sale securities, partially offset by $96.1 million received from maturities and $64.0 million from sales of available-for-sale securities.

Net cash provided by financing activities in the 2017 consisted of $19.2 million of net proceeds from the ATM facility and $1.3 million of net proceeds from employee stock transactions, partially offset by $0.4 million of taxes paid related to the net share settlement of restricted stock. Net cash provided by financing activities in 2016 of $0.5 million consists primarily of net proceeds from employee stock transactions. Net cash provided by financing activities in 2015 consisted primarily of $263.4 million in aggregate net proceeds from the sale of common stock in two separate follow-on offerings.

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 anticipate that we will need substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations.

We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our planned operations into the first half of 2020. 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:

We lease our current corporate headquarters in South San Francisco, California under a non-cancellable lease agreement for approximately 13,670 square feet of office space. The lease is expected to expire in April 2021.

In January 2015, we entered into a non-cancellable lease agreement for office and laboratory space in Westlake Village, California. In September 2015, we amended the lease agreement to add additional office space and extend the term of the agreement to April 2019.

In February 2017, we entered into a lease agreement for approximately 90,580 square feet of office, lab and cellular therapy manufacturing space in Thousand Oaks, California, or the Thousand Oaks lease. The term of the Thousand Oaks lease commences when the landlord delivers possession of the facility to us. Upon commencement, the initial term of the lease is fifteen years. We have the option to extend the lease for two additional periods of ten and nine years, respectively, after the initial term. We are accounting for this lease under build to suit accounting guidance, which requires us to capitalize the fair value of the building as well as the construction costs incurred on our consolidated balance sheet along with a corresponding financing liability for landlord-paid construction costs. Upon occupancy for build-to-suit leases, we are also required to assess whether the circumstances qualify for sale recognition under “sale-leaseback” accounting guidance.

In fourth quarter of 2017, we entered into multiple lease agreements to lease certain equipment that have been accounted for as capital leases. The term of the lease agreements range between 2-3 years.

Aggregate future minimum commitments for our leases as of December 31, 2017 are as follows:

	Payments Due by Period
					Less than						More than
		Total			1 Year		1-3 Years		3-5 Years		5 Years
	(in thousands)
Operating lease obligations	$		3,674			1,979		1,436		259		—
Capital lease obligations			1,204			546		658		—		—
Financing lease obligations			16,387			372		1,849		1,962		12,204
Total contractual obligations	$		21,265	$		2,897	$	3,943	$	2,221	$	12,204

The above amounts exclude potential milestone and royalty payments related to our license and collaboration agreements, as the achievement of these milestones is currently not fixed and determinable.

We may also enter into contracts in the normal course of business with clinical research organizations for clinical trials, with contract manufacturing organizations for clinical supplies, and with other vendors for preclinical studies and supplies and other services and products for operating purposes. These contracts generally provide for termination on notice, with the exception of potential termination charges related to one of our contract manufacturing agreements in the event certain minimum purchase volumes are not met. Payments in the table above are based on current operating forecasts, which are subject to change, and do not include any termination fees.

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.

We are exposed to market risk related to changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2017, we had cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $166.1 million. Our primary exposure to market risk is interest rate sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, particularly because our investments are in short-term securities. Our available-for-sale securities are subject to interest rate risk and will fall in value if market interest rates increase, which could result in a realized loss if we are forced to sell an investment before its scheduled maturity. We currently do not hedge our interest rate risk exposure. Due to the short-term duration of our investment portfolio and the low risk profile of our investments, an immediate change in interest rates of 10 basis points would not result in a significant change in the fair market value of our portfolio.

The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive from our investments without significantly increasing risk. To achieve this objective, we maintain our portfolio of cash equivalents and short-term and long-term investments in a variety of securities, including money market funds, U.S. Treasury, government agency and corporate debt obligations, commercial paper and asset-backed securities. These securities are all classified as available-for-sale and consequently are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value, with unrealized gains or losses reported as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Our holdings of the securities of any one issuer, except obligations of the U.S. Treasury or U.S. Treasury guaranteed securities, do not exceed 5% of our portfolio.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP).

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

	December 31,			December 31,
	2017			2016
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	79,223		$	47,968
Short-term investments		86,873			207,714
Restricted cash		194			194
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		5,900			4,677
Total current assets		172,190			260,553
Property and equipment, net		44,129			3,259
Restricted cash, long term		1,200			—
Other assets		260			102
Total assets	$	217,779		$	263,914

Liabilities and stockholders’ equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	14,711		$	2,778
Accrued compensation		5,664			3,745
Accrued research and development expenses		4,006			2,408
Other current liabilities		3,265			744
Total current liabilities		27,646			9,675
Long-term liabilities		12,269			503
Total liabilities		39,915			10,178

Commitments and contingencies (Note 7)

Stockholders’ equity:
Common stock—$0.0001 par value, 500,000 shares authorized as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016; 30,730 and 28,933 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively		3			3
Additional paid-in capital		474,662			431,075
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(151	)		(183	)
Accumulated deficit		(296,650	)		(177,159	)
Total stockholders’ equity		177,864			253,736
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	217,779		$	263,914

	Years Ended December 31,
	2017			2016			2015
Operating expenses:
Research and development	$	81,206		$	56,514		$	41,618
General and administrative		40,326			24,728			16,830
Total operating expenses		121,532			81,242			58,448
Loss from operations		(121,532	)		(81,242	)		(58,448	)
Interest and other income, net		2,027			2,203			1,218
Loss before provision (benefit) for income taxes		(119,505	)		(79,039	)		(57,230	)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		(14	)		10			(9	)
Net loss	$	(119,491	)	$	(79,049	)	$	(57,221	)
Other comprehensive gain (loss):
Unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities		32			335			(418	)
Comprehensive loss	$	(119,459	)	$	(78,714	)	$	(57,639	)
Net loss per common share:
Basic and diluted net loss per common share	$	(4.00	)	$	(2.75	)	$	(2.24	)

Weighted-average common shares outstanding used to calculate basic and diluted net loss per common share		29,863			28,732			25,583

