Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2011 March (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011

or

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number: 001-14895

AVI BIOPHARMA, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (425) 354-5038

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§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, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (Check one):

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

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Table of Contents

AVI BIOPHARMA, INC.

FORM 10-Q

INDEX

Table of Contents

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

AVI BIOPHARMA, INC.

(A Development Stage Company)

BALANCE SHEETS

(unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share data)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

-1-

Table of Contents

AVI BIOPHARMA, INC.

(A Development Stage Company)

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

-2-

Table of Contents

AVI BIOPHARMA, INC.

(A Development Stage Company)

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(unaudited)

(in thousands)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

-3-

Table of Contents

AVI BIOPHARMA, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note 1. Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect the accounts of AVI BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) and its consolidated subsidiaries. The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2010 was derived from audited financial statements not included in this report. The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pertaining to interim financial statements. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.

Management has determined that the Company operates one segment: the development of pharmaceutical products on its own behalf or in collaboration with others.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods. The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. The results of operations for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

Reclassifications

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation. These changes did not have a significant impact on the Company’s net income, assets, liabilities, shareholders’ equity (deficit) or cash flows.

Estimates and Uncertainties

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Commitments and Contingencies

As of the date of this report, the Company is not a party to any material legal proceedings with respect to itself, its subsidiaries, or any of its material properties. In the normal course of business, the Company may from time to time be named as a party to various legal claims, actions and complaints, including matters involving employment, intellectual property, effects from the use of therapeutics utilizing its technology, or others. It is impossible to predict with certainty whether any resulting liability would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In May 2011, the Company entered into an agreement for the provision of professional services. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Company will make payments totaling $1.2 million over approximately the next 12 months.

-4-

Table of Contents

Note 2. Fair Value Measurements

The Company measures at fair value certain financial assets and liabilities in accordance with a hierarchy of valuation techniques based on whether the inputs to those valuation techniques are observable or unobservable. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Company’s market assumptions. There are three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair-value:

The Company’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis consisted of the following as of the date indicated:

-5-

Table of Contents

A reconciliation of the change in value of the Company’s warrants for the three months ended March 31, 2011 is as follows:

A reconciliation of the change in value of the Company’s warrants for the three months ended March 31, 2010 is as follows:

See Note 6 — “Warrants” for additional information related to the determination of fair value of the warrants.

The carrying amounts reported in the balance sheets for cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and other current monetary assets and liabilities approximate fair value because of the immediate or short-term maturity of these financial instruments.

Note 3. Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable are stated at invoiced amount and do not bear interest as they are due within 12 months. Because a majority of accounts receivable are from the U.S. government and historically no amounts have been written off, an allowance for doubtful accounts receivable is not considered necessary. The accounts receivable balance included $8.7 million and $0.5 million of receivables that were unbilled at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

-6-

Table of Contents

Note 4. U.S. Government Contracts

In the periods presented, substantially all of the revenue generated by the Company was derived from research contracts with the U.S. government. The Company recognizes revenues from U.S. government research contracts during the period in which the related expenditures are incurred and present these revenues and related expenses gross in the consolidated financial statements. As of March 31, 2011, the Company had contracts with the U.S. government pursuant to which it is entitled to receive up to an aggregate of $152.3 million for development of its product candidates, of which $90.4 million had been billed or recognized as revenue and $61.9 million of which relates to development that has not yet been completed and has not been billed. The following is a description of such contracts.

January 2006 Agreements (Ebola and Marburg Host Factors, Dengue, Anthrax and Ricin)

In January 2006, the final version of the 2006 defense appropriations act was enacted, which act included an allocation of $11.0 million to fund the Company’s ongoing defense-related programs under four different contracts, all of which were executed in 2007, and the last of which expired in October 2010. Net of government administrative costs, it was anticipated that the Company would receive up to $9.8 million under this allocation. The Company’s technology is expected to be used to continue developing RNA-based drugs against Ebola and Marburg viruses. As of March 31, 2011, the Company has recognized revenue of $9.7 million with respect to these contracts and the Company does not expect to receive any additional funds under these contracts.

November 2006 Agreement (Ebola, Marburg and Junín Viruses)

In November 2006, the Company entered into a two-year research contract with the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (“DTRA”) pursuant to which the Company was entitled to $28.0 million to fund development of the Company’s antisense therapeutic candidates for Ebola, Marburg and Junín hemorrhagic viruses. In May 2009, this contract was amended to extend the term of the contract until November 2009 and to increase funding by $5.9 million to an aggregate of $33.9 million. In September 2009, the contract was amended again to extend the term of the contract to February 2011 and to increase funding by an additional $11.5 million to an aggregate of $45.4 million. In November 2010, the Company and DTRA agreed that the key activities under this contract had been completed and that further activities under this contract would cease and this contract would be deemed concluded. As of March 31, 2011, the Company had recognized revenue of $38.4 million with respect to this contract and the Company does not expect further significant revenue.

May 2009 Agreement (H1N1/Influenza)

In May 2009, the Company entered into a contract with DTRA to develop swine flu drugs. Under this contract, DTRA will pay up to $4.1 million to the Company for the work involving the application of the Company’s proprietary PMO and PMOplus^™ antisense chemistry and the Company plans to conduct preclinical development of at least one drug candidate and demonstrate that it is effective by testing it on animals. In March 2010, the contract was amended to include testing against additional influenza strains including H5N1 (avian flu), Tamiflu^®-resistant H1N1 (swine flu) and H3N2 (seasonal flu) and funding increased by $4.0 million to an aggregate of $8.1 million. As of March 31, 2011, the Company has recognized revenue of $7.0 million with respect to this contract and does not expect to receive additional significant revenue in 2011.

-7-

Table of Contents

June 2010 Agreement (H1N1/Influenza)

On June 4, 2010, the Company entered into a contract with the DTRA to advance the development of AVI-7100, which was previously designated AVI-7367 and which has been renumbered by the Company, as a medical countermeasure against the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus in cooperation with the Transformational Medical Technologies program (“TMT”) of the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”). The contract originally provided for funding of up to $18.0 million (which was reduced to $17.7 million in March 2011 when the contract was definitized) to advance the development of AVI-7100, including studies enabling an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the development of an intranasal delivery formulation, and the funding of the entry into a Phase I clinical trial to obtain human safety data to support potential use under an Emergency Use Authorization. In April 2011, the contract was amended to remove clinical studies from the scope of work and to add in vitro broad spectrum strain investigation, additional formulation work related to intranasal delivery and an intravenous compatibility study. As a result of this amendment, the amount of funding under the contract decreased to an aggregate of $13.1 million. As of March 31, 2011, the Company has recognized revenue of $11.1 million with respect to this contract and expects to receive the remaining funding under this contract in 2011.

