Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2018 March (Form 10-Q)

\

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018

OR

For the transition period from              to             

Commission file number 001-36548

ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 278-8930

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 whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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 number of outstanding shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock as of April 30, 2018 was 43,949,486 shares.

ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

INDEX

2

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes.

3

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes.

4

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes.

5

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

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.

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) and follow the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for interim reporting. As permitted under those rules, certain footnotes or other financial information that are normally required by U.S. GAAP can be condensed or omitted. These condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, except that the presentation of total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash has been conformed to current period presentation. In the opinion of management, the condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, which are necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s consolidated financial information. The results of operations for the three-month period ended March 31, 2018 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year or any other future period. The condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2017 has been derived from audited consolidated financial statements at that date but does not include all of the information required by U.S. GAAP for complete consolidated financial statements.

Liquidity Risk

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and have relied on public and private equity financings to fund our operations. As of March 31, 2018, we had an accumulated deficit of $338.1 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 will be sufficient to fund our planned operations to mid-2020.

Concentration of Credit Risk and Other Uncertainties

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.

6

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates, 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, construction costs and income taxes. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates.

Leases

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 condensed 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.

Asset Retirement Obligations (“ARO”)

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.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

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 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 financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis and 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 February 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-02, which allows a reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings for adjustments to tax effects that were originally recorded in other comprehensive income due to changes in the U.S. federal corporate income tax rate resulting from the enactment of the U.S. tax reform legislation, commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the "Tax Act"). 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 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-05, Income Taxes (Topic 740) Amendments to SEC Paragraphs Pursuant to  SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, to insert the SEC's interpretive guidance from Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118 into the income tax accounting codification under U.S. GAAP. The ASU permits companies to use provisional amounts for certain income tax effects of the Tax Act during a one-year measurement period. The provisional accounting impacts for the Company may change in future reporting periods until the accounting analysis is finalized, which will occur no later than the first quarter of fiscal 2019.

7

Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

On January 1, 2018, the Company adopted two new accounting standards issued by the FASB that clarify presentation and classification in the statement of cash flows on a retrospective basis. As a result of adoption, amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents are now presented with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. As a result of adoption, cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash reported on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows now includes restricted cash of $0.2 million, $1.4 million and $1.4 million as of December 31, 2016, March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2017, respectively, as well as previously reported cash and cash equivalents.

Basic net loss per common share is calculated by dividing net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period, without consideration of common share equivalents. Diluted net loss per common share is computed by dividing 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 restricted stock units (“RSUs”), vested and unvested options to purchase common stock and shares to be issued under our employee stock purchase plan (“ESPP”) have been excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share as the 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:

4.Financial Instruments

Our financial assets 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, 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.

8

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

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

As of March 31, 2018, 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 has no requirement or intention to sell these securities before maturity or recovery of their amortized cost basis. During the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, we did not recognize any other-than-temporary impairment losses.

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. As of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, restricted cash totaled $1.4 million and $1.4 million, respectively.

9

The following table provides a reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash within the condensed consolidated balance sheets that sum to the total of the same such amounts in the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows:

Property and equipment consisted of the following as of each period end:

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 $0.3 million and $0.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, 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, we exercised an option to enter into an exclusive license agreement with MSK for three clinical stage T-cell therapies. 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 condensed consolidated statement 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, we entered into an exclusive license agreement and a research and development collaboration agreement with QIMR Berghofer. 

10

Under the terms of the license agreement, we 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 statement 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 statement of operations and comprehensive loss in the third quarter of 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 on a straight-line basis over the related development periods resulted in research and development expense of $1.2 million and $0.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, 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 March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, there were no outstanding obligations for milestones and royalties to MSK and QIMR Berghofer.  

License and Collaboration Agreements

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

Other Research and Development Agreements

We may 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 for our 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 March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, there were no amounts accrued related to termination charges for minimum purchase volumes not being met.

Operating and Capital Leases

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 condensed consolidated balance sheet. We also lease office space in Westlake Village, California under a lease agreement that expires in April 2019. Also, in fourth quarter of 2017, we entered into multiple agreements to lease certain equipment that have been accounted for as capital leases. The terms of the lease agreements range between 2-3 years.