								Accumulated
	Common				Additional			Other						Total
	Stock				Paid-in			Comprehensive			Accumulated			Stockholders’
	Shares		Amount		Capital			Loss			Deficit			Equity
Balance as of December 31, 2014		19,693	$	2	$	144,169		$	(100	)	$	(40,889	)	$	103,182
Issuance of common stock in February 2015, net of discounts and offering costs of $5,166		4,147		1		69,486			—			—			69,487
Issuance of common stock in July 2015, net of discounts and offering costs of $13,053		3,981		—		193,947			—			—			193,947
Issuance of common stock upon vesting of restricted stock awards		287		—		80			—			—			80
RSU settlements, net of shares withheld		327		—		(4,647	)		—			—			(4,647	)
Issuance of common stock pursuant to stock option exercises		24		—		439			—			—			439
Stock-based compensation expense		—		—		10,251			—			—			10,251
Net loss		—		—		—			—			(57,221	)		(57,221	)
Unrealized loss on available-for-sale securities		—		—		—			(418	)		—			(418	)
Balance as of December 31, 2015		28,459		3		413,725			(518	)		(98,110	)		315,100
Issuance of common stock upon vesting of restricted stock awards		233		—		60			—			—			60
RSU settlements, net of shares withheld		199		—		(94	)		—			—			(94	)
Issuance of common stock pursuant to employee stock awards		42		—		600			—			—			600
Stock-based compensation expense		—		—		16,784			—			—			16,784
Net loss		—		—		—			—			(79,049	)		(79,049	)
Unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities		—		—		—			335			—			335
Balance as of December 31, 2016		28,933		3		431,075			(183	)		(177,159	)		253,736
Issuance of common stock through ATM facility, net of commissions and offering costs of $844		1,350		—		19,156			—			—			19,156
RSU settlements, net of shares withheld		305		—		(357	)		—			—			(357	)
Issuance of common stock pursuant to employee stock awards		142		—		1,688			—			—			1,688
Stock-based compensation expense		—		—		23,100			—			—			23,100
Net loss		—		—		—			—			(119,491	)		(119,491	)
Unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities		—		—		—			32			—			32
Balance as of December 31, 2017		30,730	$	3	$	474,662		$	(151	)	$	(296,650	)	$	177,864


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017			2016			2015
Operating activities
Net loss	$	(119,491	)	$	(79,049	)	$	(57,221	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Stock-based compensation expense		23,100			16,784			10,251
Amortization of investment premiums and discounts		732			2,582			3,465
Depreciation and amortization expense		956			383			48
Loss on foreign exchange		—			—			94
Write-off of property and equipment		—			—			21
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(784	)		(742	)		(767	)
Other assets		2			6			(61	)
Accounts payable		2,163			981			1,005
Accrued compensation		1,919			1,121			1,399
Accrued research and development expenses		1,598			(2,704	)		4,288
Other current liabilities		1,896			215			293
Long-term liabilities		407			398			29
Net cash used in operating activities		(87,502	)		(60,025	)		(37,156	)
Investing activities
Purchases of short-term investments		(176,459	)		(304,928	)		(379,776	)
Sales of short-term investments		107,627			242,643			64,020
Maturities of short-term investments		188,973			149,046			96,113
Purchases of property and equipment		(20,232	)		(3,020	)		(290	)
Restricted cash		(1,200	)		—			(194	)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		98,709			83,741			(220,127	)
Financing activities
Proceeds from sale of common stock in underwritten offerings, net		—			—			263,434
Proceeds from issuance of common stock through ATM facility, net		19,156			—			—
Taxes paid related to net share settlement of restricted stock units		(357	)		(94	)		(4,647	)
Proceeds from employee stock awards		1,249			600			439
Net cash provided by financing activities		20,048			506			259,226
Effect of exchange rates on cash		—			—			(94	)
Increase in cash and cash equivalents		31,255			24,222			1,849
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		47,968			23,746			21,897
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	79,223		$	47,968		$	23,746
Non-cash investing and financing activities
Property and equipment purchases included in accounts payable and other accrued liabilities	$	10,122		$	352		$	—
Capitalized lease obligations	$	9,904		$	—		$	—
Property & equipment acquired under capital leases	$	1,076		$	—		$	—
Asset retirement cost	$	580		$	—		$	—
Interest capitalized during construction period for build-to-suit lease transaction	$	264		$	—		$	—
Proceeds from options exercised not yet received	$	439		$	—		$	—
Accrued costs related to underwritten public offering	$	160		$	—		$	—
Issuance of common stock upon vesting of stock awards	$	—		$	60		$	80
Change in long-term liabilities related to non-vested stock awards	$	—		$	(60	)	$	(80	)
Supplemental cash flow disclosure
Cash paid for taxes	$	—		$	10		$	3

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“Atara”, “we”, “our” or “the Company”) was incorporated in August 2012 in Delaware. Atara is a cell therapy company developing novel treatments for patients with cancer and multiple sclerosis (“MS”). The Company’s off-the-shelf, or allogeneic, T-cells are engineered from donors with healthy immune function and allow for rapid delivery from inventory to patients without a requirement for pretreatment. Atara’s T-cell immunotherapies are designed to precisely recognize and eliminate cancerous or diseased cells without affecting normal, healthy cells.

We licensed rights to T-cell product candidates from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (“MSK”) in June 2015 and to know-how and technology from QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (“QIMR Berghofer”) in October 2015 and September 2016. See Note 6 for further information.

In 2017, we received net proceeds of $19.2 million from the aggregate sale of 1,349,865 shares of our common stock through our ATM facility with Cowen (see Note 8). Further, in January 2018, we completed an underwritten public offering of 7,675,072 shares of common stock at an offering price of $18.25 per share and received net proceeds of $131.4 million (see Note 10).

The accompanying consolidated 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Atara and its wholly owned subsidiaries Nina Biotherapeutics, Inc., Santa Maria Biotherapeutics, Inc., Pinta Biotherapeutics, Inc., Atara Biotherapeutics Cayman Limited, a Cayman Islands corporation, Atara Biotherapeutics Ireland Limited, an Ireland corporation and Atara Biotherapeutics Switzerland GmbH, a Swiss corporation. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

We operate and manage our business as one reporting and one operating segment, which is the business of developing and commercializing therapeutics. Our Chief Executive Officer, who is our chief operating decision maker, reviews financial information on an aggregate basis for purposes of allocating resources and evaluating financial performance. Substantially all of our assets are located in the United States.

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and have relied on public and private equity financings to fund our operations. As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $296.7 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 our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of December 31, 2017, along with the proceeds from the public offering completed in January 2018, will be sufficient to fund our planned operations into the first half of 2020.

We place cash and cash equivalents in the custody of financial institutions that management believes are of high credit quality, the amount of which at times, may be in excess of the amount insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. We also have short-term investments in money market funds, U.S. Treasury, government agency and corporate debt obligations, commercial paper and asset-backed securities, which can be subject to certain credit risk. However, we mitigate the risks by investing in high-grade instruments, limiting our exposure to any one issuer, and monitoring the ongoing creditworthiness of the financial institutions and issuers.

We are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and believe that changes in any of the following areas could have a material adverse effect on future financial position or results of operations: our ability to obtain future financing; regulatory approval and market acceptance of, and reimbursement for, our product candidates, if approved; performance of third-party clinical research organizations and manufacturers upon which we rely; development of sales channels; protection of our intellectual property; litigation or claims against us based on intellectual property, patent, product, regulatory or other factors; and our ability to attract and retain employees necessary to support our growth.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions and judgments that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Significant estimates relied upon in preparing these financial statements include estimates related to clinical trial and other accruals, stock-based compensation expense, fair value of investments and income taxes. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates.