July 2010 Agreement (Ebola and Marburg)

On July 14, 2010, the Company was awarded a new contract with the DoD Chemical and Biological Defense Program through the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command for the advanced development of the Company’s hemorrhagic fever virus therapeutic candidates, AVI-6002 and AVI-6003, for Ebola and Marburg viruses, respectively. The contract is funded as part of the TMT program, which was instigated to develop innovative platform-based solutions countering biological threats. The contract is structured into four segments for each therapeutic candidate with potential funding of up to approximately $291 million. Activity under the first segment began in July 2010 and provides for funding to the Company of up to approximately $80 million. Activities under the first segment include Phase I studies in healthy volunteers as well as preclinical studies, and are scheduled over an 18-month period.

After completion of the first segment, and each successive segment, TMT has the option to proceed to the next segment for either or both AVI-6002 and AVI-6003. If TMT exercises its options for all four segments, contract activities would include all clinical and licensure activities necessary to obtain FDA regulatory approval of each therapeutic candidate and would provide for a total funding award to the Company of up to approximately $291 million over a period of approximately six years. Under an earlier contract, the Company completed development activities that culminated in the opening of IND applications for both AVI-6002 and AVI-6003. As of March 31, 2011, the Company has recognized revenue of $21.7 million with respect to the July 2010 Agreement.

The following table sets forth the impact on revenue of each of the contracts with the U.S. government on the Company’s results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

-8-

Table of Contents

Note 5. Stock Compensation

Stock Options

The Company sponsors a 2002 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) pursuant to which it may issue options to purchase its common stock to the Company’s employees, directors and service providers. In general, stock options granted under the Plan prior to December 31, 2010 vest over a three year period, with one-third of the underlying shares vesting on each anniversary of grant, and have a ten year term. Beginning in January 2011, stock options granted under the Plan will vest over a four year period, with one-fourth of the underlying shares vesting on the first anniversary of the grant and 1/48th of the underlying shares vesting monthly thereafter, such that the underlying shares will be fully vested on the fourth anniversary of the grant. As of March 31, 2011, 2,069,183 shares of common stock remain available for future grant under the Plan.

A summary of the Company’s stock option activity with respect to the three months ended March 31, 2011 follows:

The weighted-average fair value per share of stock-based awards, including stock options and restricted stock grants, granted to employees during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 was $1.54 and $1.06, respectively. During the same periods, no stock options were exercised and the total grant date fair value of stock options that vested was $1,089,000 and $838,000, respectively.

Valuation Assumptions

Stock-based compensation costs are based on the fair value calculated from the Black-Scholes option-pricing model on the date of grant for stock options. The fair value of stock grants is amortized as compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the grants.

The fair values of stock options granted during the periods presented were measured on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, with the following assumptions:

-9-

Table of Contents

The risk-free interest rate is estimated using an average of treasury bill interest rates at the time of grant that correlate to the prevailing interest rates for a period commensurate with the expected life. The expected dividend yield is zero as the Company has not paid any dividends to date and does not expect to pay dividends in the future. The expected lives are estimated using expected and historical exercise behavior. The expected volatility is estimated using historical calculated volatility of the Company’s common stock over a period commensurate with the expected life. The amounts estimated according to the Black-Scholes option pricing model may not be indicative of the actual values realized upon the exercise of these options by the holders.

The Company is required to estimate potential forfeiture of stock grants and adjust compensation cost recorded accordingly. The estimate of forfeitures is adjusted over the requisite service period to the extent that actual forfeitures differ, or are expected to differ, from such estimates. Changes in estimated forfeitures are recognized through a cumulative catch-up in the period of change and impact the amount of stock compensation expense to be recognized in future periods.

Stock-based Compensation Expense

The amount of stock-based compensation expense recognized in the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 related to stock options was $1,145,000 and $426,000, respectively. A summary of the stock based compensation expense recognized in the statement of operations is as follows:

As of March 31, 2011, there was $6,836,000 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested share-based compensation arrangements, including stock options and restricted stock, granted under the Plan. These costs are expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.6 years.

On January 10, 2011, in connection with her appointment as the Company’s senior vice president and general counsel, the Company granted Effie Toshav an option to purchase 650,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.58 per share. These shares were granted outside the Plan. This option is exercisable at the rate of 25% of the shares on January 10, 2012 and 1/48th of the total granted shares on each monthly anniversary thereafter such that the option will be fully vested on January 10, 2015. The shares granted are included in the summary stock compensation table noted above in this Note 5.

Paul Medeiros, the Company’s Senior Vice President of Business Development and Chief Business Officer, will cease to be an employee of the Company effective June 1, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of a separation and release agreement that the Company expects to enter into with Mr. Medeiros in connection with the termination of his employment, Mr. Medeiros will receive 12 months of his base compensation in a lump sum (an amount equal to $321,300) and all of his unvested stock options will vest on June 1, 2011 and be exercisable for a period of 180 days following June 1, 2011. As of March 31, 2011, the Company has

-10-

Table of Contents

recorded a deferred liability for the salary and has recorded a charge of $288,000 for the stock compensation expense for the three months ending March 31, 2011.

Note 6. Warrants

Warrants issued in connection with the Company’s December 2007, January 2009, and August 2009 financings are classified as liabilities due to their settlement terms. These warrants are non-cash liabilities; the Company is not required to expend any cash to settle these liabilities.

The fair value of these warrants was recorded on the balance sheet at issuance and the warrants are marked to market at each financial reporting period, with changes in the fair value recorded as a gain or loss in the statement of operations. The fair value of the warrants is determined using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, which requires the use of significant judgment and estimates for the inputs used in the model. The following reflects the weighted-average assumptions for each of the periods indicated:

The risk-free interest rate is estimated using an average of treasury bill interest rates at the valuation date that correlate to the prevailing interest rates over a period commensurate with the expected lives. The expected dividend yield is zero as the Company has not paid any dividends to date and does not expect to pay dividends in the future. The expected lives are based on the remaining contractual lives of the related warrants at the valuation date. The expected volatility is estimated using historical volatility of the Company’s common stock, taking into account factors such as future events or circumstances that could impact volatility, over a period commensurate with the expected lives. The amounts estimated according to the Black-Scholes option pricing model may not be indicative of the actual values realized upon the exercise of these warrants by the holders.

The Company also has warrants that are classified as permanent equity; the fair value of the warrants was recorded as additional paid-in capital at the time of issuance and no further adjustments are made. For the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, 255,895 and 2,129,530 shares, respectively, were underlying such warrants.