Rent expense was $0.4 million and $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Financing Obligation—Build-to-Suit Lease

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 commenced on February 15, 2018, 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 condensed 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 U.S. GAAP.  Under this build-to-suit

11

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 March 31, 2018, we have capitalized $10.3 million of construction in progress relating to landlord’s costs of the building incurred through that date and have recognized 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 $35.4 million of construction in progress for construction costs incurred by us and $0.3 million of capitalized interest during the construction period through March 31, 2018. Further, we recorded ground lease expense of $88,000 and $37,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, in our condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss, representing the estimated cost of renting the land during the construction period.

Asset Retirement Obligation

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. The Company records an 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 following table presents the activity for our ARO liabilities:

Indemnification Agreements

In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts and agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for indemnification for certain liabilities. The exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves claims that may be made against us in the future but have not yet been made. To date, we have not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to our indemnification obligations. However, we may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations. We also have indemnification obligations to our directors and executive officers for specified events or occurrences, subject to some limits, while they are serving at our request in such capacities. There have been no claims to date and we believe the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Accordingly, we did not record liabilities for these agreements as of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

Contingencies

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.

Equity Offering

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, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us. Further, in March 2018, we completed an underwritten public offering of 4,928,571 shares of common stock at an offering price of $35.00 per share and received net proceeds of $161.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us.

12

ATM Facility

In March 2017, we entered into a sales agreement (the “ATM Facility”) with Cowen and Company, LLC (“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 three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, we did not sell any shares of common stock, under the ATM Facility. As of March 31, 2018, $55.0 million of common stock remained available to be sold under this facility, subject to certain conditions as specified in the agreement.

Equity Incentive Plan

Under the terms of the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (“2014 EIP”), we may grant options, restricted stock awards (“RSAs”) and RSUs to employees, directors, consultants and other service providers. As of March 31, 2018, a total of 11,191,315 shares of common stock were reserved for issuance under the 2014 EIP, of which 4,090,015 shares were available for future grant and 7,101,300 shares were subject to outstanding options and RSUs.

Restricted Stock Units

The following is a summary of RSU activity under our 2014 EIP:

The fair value of RSUs is determined as the closing stock price on the date of grant. The weighted average grant date fair value of RSUs granted was $35.80 and $15.09 for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of March 31, 2018, there was $39.1 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to RSUs that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.9 years. The aggregate intrinsic value of the RSUs outstanding as of March 31, 2018 was $74.5 million.  

Under our RSU net settlement procedures, for most of our employees, we withhold shares at settlement to cover the minimum payroll withholding tax obligations. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, we settled 336,240 RSUs, of which 229,854 RSUs were net settled by withholding 86,359 shares.  The value of the RSUs withheld was $3.4 million, based on the closing price of our common stock on the settlement date. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, we settled 195,957 RSUs, of which 47,017 RSUs were net settled by withholding 20,234 shares.  The value of the RSUs withheld was $0.3 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 condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

13

Stock Options

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

Aggregate intrinsic value represents the difference between the closing stock price of our common stock on March 31, 2018 and the exercise price of outstanding, in-the-money options. As of March 31, 2018, there was $38.0 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to stock options that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.8 years.

Options for 309,497 shares of our common stock were exercised during the three months ended March 31, 2018, with an intrinsic value of $4.9 million. No options were exercised during the three months ended March 31, 2017. 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 three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017 was $3.3 million and $4.2 million, respectively.

Inducement Plan

In February 2018, we adopted the 2018 Inducement Plan (“2018 IP”), under which we may grant options, stock appreciation rights, RSAs and RSUs to new employees. Shares reserved for issuance under the plan is 1,250,000. As of March 31, 2018, 1,250,000 shares of common stock were reserved for issuance under the 2018 IP. In April 2018, we granted 70,000 options at weighted average exercise price of $36.00 per share and 42,500 RSUs under our 2018 IP.

Options Granted Outside the Equity Plans

As of March 31, 2018, we granted 275,000 options, at weighted average exercise price of $13.96 per share, outside of our equity plans. These options have terms similar to the options granted under the 2014 EIP. The weighted average grant date fair value of such grants were $2.2 million. No options were granted outside our equity plans during the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017. As of March 31, 2018, there was $1.8 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to options issued outside the 2014

14

EIP that is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 3.3 years. The aggregate intrinsic value of such options as of March 31, 2018 was $6.9 million.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

As of March 31, 2018, there were 1,020,438 shares available for purchase under the 2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“2014 ESPP”). The Company recorded $0.1 million and $0.1 million of expense related to the 2014 ESPP in the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. No shares were purchased under the 2014 ESPP during the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017.