We lease office space in multiple locations. In addition, we are constructing a manufacturing facility in Thousand Oaks, California under a non-cancelable lease agreement. The leases are reviewed for classification as operating or capital leases. For operating leases, rent is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease period. For capital leases, we record the leased asset with a corresponding liability for principal and interest. Payments are recorded as reductions to these liabilities with interest being charged to interest expense in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

We analyzed the nature of the renovations and our involvement during the construction period of our manufacturing facility and determined that we are the deemed “owner” of the construction project during the construction period. As a result, we are required to capitalize the fair value of the building as well as the construction costs incurred on our consolidated balance sheet along with a corresponding financing liability for landlord-paid construction costs (i.e. “build-to-suit” accounting). Upon occupancy for build-to-suit leases, we are also required to assess whether the circumstances qualify for sale recognition under “sale-leaseback” accounting guidance.

ARO are legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets pertaining to leasehold improvements. These liabilities are initially recorded at fair value and the related asset retirement costs are capitalized by increasing the carrying amount of the related assets by the same amount as the liability. Asset retirement costs are subsequently depreciated over the useful lives of the related assets. Subsequent to initial recognition, the Company records period-to-period changes in the ARO liability resulting from the passage of time and revisions to either the timing or the amount of the original estimate of undiscounted cash flows. The Company derecognizes ARO liabilities when the related obligations are settled.

Transactions and foreign currency-denominated monetary assets and liabilities that are denominated in a foreign currency are translated into U.S. dollars at the current exchange rate on the transaction date and as of each balance sheet date, respectively, with gains or losses on foreign exchange changes recognized in interest and other income (expense), net in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. We held no foreign currency as of December 31, 2017 and 2016.

Cash equivalents are defined as short-term, highly liquid investments with original maturities of 90 days or less at the date of purchase, and generally consist of money market funds, U.S. Treasury, government agency and corporate debt obligations, and commercial paper.

Investments with original maturities of greater than 90 days are classified as short-term investments on the balance sheet, and consist primarily of U.S. Treasury, government agency and corporate debt obligations, commercial paper and asset-backed securities.

As our entire investment portfolio is considered available for use in current operations, we classify all investments as available-for-sale and as current assets, even though the stated maturity may be more than one year from the current balance sheet date. Available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses reported in accumulated other comprehensive loss, which is a separate component of stockholders’ equity in the consolidated balance sheet.

The amortized cost of securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity, which are both recorded to interest and other income (expense), net in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

Changes in the fair value of available-for-sale securities impact the statements of operations only when such securities are sold or if an other-than-temporary impairment is recognized. Realized gains and losses on the sale of securities are determined by specific identification of each security’s cost basis. We regularly review our investment portfolio to determine if any security is other-than-temporarily impaired, which would require us to record an impairment charge in the period any such determination is made. In making this judgment, we evaluate, among other things, the duration and extent to which the fair value of a security is less than its cost, the financial condition of the issuer and any changes thereto, our intent to sell, or whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis. Our assessment on whether a security is other-than-temporarily impaired could change in the future due to new developments or changes in assumptions related to any particular security. Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be other-than-temporary on available-for-sale securities, if any, are recorded to interest and other income (expense), net in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

The carrying amounts of certain of our financial instruments including cash equivalents, prepaid expenses, accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate fair value due to their short maturities. Short-term investments are comprised of available-for-sale securities, which are carried at fair value.

Our financial assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis using the following hierarchy to prioritize valuation inputs, in accordance with applicable GAAP:

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 have been no transfers between Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 in any periods presented.

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. U.S. Treasury, government agency and corporate debt obligations, and commercial paper and asset-backed securities 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 or liabilities.

Property and equipment are stated at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, ranging from three to five years. Costs incurred to acquire, construct or install property and equipment during the construction stage of a capital project or costs incurred to purchase and develop internal use software during the application development stage are recorded as construction in progress. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser of the life of the leasehold improvements or the lease term. Equipment leased under capital leases is amortized over the shorter of the lease term or the asset’s estimated useful life. Maintenance and repairs are charged to operations as incurred.

We evaluate the carrying amount of our long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the assets may not be recoverable. An impairment loss would be recognized when estimated future cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition are less than the carrying amount of the asset. To date, there have been no such impairment losses.

We account for stock-based compensation expense, including the expense of restricted common stock awards (“RSAs”) and grants of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and stock options that may be settled in shares of our common stock, based on the fair values of the equity instruments issued. The fair value is determined on the measurement date, which is generally the date of grant for employee awards and the date when the service performance is completed for non-employees. The fair value for our RSAs is their intrinsic value, which is the difference between the fair value of the underlying stock at the measurement date and the purchase price. The fair value of our RSUs is the fair value of the underlying stock at the measurement date. The fair value for our stock option awards is determined at the grant date using the Black-Scholes valuation model. For employees’ awards with performance-based vesting criteria, we assess the probability of the achievement of the performance conditions at the end of each reporting period and recognize the share-based compensation costs when it becomes probable that the performance conditions will be met. For non-employees’ awards with performance-based vesting criteria, we assess all possible outcomes at the end of each reporting period and recognize the lowest aggregate fair value in the range of possible outcomes. The lowest value in the range of possible outcomes may be zero. For awards that are subject to both service and performance conditions, no expense is recognized until it is probable that performance conditions will be met. Stock-based compensation expense for awards with time-based vesting criteria is recognized as expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period. Stock-based compensation expense for awards with performance and other vesting criteria is recognized as expense under an accelerated graded vesting model.

Key assumptions used in the Black-Scholes valuation model used for employee stock awards include:

Expected term – We derived the expected term using the “simplified” method (the expected term is determined as the average of the time-to-vesting and the contractual life of the options), as we have limited historical information to develop expectations about future exercise patterns and post vesting employment termination behavior.

Expected volatility – Expected volatility is estimated using comparable public companies’ volatility for similar terms.

Expected dividend – We have not historically declared or paid dividends to our stockholders and have no plans to pay dividends; therefore we assumed an expected dividend yield of 0%.

Risk-free interest rate – The risk-free interest rate is based on the yield on U.S. Treasury securities with the expected term of the associated award.

The fair value of non-employee stock options is estimated using the Black-Scholes valuation model with assumptions generally consistent with those used for employee stock options, with the exception of the expected term, which is the remaining contractual life at each measurement date.