A summary of the Company’s warrant activity with respect to the three months ended March 31, 2011 is as follows:

-11-

Table of Contents

Note 7. Earnings Per Share

Basic net income (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted net income (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted-average number of common shares and dilutive common stock equivalent shares outstanding.

Note 8. Liquidity

Since its inception in 1980 through March 31, 2011 the Company has incurred losses of approximately $305.8 million, substantially all of which resulted from expenditures related to research and development, general and administrative charges and acquired in-process research and development resulting from two acquisitions. The Company has not generated any material revenue from product sales to date, and there can be no assurance that revenue from product sales will be achieved. The Company expects to incur operating losses over the next several years.

At March 31, 2011, cash and cash equivalents were $23.3 million, compared to $33.6 million at December 31, 2010. The Company’s principal sources of liquidity have been equity financings and revenue from its U.S. government research contracts. The Company’s principal uses of cash have been research and development expenses, general and administrative expenses and other working capital requirements.

In the periods presented, substantially all of the revenue generated by the Company was derived from research contracts with the U.S. government. As of March 31, 2011, the Company had contracts with the U.S. government pursuant to which it is entitled to receive up to an aggregate of $152.3 million for

-12-

Table of Contents

development of its product candidates, of which $90.4 million had been recognized as revenue and $61.9 million of which relates to development that has not yet been completed and has not been billed. See Note 4 — “U.S. Government Contracts” for additional information.

In January and August 2009, the Company sold shares of its common stock and also issued warrants to purchase shares of its common stock in offerings registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). See Note 9 — “Equity Financings” for more information.

In April 2011, the Company sold 23.0 million shares of its common stock at the price of $1.50 per share in an offering registered under the Securities Act. The offering generated gross proceeds of $34.5 million.

Note 9. Equity Financings

In January 2009, the Company sold approximately 14.2 million shares of its common stock and also issued warrants to purchase approximately 14.2 million shares of its common stock in an offering registered under the Securities Act. The offering generated net proceeds of approximately $15.5 million. The warrants issued to the investors in the offering have an exercise price of $1.16 per share and are exercisable at any time on or before July 30, 2014. In connection with the offering, the Company also issued to the placement agent a warrant to purchase approximately 427,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.45 per share. The warrant issued to the placement agent is exercisable on or before January 30, 2014.

In August 2009, the Company sold approximately 24.3 million shares of its common stock and also issued warrants to purchase approximately 9.7 million shares of its common stock in an offering registered under the Securities Act. The offering generated net proceeds of approximately $32.3 million. The warrants issued to the investors in the offering have an exercise price of $1.78 per share and are exercisable at any time on or before August 25, 2014. The warrants issued in connection with the January and August 2009 offerings are classified as a liability due to their settlement terms. Accordingly, the fair value of the warrants is recorded on the consolidated balance sheet as a liability, and such fair value is adjusted at each financial reporting period with the adjustment to fair value reflected in the consolidated statement of operations as described in greater detail in Note 6 — “Warrants.” These warrants are non-cash liabilities; the Company is not required to expend any cash to settle these liabilities.

In April 2011, the Company sold 23.0 million shares of its common stock. See Note 12 — “Subsequent Events” for more information.

Note 10. Income Taxes

The Company has not recognized any liability for unrecognized tax benefits. There are no unrecognized tax benefits included in the balance sheet that would, if recognized, affect the effective tax rate.

The Company’s policy is to recognize interest and/or penalties related to income tax matters in income tax expense. The Company had no accrual for interest or penalties on its balance sheet at March 31, 2011 or December 31, 2010, and has not recognized interest and/or penalties in the statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011 or March 31, 2010.

At December 31, 2010, the Company had net deferred tax assets of approximately $109 million. The deferred tax assets are primarily composed of U.S. federal and state tax net operating loss carryforwards, U.S. federal and state research and development credit carryforwards, share-based compensation expense and intangibles. Due to uncertainties surrounding its ability to generate future taxable income to realize these

-13-

Table of Contents

assets, a full valuation allowance has been established to offset its net deferred tax asset. Additionally, the Internal Revenue Code rules could limit the future use of its net operating loss and research and development credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income based on ownership changes and the value of the Company’s stock.

Note 11. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), issued guidance to amend the disclosure requirements related to recurring and nonrecurring fair value measurements. Other than requiring additional disclosures, adoption of this new guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

In April 2010, the FASB issued guidance on applying the milestone method of revenue recognition for milestone payments for achieving specific performance measures when those payments are related to uncertain future events. The guidance is effective on a prospective basis to milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this new guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

Note 12. Subsequent Events

In April 2011, the Company sold 23.0 million shares of its common stock at the price of $1.50 per share in an offering registered under the Securities Act. The offering generated gross proceeds of $34.5 million.

This section should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the section contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 under the caption “Part II-Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” This discussion contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. All statements other than historical or current facts, including, without limitation, statements about our business strategy, plans and objectives of management, and our future prospects, are forward-looking statements and are sometimes identified by such words as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “plan,” “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” and “potential,” and words of similar import. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding:

-14-

Table of Contents

These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those discussed in this Quarterly Report in Part II, Item 1A – “Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report. These statements, like all statements in this Quarterly Report, speak only as of their date, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise these statements in light of future developments. In this report, “we,” “our,” “us,” “AVI,” and “Company” refers to AVI BioPharma, Inc.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of unique RNA-based therapeutics for the treatment of both rare and infectious diseases. Applying our proprietary, highly-differentiated and innovative platform technologies, we are able to target a broad range of diseases and

-15-

Table of Contents

disorders through distinct RNA-based mechanisms of action. We are primarily focused on rapidly advancing the development of our potentially disease-modifying Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug candidates with the intent to realize the product opportunities of such candidates and provide significant clinical benefits. We are also focused on developing therapeutics for the treatment of infectious diseases. By building on the research under our infectious disease programs funded by the U.S. government and leveraging our highly-differentiated, proprietary technology platforms, we are seeking to further develop our research and development competencies and capabilities and identify additional product candidates. We believe that our organizational capabilities will enable us to achieve these goals and become a leading developer and marketer of RNA-based therapeutics for the treatment of both rare and infectious diseases.