Reserved Shares

The following shares of common stock were reserved for future issuance as of March 31, 2018:

Stock-based Compensation Expense

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

15

Item 2. 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 unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018. This discussion and other parts of this Quarterly Report contain forward-looking statements that involve risk and uncertainties, such as statements of our plans, objectives, expectations and intentions. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of this Quarterly Report, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

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, ATA230 directed against cytomegalovirus, or CMV, and ATA621 directed against the BK and JC viruses.

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 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 MSK. The other was developed at 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 MS. We are also working with QIMR Berghofer on the development of EBV and other virally targeted T-cells. Through this

16

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.

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 off-the-shelf T-cell therapy approved in the U.S. and E.U. and a robust pipeline of high potential candidates, our ambition is to be recognized as the leader in off-the-shelf T-cell immunotherapy.

Tabelecleucel for EBV+ PTLD following HCT or SOT

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.

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 clinical sites outside the United States.

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 enrolling 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. 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.

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.

17

Tabelecleucel for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, or NPC

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. 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.

ATA188 and ATA190 for multiple sclerosis

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 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 announced that we received clearance of our investigational new drug, or IND, application from the FDA to proceed with patient enrollment at U.S. sites.  In the first quarter of 2018, we initiated this study in the U.S. 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.

18

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. We plan to initiate, in 2019, a randomized clinical study of ATA190 in patients with PMS.

ATA520 for hematologic malignancies

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. 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 our MS related programs.

ATA230 for CMV viremia and disease

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. 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 later in 2018.

ATA621 for BK and JC virus associated diseases

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. 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. We are currently conducting IND enabling manufacturing process development and plan to initiate a Phase 1 trial with ATA621 in 2019.

Financial Overview

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. 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.

Our net losses were $41.4 million and $25.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of March 31, 2018, we had an accumulated deficit of $338.1 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 March 31, 2018, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaled $407.3 million, which we intend to use to fund our operations.

Research and Development Expenses

The largest component of our total operating expenses since inception has been our investment in research and development activities, including the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates. Research and development expenses consist 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

19

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

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

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

20

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

There have been no significant changes during the three months ended March 31, 2018 to our critical accounting policies and significant judgments and estimates as disclosed in our management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Income Taxes

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 March 31, 2018, 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 enactment 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. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, we did not make any adjustments to the provisional amounts included in the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017. We expect to complete our analysis within the measurement period in accordance with SAB 118.

Emerging Growth Company Status

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We will be deemed a “large accelerated filer” as of the end of the fourth quarter of 2018 if, among other things, our public float as of June 29, 2018 is $700 million or greater.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Three Months Ended March 31, 2018 and 2017

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses consisted of the following costs, by program, in the periods presented:

21

Tabelecleucel costs were $5.7 million in the 2018 period as compared to $3.8 million in the 2017 period. The increase was primarily due to clinical trial, manufacturing and outside service costs related to the initiation of the two Phase 3 clinical trials of tabelecleucel in patients with rituximab-refractory EBV+ PTLD. We anticipate that tabelecleucel costs will continue to increase in 2018 due to enrollment in the two Phase 3 clinical trials.

ATA188 costs were $1.9 million in the 2018 period as compared to $0.3 million in the 2017 period. The increase was primarily related to clinical manufacturing and the initiation of the Phase 1 clinical trial of ATA188 for patients with MS in October 2017. We anticipate that ATA188 costs will continue to increase in 2018 as the Phase 1 trial expands.

ATA230 costs were $0.7 million in the 2018 period as compared to $0.9 million in the 2017 period. The decrease between the periods was primarily related to lower clinical trial, manufacturing and outside services costs due to reduced clinical trial-related activity.

T-cell manufacturing and other program expenses were $5.0 million in the 2018 period as compared to $4.4 million in the 2017 period. The increase was primarily due to increased manufacturing and development activities related to process science work. We anticipate that T-cell manufacturing and other 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.