Prior to our IPO in October 2014, due to the absence of an active market for our common stock, we estimated the fair value of our common stock in accordance with the framework of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Technical Practice Aid, Valuation of Privately-Held Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation. Each valuation included estimates and assumptions that required management’s judgment, including assumptions regarding the probability and estimated time to completion of our IPO. Subsequent to the completion of our IPO, the fair value of our common stock is based on observable market prices.

Research and development expense consists of costs incurred in performing research and development activities, including compensation and benefits for research and development employees, including stock-based compensation; 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; payments under licensing and research and development agreements; other outside services and consulting costs, and an allocation of facility, information technology and overhead expenses. Research and development costs are expensed as incurred.

Costs for preclinical study and clinical trial activities are recognized based on an evaluation of our vendors’ progress towards completion of specific tasks, using data such as patient enrollment, clinical site activations or information provided to us by our vendors regarding their actual costs incurred. Payments for these activities are based on the terms of individual contracts and payment timing may differ significantly from the period in which the services are performed. We determine accrual estimates through reports from and discussions with applicable personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or state of completion of trials, or the services completed. Our estimates of accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date are based on the facts and circumstances known at the time. Costs that are paid in advance of performance are deferred as a prepaid expense and amortized over the service period as the services are provided.

As of December 31, 2017, other current liabilities included $2.6 million of accrued operating expenses, $0.5 million of current portion of capital lease obligations and $0.2 million of other accrued liabilities. As of December 31, 2016, other current liabilities included $0.6 million of accrued operating expenses and $0.1 million of other accrued liabilities.

We use the assets and liabilities method to account for income taxes. We record deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and the tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates expected to be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances are provided when necessary to reduce net deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. Based on the available evidence, we are unable, at this time, to support the determination that it is more likely than not that our deferred tax assets will be utilized in the future. Accordingly, we recorded a full valuation allowance as of December 31, 2017 and 2016. We intend to maintain valuation allowances until sufficient evidence exists to support their reversal.

Tax benefits related to uncertain tax positions are recognized when it is more likely than not that a tax position will be sustained during an audit. Interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits are included within the provision for income tax.

Comprehensive loss is defined as a change in equity of a business enterprise during a period resulting from transactions from non-owner sources. Our other comprehensive loss is comprised solely of unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities and is presented net of taxes. We have not recorded any reclassifications from other comprehensive loss to net loss during any period presented.

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which is intended to increase the transparency and comparability in the reporting of leasing arrangements by generally requiring leased assets and liabilities to be recorded on the balance sheet. The new standard is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted. We have not yet determined the potential effect the new standard will have on our consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting (Topic 718), which simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification in the statement of cash flows. We prospectively adopted the new standard on January 1, 2017 and that adoption did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements due to the full valuation allowance of our deferred tax assets.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses: Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. ASU 2016-13 requires that expected credit losses relating to both (a) financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis, and (b) available-for-sale debt securities be recorded through an allowance for credit losses. ASU 2016-13 limits the amount of credit losses to be recognized for available-for-sale debt securities to the amount by which carrying value exceeds fair value and also requires the reversal of previously recognized credit losses if fair value increases. The new standard will be effective for us on January 1, 2020. Early adoption will be available on January 1, 2019. We are currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which clarifies how certain cash receipts and cash payments should be presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The new standard will be effective for us on January 1, 2018. We do not expect the adoption of this new standard to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18 Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash, which clarifies the statement of cash flow treatment of restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. The new standard will be effective for us on January 1, 2018. The standard should be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. We do not expect the adoption of this new standard to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

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.

Potential dilutive securities, which include unvested RSAs, unvested RSUs, vested and unvested options and ESPP share purchase rights, have been excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share as their effect is 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 table represents the potential common shares issuable pursuant to outstanding securities as of the related period end dates that were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per common share as their inclusion would have an antidilutive effect:

The following tables summarize the estimated fair value and related valuation input hierarchy of our available-for-sale securities as of each period end:

		Total			Total		Total			Total
		Amortized			Unrealized		Unrealized			Estimated
As of December 31, 2017:	Input Level	Cost			Gain		Loss			Fair Value
		(in thousands)
Money market funds	Level 1	$	68,730		$	—	$	—		$	68,730
U.S. Treasury obligations	Level 2		39,068			—		(28	)		39,040
Government agency obligations	Level 2		4,749			—		(21	)		4,728
Corporate debt obligations	Level 2		46,532			2		(98	)		46,436
Commercial paper	Level 2		1,592			—		—			1,592
Asset-backed securities	Level 2		4,122			—		(6	)		4,116
Total available-for-sale securities			164,793			2		(153	)		164,642
Less amounts classified as cash equivalents			(77,769	)		—		—			(77,769	)
Amounts classified as short-term investments		$	87,024		$	2	$	(153	)	$	86,873

		Total			Total		Total			Total
		Amortized			Unrealized		Unrealized			Estimated
As of December 31, 2016:	Input Level	Cost			Gain		Loss			Fair Value
		(in thousands)
Money market funds	Level 1	$	28,816		$	—	$	—		$	28,816
U.S. Treasury obligations	Level 2		65,403			3		(21	)		65,385
Government agency obligations	Level 2		23,860			5		(5	)		23,860
Corporate debt obligations	Level 2		113,649			8		(172	)		113,485
Commercial paper	Level 2		699			—		—			699
Asset-backed securities	Level 2		13,414			4		(6	)		13,412
Total available-for-sale securities			245,841			20		(204	)		245,657
Less amounts classified as cash equivalents			(37,944	)		—		1			(37,943	)
Amounts classified as short-term investments		$	207,897		$	20	$	(203	)	$	207,714

The amortized cost and fair value of our available-for-sale securities by contractual maturity were as follows:

As of December 31, 2017, certain available-for-sale securities had been in a continuous unrealized loss position, each for less than twelve months. As of this date, no significant facts or circumstances were present to indicate a deterioration in the creditworthiness of the respective issuers, and the Company had no requirement or intention to sell these securities before maturity or recovery of their amortized cost basis. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we did not recognize any other-than-temporary impairment loss.

In addition, restricted cash collateralized by money market funds is a financial asset measured at fair value and is a Level 1 financial instrument under the fair value hierarchy.

Construction in progress represents capitalized costs for our manufacturing facility in Thousand Oaks, California and capitalizable costs incurred for development of internal use software. Depreciation and amortization expense was $1.0 million, $0.4 million and $48,000 for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

MSK Agreements – In September 2014, the Company entered into an exclusive option agreement with MSK under which it had the right to acquire the exclusive worldwide license rights to three clinical stage T-cell therapies from MSK.