Our highly-differentiated RNA-based technologies work at the most fundamental level of biology and potentially could have a meaningful impact across a broad range of human diseases and disorders. Our lead program focuses on the development of disease modifying therapeutic candidates for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, a rare genetic muscle wasting disease caused by the absence of dystrophin, a protein necessary for muscle function. Eteplirsen (the non-proprietary name assigned to AVI-4658) is our lead therapeutic candidate for DMD and is intended to target a substantial group of individuals with DMD. If we are successful in our development efforts, eteplirsen will address a severe unmet medical need. Data from 17 of the 19 individuals enrolled in our Phase Ib/II trial in the United Kingdom and treated systemically with eteplirsen demonstrated some generation of novel dystrophin, and one participant exhibited the first ever reported increase in dystrophin positive muscle fibers to greater than 50% of normal. Restoration of dystrophin expression and dystrophin positive fibers is believed to be critical for successful disease modifying treatment of individuals with DMD. We intend to initiate a Phase II trial for eteplirsen in the first half of 2011 with an objective of entering a pivotal trial in the second half of 2012.

We are also leveraging the capabilities of our RNA-based technology platforms to develop therapeutics for the treatment of infectious diseases. The U.S. Department of Defense, or DoD, has provided significant financial support for the development of therapeutics against Ebola, Marburg, Dengue and influenza viruses, as described in greater detail below.

We employ our highly-differentiated and innovative RNA-based technology platforms in both our DMD and infectious disease programs. The basis for our novel RNA-based therapeutics is our phosphorodiamidate-linked morpholino oligomer, or PMO, chemistries. By applying our technologies, we are able to target a broad range of diseases and disorders through distinct RNA-based mechanisms of action. Unlike other RNA-based therapeutics, our technologies can be used to selectively up-regulate or down-regulate the production of a target protein, or direct the expression of novel proteins involved in human diseases and disorders. We believe that these broad capabilities represent highly competitive RNA-based technology platforms and a strong intellectual property position, which we are leveraging to identify additional product candidates and explore various strategic opportunities. As of March 31, 2011, we owned or held exclusive or partially exclusive licenses to approximately 190 U.S. and corresponding foreign patents and 180 U.S. and corresponding foreign patent applications.

In April 2011, we sold 23.0 million shares of our common stock at $1.50 per share in an offering registered under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act. The offering generated gross proceeds of $34.5 million.

From our inception in 1980, we have devoted our resources primarily to fund our research and development efforts. As the result of new influenza, Ebola and Marburg U.S. government research contracts, we expect future revenues and research and development costs to increase. We have been unprofitable since inception and, other than government research contracts, limited interest, license fees, and grants, we have had no material revenue. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our

-16-

Table of Contents

research and development efforts and seek to enter additional collaborative efforts. As of March 31, 2011, our accumulated deficit was $305.8 million.

Government Contracts

In the periods presented, substantially all of the revenue generated by our company was derived from research contracts with the U.S. government. As of March 31, 2011, we had contracts with the U.S. government pursuant to which we are entitled to receive up to an aggregate of $152.3 million for development of our product candidates, of which $90.4 million had been billed or recognized as revenue and $61.9 million of which relates to development that has not yet been completed and has not been billed or recognized as revenue. The following is a description of such contracts.

January 2006 Agreements (Ebola and Marburg Host Factors, Dengue, Anthrax and Ricin)

In January 2006, the final version of the 2006 defense appropriations act was enacted, which act included an allocation of $11.0 million to fund our ongoing defense-related programs under four different contracts, all of which were executed in 2007, and the last of which expired in October 2010. Net of government administrative costs, it was anticipated that we would receive up to $9.8 million under this allocation. Our technology is expected to be used to continue developing RNA-based drugs against Ebola and Marburg viruses. As of March 31, 2011, we have recognized revenue of $9.7 million with respect to these contracts and do not expect to receive any additional funds under these contracts.

November 2006 Agreement (Ebola, Marburg and Junín Viruses)

In November 2006, we entered into a two-year research contract with the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, or DTRA, pursuant to which we were entitled to $28.0 million to fund development of our antisense therapeutic candidates for Ebola, Marburg and Junín hemorrhagic viruses. In May 2009, this contract was amended to extend the term of the contract until November 2009 and to increase funding by $5.9 million to an aggregate of $33.9 million. In September 2009, the contract was amended again to extend the term of the contract to February 2011 and to increase funding by an additional $11.5 million to an aggregate of $45.4 million. In November 2010, we and DTRA agreed that the key activities under this contract had been completed and that further activities under this contract would cease and this contract would be deemed concluded. As of March 31, 2011, we had recognized revenue of $38.4 million with respect to this contract and do not expect further significant revenue.

May 2009 Agreement (H1N1/Influenza)

In May 2009, we entered into a contract with DTRA to develop swine flu drugs. Under this contract, DTRA will pay up to $4.1 million to us for the work involving the application of our proprietary PMO and PMOplus^™ antisense chemistry and we plan to conduct preclinical development of at least one drug candidate and demonstrate that it is effective by testing it on animals. In March 2010, the contract was amended to include testing against additional influenza strains including H5N1 (avian flu), Tamiflu^®-resistant H1N1 (swine flu) and H3N2 (seasonal flu) and funding increased by $4.0 million to an aggregate of $8.1 million. As of March 31, 2011, we have recognized revenue of $7.0 million with respect to this contract and do not expect to receive additional significant revenue in 2011.

June 2010 Agreement (H1N1/Influenza)

On June 4, 2010, we entered into a contract with the DTRA to advance the development of AVI-7100, which was previously designated AVI-7367 and which has been renumbered by us, as a medical

-17-

Table of Contents

countermeasure against the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus in cooperation with the Transformational Medical Technologies program, or TMT, of the U.S. Department of Defense, or DoD. The contract originally provided for funding of up to $18.0 million (which was reduced to $17.7 million in March 2011 when the contract was definitized) to advance the development of AVI-7100, including studies enabling an Investigational New Drug, or IND, application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the development of an intranasal delivery formulation, and the funding of the entry into a Phase I clinical trial to obtain human safety data to support potential use under an Emergency Use Authorization. In April 2011, the contract was amended to remove clinical studies from the scope of work and to add in vitro broad spectrum strain investigation, additional formulation work related to intranasal delivery and an intravenous compatibility study. As a result of this amendment, the amount of funding under the contract decreased to an aggregate of $13.1 million. As of March 31, 2011, we have recognized revenue of $11.1 million with respect to this contract and expect to receive the remaining funding under this contract in 2011.