Employee and overhead costs were $15.1 million in the 2018 period as compared to $8.2 million in the 2017 period. The increase was primarily due to a $4.2 million increase in payroll and related costs from increased headcount, a $1.2 million increase in facility related costs, a $1.1 million increase in other outside services costs and a $0.4 million increase in travel and other related costs  in support of our continuing expansion of research and development activities. 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

General and administrative expenses increased to $14.0 million in the 2018 period as compared to $8.6 million in the 2017 period. The increase was primarily due to a $2.6 million increase in payroll and related costs driven by increased headcount, a $2.3 million increase in professional services costs, and a $0.5 million increase in travel and facility related costs. We expect that general and administrative costs will continue to increase in 2018 as we continue to expand our operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Sources of Liquidity

Since our inception in 2012, we have funded our operations primarily through the issuance of common and preferred stock. 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, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses

payable by us. Further, in March 2018, we completed an underwritten public offering of 4,928,571 shares of common stock at an offering price of $35.00 per share and received net proceeds of $161.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us.  

In March 2017, we entered into 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 three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, we did not sell any shares of common stock under the ATM Facility. As of March 31, 2018, $55.0 million of common stock remained available to be sold under this facility, subject to certain conditions as specified in the agreement.

22

We have incurred losses and negative cash flows from operations in each year since inception. As of March 31, 2018, we had an accumulated deficit of $338.1 million. We do not expect to receive any revenues from any product candidates that we develop until we obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our products. As such, 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.

Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested in accordance with our investment policy, primarily with a view to liquidity and capital preservation. Currently, our cash, 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.  For the remainder of 2018, we expect to spend in the range of $8.0 million to $10.0 million of cash to build-out our office, lab and cellular therapy manufacturing space in Thousand Oaks, California. Management expects that existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of March 31, 2018 will be sufficient to fund our planned operations to mid-2020.  

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

Cash Flows

Comparison of the Three Months Ended March 31, 2018 and 2017

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

Operating activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $34.8 million in the 2018 period as compared to $22.0 million in the 2017 period. The increase of $12.8 million was primarily due to a $15.8 million increase in net loss and a $0.5 million decrease in the amortization of investment premiums and discounts partially offset by a $1.7 million increase in operating assets and liabilities, a $1.7 million increase in stock-based compensation and a $0.1 million increase in depreciation expense.

Investing activities

Net cash used in investing activities in the 2018 period consisted primarily of $292.5 million used to purchase available-for-sale securities and $19.8 million in purchases of property and equipment, partially offset by $26.5 million received from maturities and $35.9 million from sales of available-for-sale securities. Net cash provided by investing activities during the 2017 period consisted primarily of $63.8 million received from maturities and $27.5 million from sales of available-for-sale securities, partially offset by $52.0 million used to purchase available-for-sale securities and $1.2 million in purchases of property and equipment.

23

Financing activities

Net cash provided by financing activities in the 2018 period consisted of $293.3 million of aggregate net proceeds from the underwritten public offerings in January and March 2018 and $6.2 million of net proceeds from employee stock transactions, partially offset by $3.4 million of taxes paid related to the net share settlement of restricted stock and $0.1 million on principal payments on our capital lease obligations. Net cash used in financing activities in the 2017 period consisted of $0.3 million of taxes paid related to the net share settlement of RSUs.

Operating Capital Requirements and Plan of Operations

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

We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our planned operations to mid-2020. In order to complete the process of obtaining regulatory approval for our lead product candidate and to build the sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure that we believe will be necessary to commercialize our lead product candidate, 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:

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

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

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

Future minimum payments under our operating and capital leases as of March 31, 2018 and 2017, were $4.2 million and $3.3 million, respectively.

In addition, 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 commenced on February 15, 2018, upon the substantial completion of landlord’s work as defined under the agreement. The aggregate contractual obligations during the initial term are $16.4 million.  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.

24

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

During the three months ended March 31, 2018, there were no material changes to our interest rate risk disclosures, market risk disclosures and foreign currency exchange rate risk disclosures reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Under the supervision of our Chief Executive Officer and Vice President, Finance (the person performing a similar function to that of the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer for this purpose), we evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) of the Exchange Act as of March 31, 2018.  Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Vice President, Finance have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of March 31, 2018 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 Vice President, Finance, as appropriate to allow timely discussion regarding required disclosure. 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.