In June 2015, the Company exercised the option and entered into an exclusive license agreement with MSK. In connection with the execution of the license agreement, the Company paid $4.5 million in cash to MSK, which was recorded as research and development expense in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. We are required to make additional payments of up to $33.0 million to MSK based on achievement of specified regulatory and sales-related milestones, as well as mid-single-digit percentage tiered royalty payments based on future sales of products resulting from the development of the licensed product candidates, if any. In addition, under certain circumstances, we are required to make certain minimum annual royalty payments to MSK, which are creditable against earned royalties owed for the same annual period. We are also required to pay a low double-digit percentage of any 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.

QIMR Berghofer Agreements – In October 2015, the Company entered into an exclusive license agreement and a research and development collaboration agreement with QIMR Berghofer.

Under the terms of the license agreement, the Company obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize allogeneic cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (“CTL”) therapy programs utilizing technology and know-how developed by QIMR Berghofer. In consideration for the exclusive license, we paid $3.0 million in cash to QIMR Berghofer, which was recorded as research and development expense in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss in the fourth quarter of 2015. In September 2016, the exclusive license agreement and research and development collaboration agreement were amended and restated. Under the amended and restated agreements, we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize additional CTL programs as well as the option to license additional technology in exchange for $3.3 million in cash, which was recorded as research and development expense in our consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss in the third quarter of 2016 and paid in October 2016. The amended and restated license agreement also provides for various milestone and royalty payments to QIMR Berghofer based on future product sales, if any.

Under the terms of the amended and restated research and development collaboration agreement, we are also required to reimburse the cost of agreed-upon development activities related to programs developed under the collaboration. These payments are expensed as incurred over the related development periods and resulted in research and development expense of $2.9 million, $1.6 million and $0.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The agreement also provides for various milestone payments to QIMR Berghofer based on achievement of certain developmental and regulatory milestones.

Milestones and royalties under each of the above agreements are contingent upon future events and will be recorded as expense when it is probable that the milestones will be achieved or royalties are due. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, there were no outstanding obligations for milestones and royalties to MSK and QIMR Berghofer.

Amgen License Agreements – In September 2012, we entered into license agreements with Amgen, Inc., for several molecular programs, including PINTA745, ATA842 and STM434. In December 2015, we announced the suspension of further development of PINTA745 and, in June 2016, we returned the rights related to this and the ATA842 program to Amgen. In October 2017, we returned all remaining rights under the license agreements to Amgen.

Potential payments related to our license and collaboration agreements, including milestone and royalty payments, are detailed in Note 6.

We may also enter into contracts in the normal course of business with clinical research organizations for clinical trials, with contract manufacturing organizations for clinical supplies, and with other vendors for pre-clinical studies, supplies and other services and products for operating purposes. These contracts generally provide for termination on notice, with the exception of potential termination charges related to one of our contract manufacturing agreements in the event certain minimum purchase volumes are not met. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, there were no amounts accrued related to termination charges for minimum purchase volumes not being met.

We lease our corporate headquarters in South San Francisco, California under a non-cancellable lease agreement that expires in April 2021. In connection with the lease, we are required to maintain a letter of credit in the amount of $0.2 million to the landlord, which expires and is renewed every 12 months, and is classified as restricted cash in our consolidated balance sheet. We also lease office space in Westlake Village, California under a lease agreement that expires in April 2019. Future minimum payments under our operating and capital leases as of December 31, 2017 were as follows:

Rent expenses under operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were $1.4 million, $1.2 million and $0.4 million, respectively.

In February 2017, we entered into a lease agreement for approximately 90,580 square feet of office, lab and cellular therapy manufacturing space in Thousand Oaks, California. The initial 15-year term of the lease commences upon the substantial completion of landlord’s work as defined under the agreement. The contractual obligations during the initial term are $16.4 million in aggregate. We have the option to extend the lease for two additional periods of ten and nine years, respectively, after the initial term. In connection with the lease, we were required to issue a letter of credit in the amount of $1.2 million to the landlord, which is recorded as long-term restricted cash in our consolidated balance sheet.

Based on the terms of the lease agreement and due to our involvement in certain aspects of the construction, we have been deemed the owner of the building (for accounting purposes only) during the construction period in accordance with GAAP. Under this build-to-suit lease arrangement, we recognize construction in progress based on all construction costs incurred by both us and the landlord. We also recognize a financing obligation equal to all costs funded by the landlord.

As of December 31, 2017, we have recorded $9.9 million of construction in progress relating to landlord’s costs of the building incurred through that date, and have recorded a corresponding long-term financing obligation for the same amount included in the long-term liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. In addition, we have recorded $25.0 million of construction in progress for construction costs incurred by us and $0.3 million of capitalized interest during the construction period through December 31, 2017. Further, we recorded ground lease expense of $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, in our consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss, representing the estimated cost of renting the land during the construction period. Ground lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 was zero.

Future minimum lease payments, under the Company’s facility lease financing obligations as of December 31, 2017 were as follows:

The Company recognizes its estimate of the fair value of its ARO in long-term liabilities in the period incurred. The fair value of the ARO is also capitalized as construction in progress. The fair value of our ARO was estimated by discounting projected cash flows over the estimated life of the related assets using our credit adjusted risk-free rate. The Company’s ARO consists of a contractual requirement to remove the tenant improvements at our manufacturing facility in Thousand Oaks, California and restore the facility to a condition specified in the lease agreement.

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 December 31, 2017 and 2016.

From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, which arise in the normal course of our business or otherwise. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of the defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. We are not currently involved in any material legal proceedings.

Our authorized capital stock consists of 520,000,000 shares, all with a par value of $0.0001 per share, of which 500,000,000 shares are designated as common stock and 20,000,000 shares are designated as preferred stock. There were no shares of preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and 2016.

In March 2017, we entered into a sales agreement (the “ATM facility”) with Cowen under which we may offer and sell, in our sole discretion, shares of our common stock, having an aggregate offering price of up to $75.0 million through Cowen, as our sales agent. We will pay Cowen a commission of up to 3.0% of the gross sales proceeds of any common stock sold under the ATM facility. The issuance and sale of these shares by us pursuant to the ATM facility are deemed “at the market” offerings and are available under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, we sold an aggregate of 1,349,865 shares of common stock, under the ATM facility, at an average price of approximately $14.82 per share, for gross proceeds of $20.0 million, and net proceeds of $19.2 million, after deducting commissions and offering expenses. As of December 31, 2017, $55.0 million of common stock remained available to be sold under this facility, subject to certain conditions as specified in the agreement.

In August 2012, in connection with our formation, our CEO purchased 1,066,154 post-recap, post-split 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. The combined grant date intrinsic value for this award was $1.7 million.

In March 2013, an Atara employee purchased 269,230 post-recap, post-split shares of restricted common stock for $0.3 million. The shares were issued under our 2012 Equity Incentive Plan and were subject to certain vesting conditions, restrictions on transfer and a Company right of repurchase of any unvested shares at their original purchase price.