July 2010 Agreement (Ebola and Marburg)

On July 14, 2010, we were awarded a new contract with the DoD Chemical and Biological Defense Program through the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command for the advanced development of our hemorrhagic fever virus therapeutic candidates, AVI-6002 and AVI-6003, for Ebola and Marburg viruses, respectively. The contract is funded as part of the TMT program, which was established to develop innovative platform-based solutions countering biological threats. The contract is structured into four segments for each therapeutic candidate with potential funding of up to approximately $291 million. Activity under the first segment began in July 2010 and provides for funding to us of up to approximately $80 million. Activities under the first segment include Phase I studies in healthy volunteers as well as preclinical studies, and are scheduled over an 18-month period.

After completion of the first segment, and each successive segment, TMT has the option to proceed to the next segment for either or both AVI-6002 and AVI-6003. If TMT exercises its options for all four segments, contract activities would include all clinical and licensure activities necessary to obtain FDA regulatory approval of each therapeutic candidate and would provide for a total funding award to us of up to approximately $291 million over a period of approximately six years. Under an earlier contract, we completed development activities that culminated in the opening of IND applications for both AVI-6002 and AVI-6003. As of March 31, 2011, we have recognized revenue of $21.7 million with respect to the July 2010 Agreement.

The following table sets forth the impact on revenue of each of the contracts with the U.S. government on our results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010

-18-

Table of Contents

Key Financial Metrics

Revenue

Government Research Contract Revenue. In the periods presented, we have generated substantially all of our revenue from U.S. government research contracts. We recognize revenue from U.S. government research contracts during the period in which the related expenditures are incurred and present such revenue and related expense gross in the consolidated financial statements.

We defer recognition of non-refundable upfront fees if we have continuing performance obligations without which the technology, right, product or service conveyed in conjunction with the non-refundable fee has no utility to the licensee that is separate and independent of our performance under the other elements of the arrangement. In addition, if we have continuing involvement through research and development services that are required because our know-how and expertise related to the technology is proprietary to us, or can only be performed by us, then such up-front fees are deferred and recognized over the period of continuing involvement. As of March 31, 2011, we had deferred revenue of $3.3 million, which represents up-front fees received from third parties pursuant to certain contractual arrangements and will be recognized as performance obligations are satisfied.

As the result of recent new government research contracts for H1N1/Influenza, Ebola and Marburg, we expect future revenues to increase in the near term.

Expenses

Research and Development. Research and development expense consists of costs associated with research activities as well as costs associated with our product development efforts, conducting preclinical studies, and clinical trial and manufacturing costs.

Direct research and development expenses associated with our programs include clinical trial site costs, clinical manufacturing costs, costs incurred for consultants and other outside services, such as data management and statistical analysis support, and materials and supplies used in support of the clinical programs. Indirect costs of our clinical program include salaries, stock based compensation, and an allocation of our facility costs. As the result of recent new government research contracts for H1N1/Influenza, Ebola and Marburg, we expect future research and development costs to increase.

The amount and timing of future research and development expense will depend on our ability to obtain U.S. government awards to fund the advanced development of our antiviral therapeutic candidates. Without such funding, we would likely drastically reduce our spending in these areas. Future research and development expenses may also increase if our internal projects, such as DMD, enter later stage clinical development. Our research and development programs are at an early stage and may not result in any approved products. Product candidates that appear promising at early stages of development may not reach the market for a variety of reasons. Similarly, any of our product candidates may be found to be ineffective during clinical trials, may take longer to complete clinical trials than we have anticipated, may fail to receive necessary regulatory approvals, and may prove impracticable to manufacture in commercial quantities at reasonable cost and with acceptable quality.

As a result of these uncertainties and the other risks inherent in the drug development process, we cannot determine the duration and completion costs of current or future clinical stages of any of our product candidates. Similarly, we cannot determine when, if, or to what extent we may generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of any product candidate. The timeframe for development of any product

-19-

Table of Contents

candidate, associated development costs, and the probability of regulatory and commercial success vary widely.

General and Administrative. General and administrative expense consists principally of salaries, benefits, stock-based compensation expense, and related costs for personnel in our executive, finance, legal, information technology, business development and human resource functions. Other general and administrative expenses include an allocation of our facility costs and professional fees for legal, consulting and accounting services.

Interest Income and Other, Net. Interest income and other, net, consists of interest on our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments and rental income and other income. Our cash equivalents consist of money market investments. Interest expense includes interest paid on our mortgage loan related to the Corvallis property held for sale. Other income includes rental income on sublease facilities.

Change in Fair Value of Warrants. Warrants issued in connection with our December 2007 and January and August 2009 financings are classified as liabilities due to their settlement terms. These warrants are non-cash liabilities; we are not required to expend any cash to settle these liabilities. The fair market value of these warrants was recorded on the balance sheet at issuance and the warrants are marked to market each financial reporting period, with changes in the fair value recorded as a gain or loss in our statement of operations. The fair value of the warrants is determined using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, which requires the use of significant judgment and estimates for the inputs used in the model. For more information, see Note 6 — “Warrants” of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report. The preparation of our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP, requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities for the periods presented. Some of these judgments can be subjective and complex, and, consequently, actual results may differ from these estimates. For any given individual estimate or assumption we make, there may also be other estimates or assumptions that are reasonable. We believe that the estimates and judgments upon which we rely are reasonable based upon historical experience and information available to us at the time that we make these estimates and judgments. To the extent there are material differences between these estimates and actual results, our consolidated financial statements will be affected. Although we believe that our judgments and estimates are appropriate, actual results may differ from these estimates.

The policies that we believe are the most critical to aid the understanding of our financial results include:

-20-

Table of Contents

Our critical accounting policies and significant estimates are detailed in our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, on March 15, 2011.

Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 and 2010

The following table sets forth selected consolidated statements of operations data for each of the periods indicated:

Revenue

Revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2011 increased by $13.1 million, or 1,086%, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2010 due to a $11.9 million increase in revenue from the July 2010 Ebola and Marburg and a $2.1 million total increase in the May 2009 and June 2010 H1N1 U.S. government research contracts offset, in part, by a $0.9 million lower revenue associated with the 2006 U.S. government research contracts.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2011 increased by $8.7 million, or 143%, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2010 due primarily to an $8.0 million increase in spending related to the July 2010 Ebola and Marburg agreements and a $1.2 million increase in spending related to the May 2009 and June 2010 H1N1 agreements, partially offset by $0.5 million decrease in spending on DMD and other research and development programs.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2011 increased by $2.2 million, or 77%, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2010. The significant increase in the three months ended March 31, 2011 is primarily due to $1.2 million in salaries and employee related costs from increased staff, $0.6 million in accrued severance and stock compensation expense related to the planned departure of a senior officer, $0.3 million increase in legal costs and $0.1 million in consulting costs.