Inherent Limitations on Controls and Procedures

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Vice President, Finance (the person performing a similar function to that of the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer for this purpose), 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 Officer and Vice President, Finance have concluded that, as of March 31, 2018, 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.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

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 March 31, 2018 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

25

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

None.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

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

Risks Related to Our Financial Results and Capital Needs

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

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that a product candidate will fail to prove effective, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We do not have any products approved by regulatory authorities and have not generated any revenues from product sales to date, and have incurred significant research, development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations and expect to continue to incur such expenses. As a result, we have not been profitable and have incurred significant operating losses in every reporting period since our inception. For the three months ended March 31, 2018, we reported a net loss of $41.4 million and we had an accumulated deficit of $338.1 million as of March 31, 2018.

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.

26

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 ongoing,

27

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.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our planned operations into mid-2020. As of March 31, 2018, we had total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $407.3 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.

28

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

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, 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.

29

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:

30

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 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, neither the prior MSK trials nor our EAP trial protocol require response confirmation. The findings may not be reproducible in late phase trials we conduct. For regulatory approvals, we plan on 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.

31

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical trials and we do not know whether 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

32

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. The CMA will be based on clinical data from Phase 1 and 2 trials conducted at MSK and dependent on certain available data from our Phase 3 trials in rituximab-refractory EBV+ PTLD after HCT and SOT. The Phase 3 data that will be submitted as support for the CMA will require a certain number of patients to be enrolled and evaluated in the ongoing trial prior to the time of filing. 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.

33

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:

34

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 the U.S. 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.

35

Risks Related to Manufacturing

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 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.

36

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 or our CMO is damaged or destroyed or production at these facilities is otherwise interrupted, our business and prospects would be negatively affected.

If our manufacturing facility or CMO or the equipment in either 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.

37

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

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 historical phase 1/2 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.

38

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 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 regulatory 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,

39

packaging or testing of products. We have limited 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.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technology and product candidates. 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

40

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

41

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

42

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. Under our existing license agreements, we are subject to various obligations, including diligence obligations with respect to development and commercialization activities, payment obligations upon achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales, as well as other material obligations. If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of nonperformance between us and our counterparties 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 our counterparties may have a right to terminate the affected license. The loss of our license agreements 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.

43

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.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

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

44

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.

45

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% (and 70% starting January 1, 2019) 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 the U.S. 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, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2027 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, the U.S. Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While the U.S. 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

46

health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amends the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. The U.S. 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 and enacted federal and state legislation 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. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. While any proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, the U.S. 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.

47

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 2 clinical trials for baltaleucel-T, an autologous EBV specific T-cell therapy in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and Viracta Therapeutics, Inc., Viracta, which has initiated Phase 1b/2 clinical trials for VRx-3996 in relapsed/refractory EBV⁺ lymphomas, and Viracyte, which is conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial for Viralym-M^TM , a multi-virus T-cell product that targets five viruses including EBV. 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 and Merck’s recently approved Prevymis ^TM (letermovir), a DNA terminase inhibitor. 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. Shire Plc which is conducting Phase 3 clinical trials of maribavir, a UL97 protein kinase inhibitor and 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 2 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; Biogen’s BIIB098 (formerly Alkermes’ ALKS 8700); and J&J/Actelion’s next-generation sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) agonist ponesimod.  Celgene recently received a Refusal to File letter from the FDA regarding ozanimod, an S1PR and S1PR5 agonist, in relapsing MS, however, they have stated they will seek information and resubmit their regulatory filings in the near future.

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) and Betaseron® (marketed by Bayer AG) are approved in the European Union for the treatment of secondary progressive MS (SPMS). 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, which is now generic.  

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 trials including a number of Phase 3 programs: MedDay’s MD-1003, a concentrated form of biotin, and AB Science’s masitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, are pursuing both SPMS & PPMS. Medicinova’s MN166(ibudilast) is in Phase 2 trials for PPMS and Novartis’ siponimod and J&J/Actelion’s ponesimod are in Phase 3 trials seeking approvals for 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.). 

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.

48

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, commercial 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 March 31, 2018, we had 206 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:

49