The amounts paid for both RSAs were initially recorded as other long-term liabilities. As the shares vested, we reclassified liabilities to equity. As of December 31, 2016, all of these shares had vested and are reported as common stock shares outstanding in the consolidated financial statements.

There were no grants of RSAs in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. Stock-based compensation expense related to the RSAs is recorded using the accelerated graded vesting model and was none, $0.2 million and $0.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

In March 2014, we adopted the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2014 EIP”), which was amended and restated on October 15, 2014 upon the pricing of our IPO.

The 2014 EIP provides for annual increases in the number of shares available for issuance thereunder on the first business day of each fiscal year, beginning with 2015 and ending in 2024, equal to five percent of the number of shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding as of such date or a lesser number of shares as determined by our board of directors.

Under the terms of the 2014 EIP, we may grant options, RSAs and RSUs to employees, directors, consultants and other service providers. RSUs typically require settlement by 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. As of December 31, 2017, a total of 10,214,174 shares of common stock were reserved for issuance under the 2014 Plan, of which 3,557,041 shares were available for future grant and 6,657,133 were subject to outstanding options and RSUs.

The weighted average grant date fair value of RSUs granted during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $15.07, $17.83 and $25.15, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, there was $20.6 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to RSUs that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.6 years. The aggregate intrinsic value of the RSUs outstanding as of December 31, 2017 was $30.8 million.

Under our RSU net settlement procedures, we withhold shares at settlement to cover the minimum payroll withholding tax obligations. During 2017, we settled 327,282 RSUs, of which 52,624 RSUs were net settled by withholding 22,274 shares. The value of the RSUs withheld was $0.4 million, based on the closing price of our common stock on the settlement date. During 2016, we settled 204,611 RSUs, of which 13,573 RSUs were net settled by withholding 5,222 shares. The value of the RSUs withheld was $0.1 million, based on the closing price of our common stock on the settlement date. The value of RSUs withheld in each period was remitted to the appropriate taxing authorities and has been reflected as a financing activity in our consolidated statements of cash flows.

Aggregate intrinsic value represents the difference between the closing stock price of our common stock on December 31, 2017 and the exercise price of outstanding, in-the-money options. As of December 31, 2017, there was $30.3 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to stock options that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.6 years.

Options for 60,125, 18,947 and 23,822 shares of our common stock were exercised during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, with an intrinsic value of $0.2 million, $0.2 million and $0.6 million, respectively. As we believe it is more likely than not that no stock option related tax benefits will be realized, we do not record any net tax benefits related to exercised options.

The fair value of each option issued was estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes valuation model. The following table summarizes the weighted-average assumptions used as inputs to the Black-Scholes model, and resulting weighted-average grant date fair values of stock options granted to employees during the periods indicated:

The estimated fair value of stock options that vested in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $14.0 million, $14.0 million and $2.9 million, respectively.

In May 2014, we adopted the 2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“2014 ESPP”), which became effective on October 15, 2014 upon the pricing of our IPO. The 2014 ESPP permits eligible employees to purchase common stock at a discount through payroll deductions during defined offering periods. Eligible employees can purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at 85% of the lower of the fair market value of the common stock at (i) the beginning of a 12-month offering period, or (ii) at the end of one of the two related 6-month purchase periods. No participant in the 2014 ESPP may be issued or transferred shares of common stock valued at more than $25,000 per calendar year. On June 1, 2016, the first offering under the 2014 ESPP commenced, and the Company recorded $0.4 million of expense in the year ended December 31, 2016. A total of 22,844 shares were purchased at the end of the first purchase period on November 30, 2016. The 2017 offering period commenced on June 1, 2017 and will end on May 31, 2018. The Company recorded $0.6 million of expense related to the 2014 ESPP in the year ended December 31, 2017. A total of 81,922 shares were purchased under the ESPP during the year ended December 31, 2017.

As of December 31, 2017, there was $0.2 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to ESPP that is expected to be recognized by the end of second quarter of 2018.

The 2014 ESPP provides for annual increases in the number of shares available for issuance thereunder on the first business day of each fiscal year, beginning with 2015 and ending in 2024, equal to the lower of (i) one percent of the number of shares of our common stock outstanding as of such date, (ii) 230,769 shares of our common stock, or (iii) a lesser number of shares as determined by our board of directors. As of December 31, 2017, there were 789,669 shares available for purchase under the 2014 ESPP.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, we granted 275,000 options, at a weighted average exercise price of $13.96 per share, outside of our 2014 EIP. These options have terms similar to the options granted under the 2014 EIP. The weighted average grant date fair value of such grants was $2.2 million. No options were granted outside the 2014 EIP during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. As of December 31, 2017, there was $2.0 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to options issued outside the 2014 EIP that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 3.5 years. The aggregate intrinsic value of such options as of December 31, 2017 was $1.1 million.

The following shares of common stock were reserved for future issuance as of December 31, 2017:

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

Losses before provision for income taxes were as follows in each period presented:

The components of income tax provision (benefit) were as follows in each period presented:

A reconciliation of statutory tax rates to effective tax rates were as follows in each of the periods presented:

In the first quarter of 2017, the Company adopted ASU 2016-09, which requires excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies generated by the settlement of share-based awards to be recognized as part of the income tax provision. The adoption of ASU 2016-09 did not have an impact on our balance sheet, results of operations, cash flows or statement of stockholders’ equity because we have a full valuation allowance on our deferred tax assets. Upon adoption, the Company recognized the previously unrecognized excess tax benefits. The previously unrecognized excess tax effects were recorded as a deferred tax asset, which was fully offset by a valuation allowance. Upon adoption, the Company recorded additional federal and state net operating losses of $10.5 million. These net operating losses are offset with a valuation allowance. Beginning in 2017, the impact of excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies are included in the Impact of Stock Compensation tax rate line.

Deferred tax assets and liabilities reflect the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Significant components of our deferred tax assets and liabilities were as follows as of the dates indicated:

We recognize deferred income taxes for temporary differences between the basis of assets and liabilities for financial statement and income tax purposes, as well as for tax attribute carryforwards. We regularly evaluate the positive and negative evidence in determining the realizability of our deferred tax assets. Based upon the weight of available evidence, which includes our historical operating performance and reported cumulative net losses since inception, we maintained a full valuation allowance on the net deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2017 and 2016. We intend to maintain a full valuation allowance on our deferred tax assets until sufficient positive evidence exists to support reversal of the valuation allowance. The valuation allowance decreased by $8.6 million and increased by $18.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

As of December 31, 2017, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards for tax return purposes of $76.0 million and $231.4 million, respectively. The federal and state net operating loss carryforwards begin to expire in 2032 in various amounts if not utilized.