-21-

Table of Contents

Interest Income and Other, Net

Interest income and other, net, for the three months ended March 31, 2011 increased by 114% to $0.1 million compared to the three months ended March 31, 2010. The increase in interest income and other, net, for the three months ended March 31, 2011 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2010 was attributable to increased interest earnings on our invested cash.

Change in Fair Value of Warrant Liability

The changes in fair value of warrant liability for the three months ended March 31, 2011 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2010 was attributable to changes in our stock price. See “—Key Financial Metrics—Change in Fair Value of Warrants,” “—Critical Accounting Policies—Warrant Liability,” and Note 6 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report.

Net income (loss)

Net income for the three months ended March 31, 2011 increased by $2.4 million, compared to the net loss of $0.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010 due primarily due to the higher revenues attributed to the revenue from our agreements with the U.S. government and the change in warrant liability, offset in part by higher research and development costs and general and administration costs.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At March 31, 2011, cash and cash equivalents were $23.3 million, compared to $33.6 million at December 31, 2010. Our principal sources of liquidity are equity financings and revenue from our U.S. government research contracts. Our principal uses of cash are research and development expenses, general and administrative expenses and other working capital requirements. Based on the factors described below, we believe that our currently available cash and cash equivalents, exclusive of receipt of future proceeds pursuant to our contracts with the U.S. government, are sufficient to finance our operations for at least the next 12 months.

Sources of Funds

Our primary source of revenue is from development of product candidates pursuant to our contracts with the U.S. government. Government funding is subject to the U.S. government’s appropriations process and the U.S. government has the right under our contracts with them to terminate such contracts for convenience. If U.S. government funding is not received or is delayed, our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and we may need to seek additional sources of capital. We do not generate any revenue from non-government, commercial sale of our pharmaceutical product candidates.

In April 2011, we sold 23.0 million shares of our common stock at $1.50 per share in an offering registered under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act. The offering generated net proceeds of approximately $32.0 million.

We will require additional capital from time to time in the future in order to continue the development of products and to expand our product portfolio. We expect to seek additional financing primarily from, but not limited to, the sale and issuance of equity or debt securities. We cannot assure you that financing will be available when and as needed or that, if available, the financings will be on favorable or acceptable terms. If we are unable to obtain additional financing when and if we require, it would have a material adverse effect

-22-

Table of Contents

on our business and results of operations. To the extent we issue additional equity securities, our existing shareholders could experience substantial dilution.

We have never generated material commercial revenue from the sale of products and cannot offer any assurances that we will be able to do so in the future.

Uses of Funds

From inception in 1980 through the date of this report, our accumulated deficit is $305.8 million. Our principal uses of cash have been research and development expenses, general and administrative expenses, costs associated with the acquisition of in-process research and development and other working capital requirements.

Historical Trends

Operating Activities. We used $10.1 million of cash in operating activities for the three months ended March 31, 2011, an increase of $3.8 million compared to $6.3 million of cash used in operating activities for the three months ended March 31, 2010. The increase in net cash used in operating activities during the comparative periods was primarily attributable to an $11.6 million increase in accounts receivable and other current assets partially offset by a $5.1 million increase in accounts payable and other liabilities and $2.7 million of cash generated by higher revenues from government contracts as compared to the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Investing Activities. We used $0.3 million of cash in investing activities for the three months ended March 31, 2011, a decrease of $0.2 million compared to $0.5 million of cash used in investing activities for the three months ended March 31, 2010. The fluctuation was attributable to decreased spending on patents.

Financing Activities. Financing activities provided $0.1 million of cash primarily due to warrant exercises offset by a debt repayment for the three months ended March 31, 2011. Cash used by financing activities for the three months ended March 31, 2010 was attributable to debt repayments.

Our future expenditures and capital requirements depend on numerous factors, most of which are difficult to project beyond the short term. These requirements include our ability to meet the requirements of our U.S. government research projects, the progress of our research and development programs and our pre-clinical and clinical trials, the time and costs involved in obtaining regulatory approvals, the cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing any patent claims and other intellectual property rights, competing technological and market developments, our ability to establish collaborative arrangements and the terms of any such arrangements, and the costs associated with commercialization of our products. Our cash requirements are expected to continue to increase as we advance our research, development and commercialization programs.

-23-

Table of Contents

Contractual Obligations and Contingencies

In our continuing operations, we have entered into long-term contractual arrangements from time to time for our facilities, the provision of goods and services, and acquisition of technology access rights, among others. The following table presents contractual obligations arising from these arrangements as of March 31, 2011:

In May 2011, we entered into an agreement for the provision of professional services. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we will make payments totaling $1.2 million over approximately the next 12 months. The table above excludes these amounts.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

During the periods presented, we did not have any relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or for another contractually narrow or limited purpose.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 11 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contained in Part I, Item 1 of this report.

Interest Rate Sensitivity

We had cash and cash equivalents of $23.3 million and $33.6 million at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. We do not enter into investments for trading or speculative purposes; our cash equivalents are invested in money market accounts. We believe that we do not have any material exposure to changes in the fair value of these assets in the near term due to extremely low rates of investment interest and to the short term nature of our cash and cash equivalents. Future declines in interest rates, however, would reduce investment income, but are not likely to be a material source of revenue to our company in the foreseeable future. A 0.01% decline in interest rates, occurring January 1, 2011 and sustained throughout the period ended March 31, 2011, would result in a decline in investment income of approximately $2,000 for that same period.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We carried out an evaluation as of the end of period covered by this report, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, of our disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether as of the evaluation date our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that the information we are required to disclose in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, under the Exchange Act (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the

-24-

Table of Contents

time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and (ii) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based on that evaluation, management has concluded that as of March 31, 2011, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended March 31, 2011 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II — OTHER INFORMATION

As of the date of this report, we are not a party to any material legal proceedings with respect to us, our subsidiaries, or any of our material properties. In the normal course of business, we may from time to time be named as a party to various legal claims, actions and complaints, including matters involving employment, intellectual property, effects from the use of drugs utilizing our technology, or others. It is impossible to predict with certainty whether any resulting liability would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Set forth below and elsewhere in this report and in other documents we file with the SEC are descriptions of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. Because of the following factors, as well as other variables affecting our operating results, past financial performance should not be considered a reliable indicator of future performance and investors should not use historical trends to anticipate results or trends in future periods. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing us. Other events that we do not currently anticipate or that we currently deem immaterial also affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Relating to Our Business

Our product candidates are at an early stage of development, and it is possible that none of our product candidates will ever become commercial products.

Our product candidates are in relatively early stages of development. These product candidates will require significant further development, financial resources and personnel to obtain regulatory approval and develop into commercially viable products, if at all. Currently, eteplirsen in DMD, AVI-6002 in Ebola and AVI-6003 in Marburg are in clinical trials, we have an open IND for AVI-7100 in influenza, and the rest of our product candidates are in preclinical development. We expect that much of our effort and many of our expenditures over the next several years will be devoted to development activities associated with eteplirsen in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, AVI-6002 in Ebola, AVI-6003 in Marburg and AVI-7100 in influenza. With

-25-

Table of Contents

current resources, we may be restricted or delayed in our ability to develop other clinical and preclinical product candidates.

Our ability to commercialize any of our product candidates, including eteplirsen, depends on first receiving required regulatory approvals, and it is possible that we may never receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates based on an inability to adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates, lack of funding, changes in the regulatory landscape or other reasons. Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the resulting product may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payers and the medical community. Assuming that any of our product candidates receives the required regulatory approvals, commercial success will depend on a number of factors, including:

Although we have been granted orphan status for two of our product candidates to date, we are not guaranteed to receive orphan exclusivity based on that status and would not enjoy such exclusivity in the event that another entity could get approval of the same product for the same indication before we receive approval. Furthermore, pediatric exclusivity only applies if another product with exclusivity has not received regulatory approval, so if another regulatory exclusivity or patent protection exists for the product once it is approved, we would not receive the benefit of any pediatric exclusivity.

If we are unable to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates, if development is delayed or if sales revenue from any product candidate that receives marketing approval is insufficient, we may never reach sustained profitability.

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

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States, and other regulatory authorities in other countries, with regulations differing from country to country. Marketing of our product candidates in the United States or foreign countries is not permitted until we obtain marketing approval from the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates. Obtaining marketing approval is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process and approval is never assured. We have never prepared or filed the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals. Further, the FDA and other foreign regulatory agencies have substantial discretion in the approval

-26-

Table of Contents

process, and determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any product candidate we develop. In this regard, even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or any other foreign regulatory authority. In addition, the FDA or their advisors may disagree with our interpretations of data from preclinical studies and clinical trials. Regulatory agencies may approve a product candidate for fewer conditions than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-approval studies for a product candidate. Similarly, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and guidance may occur and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols or other approval strategies to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial. Changes in our approval strategies may require additional studies that were not originally planned. Due to these and other factors, such as the fact that a product utilizing our RNA-based technologies has never been approved by any regulatory authority, our current product candidates or any of our other future product candidates could take a significantly longer time to gain regulatory approval than we expect or may never gain regulatory approval, which could delay or eliminate any potential product revenue by delaying or terminating the potential commercialization of our product candidates.

If we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will also be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and oversight, including adverse event reporting requirements, marketing restrictions and, potentially, other post-marketing obligations, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products. The FDA’s policies may also change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or further restrict or regulate post-approval activities. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States, or abroad. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, we may not be permitted to market our products and our business could suffer. Any delay in, or failure to, receive or maintain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates could harm our business and prevent us from ever generating meaningful revenues or achieving profitability. We will need to obtain regulatory approval from authorities in foreign countries to market our product candidates in those countries. We have not filed for regulatory approval to market our product candidates in any foreign jurisdiction. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. If we fail to obtain approvals from foreign jurisdictions, the geographic market for our product candidates would be limited.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate acceptable levels of safety and efficacy of our product candidates, which could prevent or significantly delay their regulatory approval.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate, through extensive preclinical and clinical studies that the product candidate is safe and effective in humans. Ongoing and future clinical trials of our product candidates may not show sufficient safety or efficacy to obtain regulatory approvals.

Phase I clinical trials generally are not designed to test the efficacy of a product candidate but rather are designed to test safety, to study pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and to understand the product candidate’s side effects at various doses and dosing schedules in healthy volunteers. Delays in establishing the appropriate dosage levels can lead to delays in the overall clinical development of a product candidate. As of the date of this report, we do not believe that we have identified a consistently effective dose of eteplirsen for individuals with DMD. We are expeditiously moving to start a U.S.-based clinical trial for eteplirsen at

-27-

Table of Contents

higher doses in the first half of 2011 to further explore and identify a more consistently effective dose that may be more appropriate for future clinical trials and that can serve as a basis for approval by governmental regulatory authorities; however, we cannot assure you that these efforts will be successful. If a consistently effective dose is found in the U.S. based clinical trial, we will expect to engage in discussions with regulatory authorities about the design and subsequent execution of any further studies which may be required. Regulatory authorities might require more extensive clinical trials than anticipated and conforming to any guidance regulatory authorities provide does not guarantee receipt of marketing approval, even if we believe our clinical trials are successful. Such additional clinical trials might include an open label “extension study” for all participants who have previously received eteplirsen, as well as other participants (e.g., non-ambulatory participants) and any additional placebo-controlled “pivotal” study or studies. If we are not able to establish an optimal dosage in this trial we may need to conduct additional dose-ranging trials before conducting our pivotal trials of the product.

Furthermore, success in preclinical and early clinical trials does not ensure that later larger-scale trials will be successful nor does it predict final results. Acceptable results in early trials may not be reproduced in later trials. For example, pivotal trials for eteplirsen and AVI-7100 will likely involve a larger number of participants to achieve statistical significance, will be expensive and will take a substantial amount of time to complete. As a result, we may conduct lengthy and expensive clinical trials of our product candidates, only to learn that the product candidate is not an effective treatment or is not superior to existing approved therapies, or has an unacceptable safety profile, which could prevent or significantly delay regulatory approval for such product candidate.

The Animal Rule is a new and seldom-used approach to seeking approval of a new drug and may not be a viable pathway for seeking approval of our infectious disease product candidates.

We plan to develop the therapeutic product candidates to treat Ebola and Marburg viruses in the United States using the Animal Rule mechanism. There is no guarantee that the FDA will agree to this approach to the development of our infectious disease product candidates, and if they do not we will have to take a more traditional approach to the development of these products, which may not be possible given ethical considerations and other limitations associated with these deadly diseases. Pursuant to the Animal Rule, the sponsor of a drug product must demonstrate efficacy in animal models and safety in humans. No animal model is established as predicting human outcomes in the prevention or treatment of any filovirus disease. We have yet to demonstrate the predictive value of our animal studies to the FDA’s satisfaction. If we fail to do so, we will have to demonstrate efficacy of AVI-6002 and AVI-6003 through adequate well-controlled trials in humans in order to obtain regulatory approval of these products in the United States, which will greatly add to the time and expense required to commercialize these products. Furthermore, the Animal Rule mechanism has become available only relatively recently and has been infrequently used. We do not have any experience successfully navigating this approach to drug approval. The Animal Rule approach has yet to be well tested generally and is currently under evaluation by the FDA. Even if the Animal Rule represents a viable approach to seeking approval of these products, it may present challenges for gaining final regulatory approval for these product candidates, including an extended timeline to approval and less predictable study requirements.