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards or other tax attributes in any taxable year may be limited if we have experienced an “ownership change.” Generally, a Section 382 “ownership change” occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who owns at least 5% of a corporation’s stock increases its ownership by more than 50% over its lowest ownership percentage within a specified testing period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws.

We have completed a Section 382 study of transactions in our stock through December 31, 2015. The study concluded that we have experienced at least one ownership change since inception and that our utilization of net operating loss carryforwards will be subject to annual limitations. However, it is not expected that these limitations will result in the expiration of tax attribute carryforwards prior to utilization. The Company has also completed an updated analysis since the previous ownership change through December 31, 2017. As a result, no new ownership changes have occurred that would limit the current generated NOLs.

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Act was enacted into law. The Tax Act, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%; limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense to 30% of adjusted earnings (except for certain small businesses); limitation of the deduction of net operating losses generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 to 80% of taxable income, indefinite carryforward of net operating losses generated in tax years after 2018 and elimination of net operating loss carrybacks; changes in the treatment of offshore earnings regardless of whether they are repatriated; current inclusion in U.S. federal taxable income of certain earnings of controlled foreign corporations, mandatory capitalization of research and development expenses beginning in 2022; immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time; further deduction limits on executive compensation; and modifying, repealing and creating many other business deductions and credits, including the reduction in the orphan drug credit from 50% to 25% of qualifying expenditures. As of December 31, 2017, we have made a reasonable estimate of the effects on our existing deferred taxes and related disclosures by reducing the expected deductibility of certain executive compensation by $0.6 million due to the application of new limitations under Internal Revenue Section 162(m) and reducing our net federal and state deferred tax assets by $13.5 million for the reduction in corporate tax rate. These adjustments to our deferred tax assets are offset against the valuation allowance. Due to accumulated foreign deficits the Company does not expect a current inclusion in U.S. federal taxable income for the transition tax on earnings of controlled foreign corporations.

Additionally, the SEC staff has issued SAB 118, which allows us to record provisional amounts during a measurement period not to extend beyond one year of the enactment date. On December 22, 2017, Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118 ("SAB 118") was issued to address the application of U.S. GAAP in situations when a registrant does not have the necessary information available,

prepared, or analyzed (including computations) in reasonable detail to complete the accounting for certain income tax effects of the Act. Because the Company is still in the process of analyzing certain provisions of the Act including the application of new executive compensation limitation provisions under Internal Revenue Section 162(m) in accordance with SAB 118, the Company has determined that the adjustment to its deferred taxes was a provisional amount and a reasonable estimate at December 31, 2017.

A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of gross unrecognized tax benefits is as follows:

The Company currently has a full valuation allowance against its U.S. net deferred tax assets, which would impact the timing of the effective tax rate benefit should any uncertain tax position be favorably settled in the future. Of the $30.1 million total unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31, 2017, $0.1 million, if recognized, would affect the Company’s effective tax rate.

During July 2016, the Company licensed certain intellectual property rights to a wholly-owned subsidiary outside the United States. Although the license of intellectual property rights between consolidated entities did not result in any gain in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, the transaction generated a taxable gain in the United States. However, as this gain is offset by current and existing tax losses, there was no cash tax impact from the transaction in the periods presented. As a result of the transaction, there was an increase of $0.4 million and $0.8 million in unrecognized tax benefits during the year ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, respectively. The remaining increases and decreases in unrecognized tax benefits related to changes to federal and state research and development and orphan drug tax credit carryforwards. The Company expects to record an uncertain tax benefit of $0.8 million during the next 12 months related to the licensed intellectual property rights. The Company’s policy is to account for interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as a component of the income tax provision. The amount of accrued interest and penalties as of December 31, 2017 and for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was immaterial.

Our significant jurisdictions are the Cayman Islands, the U.S. federal, and the California state jurisdiction. All of our tax years remain open to examination by the U.S. federal and California tax authorities.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

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 December 31, 2017. Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2017 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 disclosures. In designing and evaluating our disclosure

controls and procedures, management recognizes that any disclosure controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives. In addition, the design of disclosure controls and procedures must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and that management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the benefits of possible controls and procedures relative to their costs.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Our management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017 based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017.

Our management, including the Chief Executive and Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal controls will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can only provide reasonable assurances that the objectives of the control system are met. The design of a control system reflects resource constraints; the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because there are inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Company have been or will be detected. As these inherent limitations are known features of the financial reporting process, it is possible to design into the process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, these risks. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns occur because of simple error or mistake. Controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the control. The design of any system of controls is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events. While our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives, there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all future conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

We intend to review and evaluate the design and effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures on an ongoing basis and to improve our controls and procedures over time and to correct any deficiencies that we may discover in the future. While our Chief Executive and Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer have concluded that, as of December 31, 2017, the design of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act, was effective, future events affecting our business may cause us to significantly modify our disclosure controls and procedures.

There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by Rules 13a-15(d) and 15d-15(d) of the Exchange Act that occurred during the three months ended December 31, 2017 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation report of our registered public accounting firm due to an exemption established by the JOBS Act for “emerging growth companies.”

Certain information required by Part III is omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K since we intend to file our definitive proxy statement for our 2017 annual meeting of stockholders, or the Definitive Proxy Statement, pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, not later than 120 days after December 31, 2017, and certain information to be included in the Definitive Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

Information required by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to our Definitive Proxy Statement.

We have adopted a Code of Conduct that applies to our officers, directors and employees which is available on our internet website at www.atarabio.com. The Code of Conduct contains general guidelines for conducting the business of our company consistent with the highest standards of business ethics, and is intended to qualify as a “code of ethics” within the meaning of Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Item 406 of Regulation S-K. In addition, we intend to promptly disclose (1) the nature of any amendment to our Code of Conduct that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller or persons performing similar functions and (2) the nature of any waiver, including an implicit waiver, from a provision of our code of ethics that is granted to one of these specified officers, the name of such person who is granted the waiver and the date of the waiver on our website in the future.

Information required by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to our Definitive Proxy Statement.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Information required by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to our Definitive Proxy Statement.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Information required by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to our Definitive Proxy Statement.

All schedules have been omitted because they are not required or because the required information is given in the financial statements or notes thereto set forth under Item 8 above.

A list of exhibits filed with this report or incorporated herein by reference can be found in the Exhibit Index immediately following the signature page of this Report.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the City of South San Francisco, State of California, on the 27th day of February, 2018.

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Isaac E. Ciechanover and John F. McGrath, Jr., and each of them, as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with the full power of substitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place or stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or their, his or her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Delaware		46-0920988
( State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
611 Gateway Blvd., Suite 900 South San Francisco, CA		94080
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☒

Non-accelerated filer	☐ (Do not check if a small reporting company)	Small reporting company	☐
Emerging growth company	☒

		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	4
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	21
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	52
Item 2.	Properties	52
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	52
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	52

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	53
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	55
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	56
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	68
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	69
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	90
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	90
Item 9B.	Other Information	91

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	92
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	92
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	92
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	92
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	92

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	93


Subject Age/Gender (MS Type)	EDSS¹ BL²/ Post Tx³		CD8+ T cell Reactivity to EBV		Observed Improvement
60 yo F (SPMS)		6.5/6.0		47%	Yes
60 yo M (PPMS)		5.0/3.5		31%	Yes
49 yo F (PPMS)		8.0/8.0		15%	Yes
61 yo M (SPMS)		6.5/6.5		10%	Equivocal
55 yo F (PPMS)		5.0/4.5		8%	Yes—still in follow up
46 yo M (SPMS)⁴		8.0/8.0		7%	Yes
42 yo F (PPMS)		6.5/7.0		3%	None
53 yo M (PPMS)		6.0/6.0		<1%	None
54 yo F (SPMS)		6.5/6.5		<1%	None
49 yo F (SPMS)		6.5/6.5		<1%	Mild


1		EDSS = Expanded Disability Scale Score.
2		BL = Baseline EDSS score prior to treatment with ATA190.
3		Post Tx = EDSS score following treatment with ATA190.
4		This patient received ATA190 under a compassionate use protocol approximately 4 years prior to entry into the Phase 1 trial.

Year ended December 31, 2016	High		Low
First Quarter	$	26.00	$	13.31
Second Quarter	$	23.25	$	14.29
Third Quarter	$	25.73	$	19.00
Fourth Quarter	$	21.85	$	12.45

Year ended December 31, 2017	High		Low
First Quarter	$	23.00	$	12.45
Second Quarter	$	21.20	$	11.80
Third Quarter	$	17.55	$	13.00
Fourth Quarter	$	21.80	$	12.65

Description	Judgments and Uncertainties	Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions
Accrued Research and Development Expenses
As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate and accrue expenses, the largest of which is related to research and development expenses, including those related to clinical trials and drug manufacturing. This process involves reviewing contracts and purchase orders, identifying and evaluating the services that have been performed on our behalf, and estimating the associated cost incurred for the services when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual costs.	Costs for preclinical studies, clinical trials and manufacturing activities are recognized based on an evaluation of our vendors’ progress towards completion of specific tasks, using data such as patient enrollment, clinical site activations or information provided to us by our vendors regarding their actual costs incurred. Payments for these activities are based on the terms of individual contracts and payment timing may differ significantly from the period in which the services were performed. We determine accrual estimates through reports from and discussions with applicable personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or state of completion of trials, or the services completed. Our estimates of accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date are based on the facts and circumstances known at the time. Costs that are paid in advance of performance are deferred as a prepaid expense and amortized over the service period as the services are provided.	For the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, there were no material changes from our estimates of accrued research and development expenses. We do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be a material change in the future estimates of accrued research and development expenses. However, if actual results are not consistent with our estimates, we may be exposed to changes in accrued research and development expenses that could be material or the accrued research and development expenses reported in our financial statements may not be representative of the actual economic cost of accrued research and development. A 10% change in accrued research and development expenses could have impacted our net loss by $0.4 million for 2017.

		Page
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		70
Consolidated Balance Sheets		71
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss		72
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity		73
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		74
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		75

	As of December 31, 2017				As of December 31, 2016
	Amortized		Estimated		Amortized		Estimated
	Cost		Fair Value		Cost		Fair Value
	(in thousands)				(in thousands)
Maturing within one year	$	151,938	$	151,852	$	198,022	$	197,956
Maturing in one to five years		12,855		12,790		47,819		47,701
Total available-for-sale securities	$	164,793	$	164,642	$	245,841	$	245,657

	Operating Leases		Capital Leases
Years Ending December 31,	(in thousands)
2018	$	1,979	$	546
2019		823		498
2020		613		160
2021		259		—
2022		—		—
Thereafter		—		—
Total minimum payments	$	3,674	$	1,204
Less: amount representing interest				128
Present value of capital lease obligations				1,076
Less: current portion				463
Capital lease obligation, net of current portion			$	613

	(in thousands)
Balance as of December 31, 2016	$	—
Liabilities incurred during the year		580
Balance as of December 31, 2017	$	580

	RSUs
	Shares			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Unvested as of December 31, 2016		1,286,262		$	16.61
Granted		782,413			15.07
Forfeited		(64,313	)		15.33
Vested		(319,362	)		11.57
Unvested as of December 31, 2017		1,685,000		$	16.90
Vested and unreleased		17,485
Outstanding as of December 31, 2017		1,702,485

	Shares			Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value (in thousands)
Outstanding as of December 31, 2016		3,733,847		$	24.14
Granted		1,694,000			15.79
Exercised		(60,125	)		12.37
Forfeited or expired		(413,074	)		23.77
Outstanding as of December 31, 2017		4,954,648		$	21.46		5.21	$	7,433
Vested and expected to vest as of December 31, 2017		4,954,648		$	21.46		5.21	$	7,433
Exercisable as of December 31, 2017		2,030,454		$	24.06		4.39	$	2,465

	Total Shares Reserved
2014 Equity Incentive Plan		10,214,174
2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan		789,669
Options issued outside the 2014 EIP		275,000
Total reserved shares of common stock		11,278,843

	(In thousands)
Balance as of December 31, 2014	$	1,643
Gross increases for tax positions related to current year		2,671
Balance as of December 31, 2015		4,314
Gross increases for tax positions related to current year		4,971
Balance as of December 31, 2016		9,285
Gross increases for tax positions related to current year		16,371
Gross increases for tax positions related to prior year		9,534
Gross decreases for tax positions related to prior year		(4,643	)
Impact of change in tax rate		(496	)
Balance as of December 31, 2017	$	30,051


Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

By:		/s/ Isaac E. Ciechanover
		Isaac E. Ciechanover, M.D.
		President and Chief Executive Officer

Signature	Title	Date

/s/ Isaac E. Ciechanover
Isaac E. Ciechanover, M.D.	President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)	February 27, 2018

/s/ John F. McGrath, Jr.
John F. McGrath, Jr.	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)	February 27, 2018

/s/ Eric Dobmeier
Eric Dobmeier	Director	February 27, 2018

/s/ Matthew K. Fust
Matthew K. Fust	Director	February 27, 2018

/s/ Carol G. Gallagher
Carol G. Gallagher, Pharm.D.	Director	February 27, 2018

/s/ William Heiden
William Heiden	Director	February 27, 2018

/s/ Joel S. Marcus
Joel S. Marcus	Director	February 27, 2018

/s/ Beth Seidenberg
Beth Seidenberg, M.D.	Director	February 27, 2018