We rely on U.S. government contracts to support several important research and development programs and substantially all of our revenue. If the U.S. government fails to fund such programs on a timely basis or at all, or such contracts are terminated, the results of our operations would be materially and adversely affected.

We rely on U.S. government contracts and awards to fund several of our development programs, including those for the Ebola, Marburg and influenza viruses and for substantially all of our current revenue.

-28-

Table of Contents

The funding of U.S. government programs is subject to Congressional appropriations. Congress generally appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though a program may extend over several fiscal years. Consequently, programs are often only partially funded initially and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. If appropriations for one of our programs become unavailable or are reduced or delayed, our contracts may be terminated or adjusted by the government, which could have a negative impact on our future revenue under such contract or subcontract. From time to time, when a formal appropriation bill has not been signed into law before the end of the U.S. government’s fiscal year, Congress may pass a continuing resolution that authorizes agencies of the U.S. government to continue to operate, generally at the same funding levels from the prior year, but does not authorize new spending initiatives, during a certain period. During such a period, or until the regular appropriation bills are passed, delays can occur in government procurement due to lack of funding and such delays can affect our operations during the period of delay.

In addition, U.S. government contracts generally also permit the government to terminate the contract, in whole or in part, without prior notice, at the government’s convenience or for default based on performance. If one of our contracts is terminated for convenience, we would generally be entitled to payments for our allowable costs and would receive some allowance for profit on the work performed. If one of our contracts is terminated for default, we would generally be entitled to payments for our work that has been completed to that point. A termination arising out of our default could expose us to liability and have a negative impact on our ability to obtain future contracts. Furthermore, if we fail to satisfy certain performance or deliverable requirements or to adhere to development timelines, revenues associated with the satisfaction of such requirements or timelines may not be realized.

The termination of one or more of these government contracts, whether due to lack of funding, for convenience, or otherwise, or the occurrence of delays or product failures in connection with one or more of these contracts, could negatively impact our financial condition. Furthermore, we can give no assurance that we would be able to procure new U.S. government contracts to offset the revenue lost as a result of termination of any of our existing contracts. Even if our contracts are not terminated and are completed, there is no assurance that we will receive future government contracts.

Our U.S. government contracts may be terminated and we may be liable for penalties under a variety of procurement rules and regulations and changes in government regulations or practices could adversely affect our profitability, cash balances or growth prospects.

We must comply with laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of U.S. government contracts, which affect how we do business with our customers. Such laws and regulations may potentially impose added costs on our business and our failure to comply with them may lead to penalties and the termination of our U.S. government contracts. Some significant regulations that affect us include:

Our contracts with the U.S. government are subject to periodic review and investigation. If such a review or investigation identifies improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties or administrative sanctions, including the termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, the

-29-

Table of Contents

triggering of price reduction clauses, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or debarment from doing business with U.S. government agencies. We could also suffer harm to our reputation if allegations of impropriety were made against us, which would impair our ability to win awards of contracts in the future or receive renewals of existing contracts.

In addition, U.S. government agencies routinely audit and review their contractors’ performance on contracts, cost structure, pricing practices and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. They also review the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, compensation and management information systems. Such audits may result in adjustments to our contract costs, and any costs found to be improperly allocated will not be reimbursed. We have recorded contract revenues for the periods presented in this report based upon costs we expect to realize upon final audit; however, we do not know the outcome of any future audits and adjustments and, if future audit adjustments exceed our estimates, our results of operations could be adversely affected. Additionally, we may be required to enter into agreements and subcontracts with third parties, including suppliers, consultants and other third party contractors in order to satisfy our contractual obligations pursuant to our agreements with the U.S. government. Negotiating and entering into such arrangements can be time-consuming and we may not be able to reach agreement with such third parties. Any such agreement also has to be compliant with the terms of our government grants. Any delay or inability to enter into such arrangements or entering into such arrangements in a manner that is non-compliant with the terms of our grants, may result in violations of our contracts with the U.S. government.

Clinical trials for our product candidates are expensive and time consuming, may take longer than we expect or may not be completed at all, and their outcomes are uncertain.

We have completed a Phase Ib/II clinical trial for eteplirsen in the UK and announced results in October 2010. We expect to commence additional trials of eteplirsen and other product candidates in the future, including the initiation of a Phase II trial in eteplirsen in the first half of 2011. Each of our clinical trials requires the investment of substantial planning, expense and time and the timing of the commencement, continuation and completion of these clinical trials may be subject to significant delays relating to various causes, including scheduling conflicts with participating clinicians and clinical institutions, difficulties in identifying and enrolling participants who meet trial eligibility criteria, failure of participants to complete the clinical trial, delay or failure to obtain IRB or regulatory approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective site, unexpected adverse events and shortages of available drug supply. Participant enrollment is a function of many factors, including the size of the relevant population, the proximity of participants to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the existence of competing clinical trials and the availability of alternative or new treatments. We depend on medical institutions and clinical research organizations, or CROs, to conduct our clinical trials in compliance with Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, and to the extent they fail to enroll participants for our clinical trials, fail to conduct the study to GCP standards or are delayed for a significant time in the execution of our trials, including achieving full enrollment, we may be affected by increased costs, program delays or both, which may harm our business. In addition, we conduct clinical trials in foreign countries which may subject us to further delays and expenses as a result of increased drug shipment costs, additional regulatory requirements and the engagement of foreign CROs, as well as expose us to risks associated with less experienced clinical investigators who are unknown to the FDA, and different standards of medical care. Foreign currency transactions insofar as changes in the relative value of the U.S. dollar to the foreign currency where the trial is being conducted may impact our actual costs. In addition, for some programs (e.g., DMD and Ebola and Marburg infections) there are currently no approved drugs to compare against and an agreement about how to measure efficacy has yet to be reached with the FDA and then demonstrated.

-30-

Table of Contents

Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA or other applicable foreign government guidelines and are subject to oversight by the FDA, other foreign governmental agencies and IRBs at the medical institutions where the clinical trials are conducted. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our product candidates produced under cGMP and other requirements in foreign countries, and may require large numbers of participants. The FDA or other foreign governmental agencies or we ourselves could delay, suspend or halt our clinical trials of a product candidate for numerous reasons, including: