Item 1A. Risk Factors

We operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing business environment that involves multiple risks and substantial uncertainty. The following discussion addresses risks and uncertainties that could cause, or contribute to causing, actual results to differ from expectations in material ways. In evaluating our business, investors should pay particular attention to the risks and uncertainties described below and in other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our subsequent filings with the SEC. These risks and uncertainties, or other events that we do not currently anticipate or that we currently deem immaterial also may affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. The trading price of our common stock could also decline due to any of these risks, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to the Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

We have depended heavily on the success of our two product candidates, rocapuldencel-T and AGS-004. Clinical trials of our product candidates may not be successful. If we are unable to commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We currently have no products approved for sale. We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of rocapuldencel-T for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, or mRCC, and other cancers and AGS-004 for the treatment of HIV. In February 2017, we announced that the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, or IDMC, for our pivotal Phase 3 ADAPT clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib / standard-of-care for the treatment of mRCC recommended that the study be discontinued for futility based on its planned interim data analysis. The IDMC concluded that the study was unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in the combination treatment arm, utilizing the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint of the study. In conjunction with our clinical and scientific advisors, we are analyzing the preliminary ADAPT trial data set and plan to discuss the data with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. We have continued the ADAPT trial while we conduct our ongoing data review and have discussions with FDA. We expect that we will make a determination as to the next steps for the rocapuldencel-T clinical program based on this review and discussions.

Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for at least the next several years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates, including rocapuldencel-T, if we determine to proceed with its development. 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 commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

If clinical trials of our product candidates, such as our ADAPT trial of rocapuldencel-T, fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States or do not otherwise produce positive results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approval for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

To date, we have not completed a randomized clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T against a placebo or a comparator therapy. Our phase 2 trial of rocapuldencel-T was a single arm trial in which only 21 patients received the combination of rocapuldencel-T and sunitinib. Our ADAPT trial of rocapuldencel-T is a randomized trial designed to compare directly the combination of rocapuldencel-T and sunitinib or another therapy to treatment with sunitinib or another therapy monotherapy. Under the protocol for the trial, the data from the trial needed to demonstrate an increase in median overall survival of approximately six months for the rocapuldencel-T plus sunitinib / targeted therapy arm as compared to the sunitinib / targeted therapy monotherapy control arm in order to show statistical significance and achieve the primary endpoint of the trial. The IDMC concluded that the study was unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in the combination treatment arm, utilizing the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint of the study. However, even demonstration of statistical significance and achievement of the primary endpoint of the trial would not assure approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States.

In designing the ADAPT trial we considered other reported clinical trials and data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, or the Consortium. However, results from two different trials or between a trial and an analysis of a treatment database often cannot be reliably compared. Accordingly, patients in our ADAPT trial who received treatment with sunitinib / targeted therapy monotherapy may not have results similar to patients studied in other clinical trials of sunitinib or to patients in the Consortium database who were treated with sunitinib or other therapies. If the patients in our ADAPT trial who received sunitinib / targeted therapy alone have results which are better than the results that occurred in other clinical trials of sunitinib or the results described in the Consortium database, we may not demonstrate a sufficient clinical benefit from rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib and other therapies to allow the FDA to approve rocapuldencel-T for marketing. Moreover, if the patients in our ADAPT trial who received the combination of rocapuldencel-T and sunitinib / targeted therapy have results which are worse than the results that occurred in our Phase 2 clinical trial, we may not demonstrate a sufficient benefit from the combination therapy to allow the FDA to approve rocapuldencel-T for marketing.

For drug and biological products, the FDA typically requires the successful completion of two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to support marketing approval because a conclusion based on two such trials will be more reliable than a conclusion based on a single trial. In the case of rocapuldencel-T, we intended to seek approval based upon the results of a single pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial, our ADAPT trial, because rocapuldencel-T is intended for life threatening disease. The FDA reviewed our plans to conduct our ADAPT trial under its special protocol assessment, or SPA, process. In February 2013, the FDA advised us in a letter that it had completed its review of our plans under the SPA process. The FDA also informed us that in order for a single trial to support approval of an indication, the trial must be well conducted, and the results of the trial must be internally consistent, clinically meaningful and statistically persuasive.

In February 2017, we announced that the IDMC for our pivotal Phase 3 ADAPT clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib/standard-of-care for the treatment of mRCC recommended that the study be discontinued for futility based on its planned interim data analysis. We have continued the ADAPT trial while we conduct our ongoing data review and have discussions with the FDA. We expect that we will make a determination as to the next steps for the rocapuldencel-T clinical program based on this review and discussions. If, upon the conclusion of our review of the data for the ADAPT trial and our discussions with the FDA, we determine that continued development of rocapuldencel-T is not warranted, we expect that we would terminate the ADAPT trial and our rocapuldencel-T development program. If instead we decide to pursue the development of rocapuldencel-T, one or more additional clinical trials or other testing is highly likely to be necessary. Such additional clinical trials and other testing and development efforts may be complicated and expensive and may significantly delay our program. Moreover, we we may not have sufficient resources to complete such further development of rocapuldencel-T.

As a general matter, if we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

If we experience any of a number of possible unforeseen events in connection with our clinical trials, potential marketing or commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or commercialize our product candidates. For example, in February 2017, we announced that the IDMC for our pivotal Phase 3 ADAPT clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib / standard-of-care for the treatment of mRCC recommended that the study be discontinued for futility based on its planned interim data analysis. Unforeseen events that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or commercialize our product candidates include:

In addition, the patients recruited for clinical trials of our product candidates may have a disease profile or other characteristics that are different than we expect and different than the clinical trials were designed for, which could adversely impact the results of the clinical trials. For instance, our Phase 2 combination therapy clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib was originally designed to enroll patients with favorable disease risk profiles and intermediate disease risk profiles and with a primary endpoint of complete response rate. However, the actual trial population consisted entirely of patients with intermediate disease risk profiles and poor disease risk profiles. This is a population for which published research has shown that sunitinib alone, as well as other of the therapies for mRCC, rarely if ever produce complete responses in mRCC, and in our Phase 2 clinical trial in this population, the combination therapy of rocapuldencel-T and sunitinib did not show a complete response rate that met the endpoint of the trial.

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. For example, in response to our submission of an investigational new drug application, or IND, for AGS-004, the FDA raised safety concerns regarding the analytical treatment interruption contemplated by our protocol for our Phase 2 clinical trial of AGS-004, and required a one-year safety follow-up after the final dose for each patient. This resulted in the need for an amendment to the trial protocol and a four-month delay prior to initiating the Phase 2 clinical trial in the United States. In addition, the IDMC for our pivotal Phase 3 ADAPT clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib/standard-of-care for the treatment of mRCC recommended that the study be discontinued for futility based on its planned interim data analysis. We plan to discuss the data with the FDA and, based on further data analysis and such discussions, expect to make a determination as to the next steps for the rocapuldencel-T clinical program. If we decide to continue to pursue the development of rocapuldencel-T, one or more additional clinical trials or other testing is highly likely to be necessary, which may be complicated and expensive.

In addition to additional costs, significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

The FDA has reviewed the protocol for our ADAPT trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib / targeted therapy under the SPA process. However, agreement by the FDA with the protocol under the SPA process would not guarantee the FDA will grant marketing approval , even if rocapuldencel-T had achieved the primary endpoint in the ADAPT trial.

The FDA has reviewed, under the SPA process, the protocol for our ADAPT trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib / targeted therapy. The SPA process is designed to facilitate the FDA’s review and approval of drug and biological products by allowing the FDA to evaluate the proposed design and size of Phase 3 clinical trials that are intended to form the primary basis for determining a drug candidate’s efficacy.

In February 2012, we received a letter from the FDA advising us that the FDA had completed its review of our protocol for the ADAPT trial under the SPA process. In the letter, the FDA stated that it had determined that the protocol sufficiently addressed the trial’s objectives and that the trial was adequately designed to provide the necessary data to support a submission for marketing approval. However, in February 2017, we announced that the IDMC for our ADAPT clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib / standard-of-care recommended that the study be discontinued for futility based on its planned interim data analysis. The IDMC concluded that the study was unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in the combination treatment arm, utilizing the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint of the study.

However, even if rocapuldencel-T had achieved the primary endpoint in the ADAPT trial, an SPA does not guarantee that rocapuldencel-T would have received marketing approval. The FDA may raise issues related to safety, trial conduct, bias, deviation from the protocol, statistical power, patient completion rates, changes in scientific or medical parameters or internal inconsistencies in the data prior to making its final decision. The FDA may also seek the guidance of an outside advisory committee prior to making its final decision. Many companies which have been granted SPAs have ultimately failed to obtain final approval to market their products.

In its February 2012 letter, the FDA informed us that in order for a single trial to support approval of an indication, the trial must be well conducted, and the results of the trial must be internally consistent, clinically meaningful and statistically very persuasive. If the results for the primary endpoint are not robust, are subject to confounding factors, or are not adequately supported by other trial endpoints, the FDA may refuse to approve our BLA based upon a single clinical trial. Particularly in light of the recommendation by the IDMC that the ADAPT trial be terminated for futility with regard to the primary endpoint, it is highly unlikely, even if the ADAPT trial were continued and subsequent data were more favorable, that the FDA would not require one or more additional clinical trials before, or as a condition for, approving rocapuldencel-T.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in our clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. In particular, if we determine to proceed with the development of rocapuldencel-T after analyzing the preliminary ADAPT trial data set and discussing the data with the FDA, the recommendation by the IDMC that the ADAPT study be terminated for futility may negatively impact our ability to enroll patients in ongoing and future clinical trials of rocapuldencel-T.

Our competitors may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that could be competitive with our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. For example, during the Phase 1/2 monotherapy clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T that we conducted, our ability to enroll patients in the trial was adversely affected by the FDA’s approval of sorafenib and sunitinib, because patients did not want to receive, and physicians were reluctant to administer, rocapuldencel-T as an experimental monotherapy once new therapies that showed efficacy in clinical trials were introduced to the market and became widely available.

Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including:

The actual amount of time for full enrollment of our clinical trials could be longer than planned. Enrollment delays in any of our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of the company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our other clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

We are developing AGS-004 for use in combination with latency reversing drugs to eradicate HIV. If latency reversing drugs are not successfully developed for HIV on a timely basis or at all, we will be unable to develop AGS-004 for this use or will be delayed in doing so. In addition, because there are currently no products approved for HIV eradication, we cannot be certain of the clinical trials that we will need to conduct or the regulatory requirements that we will need to satisfy in order to obtain marketing approval of AGS-004 for this purpose.

We are focusing our development program for AGS-004 on the use of AGS-004 in combination with latency reversing drugs, including Vorinostat, to eradicate HIV. We plan to rely on these latency reversing drugs because we recognize that the ultimate objective of virus eradication is unlikely to be achieved with immunotherapy alone because the immune system is not able to recognize the HIV virus in latently infected cells with a low level or lack of expression of HIV antigens.

Several companies and academic groups are evaluating latency reversing drugs that can potentially activate latently infected cells to increase viral antigen expression and make the cells vulnerable to elimination by the immune system. We are not a party to any arrangements with these companies or academic groups. If these companies or academic groups determine not to develop latency reversing drugs for this purpose because the drugs do not sufficiently increase viral antigen expression or have unacceptable toxicities, or these companies or academic groups otherwise determine to collaborate with other developers of immunotherapies on a combination therapy for complete virus eradication, we will not be able to complete our AGS-004 development program. In addition, if these companies or academic groups do not proceed with such development on a timely basis, our AGS-004 program correspondingly would be delayed.

A number of the latency reversing drugs being evaluated for use in HIV patients are currently approved in the United States and elsewhere for use in the treatment of specified cancer indications. For instance, Vorinostat is approved for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. If these drugs are not approved by the FDA or equivalent foreign regulatory authorities for use in HIV, the FDA and these other regulatory authorities may not approve AGS-004 without the latency reversing drug having received marketing approval for HIV. If the FDA and these other regulatory authorities approve AGS-004 without the approval of the latency reversing drug for HIV, the use of AGS-004 in combination with the latency reversing drug for virus eradication would require sales of the latency reversing drug for off-label use. In such event, the success of the combination of AGS-004 and the latency reversing drug would be subject to the willingness of physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community to use the latency reversing drug for off-label use and of government authorities and third party payors to pay for the combination therapy. In addition, we would be limited in our ability to market the combination for its intended use if the latency reversing drug were to be used off-label.

Currently, there are no products approved for the eradication of HIV. As a result, we cannot be certain as to the clinical trials we will need to conduct or the regulatory requirements that we will need to satisfy in order to obtain marketing approval of AGS-004 for the eradication of HIV.

If serious adverse or inappropriate side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development of some of our product candidates.

All of our product candidates are still in preclinical or clinical development and their risk of failure is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. If our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In addition, such effects or characteristics could cause an institutional review board or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials of one or more of our product candidates, require us to conduct additional clinical trials or other tests or studies, and could result in a more restrictive label, or the delay or denial of marketing approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Our Arcelis-based product candidates are immunotherapies that are based on a novel technology utilizing a patient’s own tissue. This may raise development issues that we may not have anticipated or be able to resolve, regulatory issues that could delay or prevent approval or personnel issues that may prevent us from further developing and commercializing our product candidates.

Rocapuldencel-T and AGS-004 are based on our novel Arcelis precision immunotherapy technology platform. In the course of developing this platform and these product candidates, we have encountered difficulties in the development process. For example, we terminated the development of MB-002, the predecessor to rocapuldencel-T, when the results from the initial clinical trial of MB-002 indicated that the product candidate only corrected defects in the production of one of two critical cytokines required for effective immune response. In addition, in February 2017, the IDMC for our ADAPT clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T in combination with sunitinib / standard-of-care recommended that the study be discontinued for futility based on its planned interim data analysis. There can be no assurance that additional development problems will not arise in the future which we may not have anticipated or be able to resolve or which may cause significant delays in development.

In addition, regulatory approval of novel product candidates such as our Arcelis-based product candidates manufactured using novel manufacturing processes such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, more well-known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical products, due to our and regulatory agencies’ lack of experience with them. The FDA has only approved one individualized immunotherapy product to date. This lack of experience may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to conduct additional studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

The novel nature of our product candidates also means that fewer people are trained in or experienced with product candidates of this type, which may make it difficult to find, hire and retain capable personnel for research, development and manufacturing positions.

Development of our individualized Arcelis-based product candidates is subject to significant uncertainty because each product candidate is derived from source material that is inherently variable. This variability could reduce the effectiveness of our Arcelis-based product candidates, delay any FDA approval of any of our Arcelis-based product candidates, cause us to change our manufacturing methods and adversely affect the commercial success of any approved Arcelis-based products.

The disease samples from the patients to be treated with our Arcelis-based products vary from patient to patient. This inherent variability may adversely affect our ability to manufacture our products because each tumor or virus sample that we receive and process will yield a different product. As a result, we may not be able to consistently produce a product for every patient and we may not be able to treat all patients effectively. Such inconsistency could delay FDA or other regulatory approval of our Arcelis-based product candidates or, if approved, adversely affect market acceptance and use of our Arcelis-based products. If we have to change our manufacturing methods to address any inconsistency, we may have to perform additional clinical trials, which would delay FDA or other regulatory approval of our Arcelis-based product candidates and increase the costs of development of our Arcelis-based product candidates.

The inherent variability of the disease samples from the patients to be treated with our Arcelis-based products may further adversely affect our ability to manufacture our products because variability in the source material for our product candidates, such as tumor cells or viruses, may cause variability in the composition of other cells in our product candidates. Such variability in composition or purity could adversely affect our ability to establish acceptable release specifications and the development and regulatory approval processes for our product candidates may be delayed, which would increase the costs of development of our Arcelis-based product candidates.

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

Failure to obtain regulatory approval for either of our product candidates will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have not received regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and expect to rely on third party contract research organizations to assist us in this process. Securing FDA approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the FDA for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing FDA approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the FDA. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining regulatory approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. To date, the FDA has only approved one individualized immunotherapy product. Changes in clinical guidelines or regulatory approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval of a product candidate. Any regulatory approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

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

We are a party to arrangements with third parties, and intend to enter into additional arrangements with third parties, under which they would market our products outside the United States. In order to market and sell our products in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we or such third parties 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. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or these third parties may not 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.

A fast track designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process.

If a product is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address an unmet need for this condition, the treatment sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. In April 2012, the FDA notified us that we obtained fast track designation for rocapuldencel-T for the treatment of mRCC. Fast track designation does not ensure that we will experience a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. Additionally, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for at least the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was $53.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, $74.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 and $53.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $332.0 million. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through public offerings of common stock, private placements of common stock, preferred stock and warrants, convertible debt financings, debt from financial institutions, government contracts, government and other third party grants and license and collaboration agreements. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development, including clinical trials. We have not completed development of any product candidates.

We have devoted a significant portion of our financial resources to the development of rocapuldencel-T. In conjunction with our clinical and scientific advisors, we are analyzing the preliminary ADAPT trial data set and plan to discuss the data with the FDA. We have continued the ADAPT trial while we conduct our ongoing data review and have discussions with FDA. We expect that we will make a determination as to the next steps for the rocapuldencel-T clinical program based on this analysis and discussions. Our determination as to our next steps will necessarily impact the amount of expenses we incur and the size of our operating losses for the foreseeable future.

In March 2017, we announced that our board of directors had approved a workforce action plan designed to streamline operations and reduce our operating expenses. Under this plan, we expect to reduce our workforce by 46 employees (or 38%) from 122 employees to 76 employees. The principal objective of the reduction is to enable us to conserve our financial resources while we conduct our ongoing review of the preliminary ADAPT trial data set and discuss the data with the FDA. We anticipate incurring approximately $1.3 million in total costs associated with the workforce reduction and that such costs will be incurred over the second and third quarters of 2017. We expect that the workforce reduction will decrease our annual operating costs by $5.7 million once the plan is fully implemented.

If we determine to proceed with the development of our product candidates, including rocapuldencel-T, we anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize a product or products with significant market potential. This development and commercialization will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including successfully completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates, building out and equipping a commercial manufacturing facility and manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of some of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of the company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We are making a determination as to the next steps for the rocapuldencel-T clinical program that could significantly impact our future operations and financial position.

We are in the process of making a determination as to the next steps for the rocapuldencel-T clinical program. This evaluation may result in changes to our current business strategy and future operations. As part of this process, we are reviewing alternatives with a goal of maximizing the value of our company. We could determine to engage in one or more potential transactions, such as the sale of our company, a strategic partnership with one or more parties or the licensing, sale or divestiture of some of our assets or proprietary technologies, or to continue to operate our business in accordance with our existing business strategy. Pending any decision to change strategic direction, we are continuing to conduct our ongoing clinical trials while managing our cash position. We cannot provide any commitment as to the timing of our determination or the strategy we may adopt. If we determine to change our business strategy or to seek to engage in a strategic transaction, our future business, prospects, financial position and operating results could be significantly different than those in historical periods or projected by our management. Because of the significant uncertainty regarding our future plans, we are not able to accurately predict the impact of a potential change in our existing business strategy.

We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce, terminate or eliminate our product development programs, including plans to lease, build out and equip a commercial manufacturing facility or our commercialization efforts and to take other actions to reduce our operating expenses.

We have no external sources of funds other than our contract with the NIH and NIAID for the development of AGS-004, and we expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly if we decide to continue our ADAPT trial of rocapuldencel-T for the treatment of mRCC, initiate other clinical trials of rocapuldencel-T for mRCC, support ongoing investigator-initiated clinical trials of rocapuldencel-T and AGS-004, support planned investigator-initiated clinical trials of rocapuldencel-T and AGS-004, initiate and conduct additional clinical trials of rocapuldencel-T and AGS-004 for the treatment of cancers and HIV and seek regulatory approval for our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval of any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses for product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding if we wish to continue our operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce, terminate or eliminate our product development programs or our commercialization efforts and to take other actions to reduce our operating expenses.

As of December 31, 2016, we had cash and cash equivalents of $53.0 million and working capital of $24.9 million. We do not currently have sufficient cash resources to pay our obligations as they become due. In March 2017, we entered into a payoff letter with Horizon Technology Finance Corporation and Fortress Credit Co LLC, the lenders under our venture loan and security agreement, pursuant to which we paid a total of $23.1 million to the lenders, representing the principal balance and accrued interest outstanding under the loan agreement in repayment of our outstanding obligations under the loan agreement. In addition, in March 2017, we announced that our board of directors approved a workforce action plan designed to streamline operations and reduce our operating expenses. We anticipate incurring approximately $1.3 million in total costs associated with the workforce reduction contemplated by the plan and that such costs will be incurred over the second and third quarters of 2017. We expect that the workforce reduction will decrease our annual operating costs by $5.7 million once the plan is fully implemented. We have also initiated discussions with Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, or Saint Gobain, and Invetech Pty Ltd, or Invetech, regarding the fees that we owe them, including potentially the conversion by them of some or all of the outstanding fees into equity of the Company. However, even taking these measures into account, we do not have sufficient cash resources to pay all of our accrued obligations in full or to continue our business operations beyond April 2017. Therefore, we will need to raise additional capital by April 2017 in order to continue to operate our business beyond that time. Alternatively, we may seek to engage in one or more potential transactions, such as the sale of our company, a strategic partnership with one or more parties or the licensing, sale or divestiture of some of our assets or proprietary technologies, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into such a transaction or transactions on a timely basis or on terms that are favorable to us. Under these circumstances, we may instead determine to dissolve and liquidate our assets or seek protection under the bankruptcy laws. If we decide to dissolve and liquidate our assets or to seek protection under the bankruptcy laws, it is unclear to what extent we will be able to pay our debts, and, accordingly, it is further unclear whether and to what extent any resources will be available for distributions to stockholders.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for several years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph relating to our ability to continue as a going concern in its report on our audited financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Our report from our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ended December 31, 2016 includes an explanatory paragraph stating that our losses from operations and required additional funding to finance our operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our audited financial statements, and it is likely that investors will lose all or a part of their investment. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, government contracts, government and other third party grants or other third party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. 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 of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. For example, in 2016 we issued and sold securities in a private placement financing, under a sales agreement with Cowen & Company, LLC and in a public follow-on offering each of which resulted in dilution to our existing stockholders.

Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

We may also seek to collaborate with third parties for the manufacturing, development or commercialization of rocapuldencel-T outside of North America. We also may seek government or other third party funding for the continued development of AGS-004 and to collaborate with third parties for the development and commercialization of AGS-004. If we raise additional funds through government or other third party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If the loan from Medinet becomes due and we do not repay it, we have agreed to grant Medinet a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license to make and sell Arcelis products in Japan for the treatment of cancer.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carry-forwards and tax credit carryforwards may be limited.

The utilization of the net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards may be subject to limitation under the rules regarding a change in stock ownership as determined by the Internal Revenue Code, and state and foreign tax laws. Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, imposes annual limitations on the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards, other tax carryforwards, and certain built-in losses upon an ownership change as defined under that section. In general terms, an ownership change may result from transactions that increase the aggregate ownership of certain of our stockholders by more than 50 percentage points over a three-year testing period. If we have undergone a Section 382 ownership change, an annual limitation would be imposed on certain of our tax attributes, including net operating loss and capital loss carryforwards, and certain other losses, credits, deductions or tax basis. We believe that we experienced an ownership change during 2014 under Section 382. Due to the Section 382 limitation resulting from the ownership change, $28.2 million of our U.S. federal net operating losses are expected to expire unused. Additionally, our U.S. federal tax credits and state net operating losses may be limited. The amount of U.S. federal net operating losses expected to expire due to the Section 382 limitation has been derecognized in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2016. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carry-forwards and other tax credit carryforwards to offset U.S. federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which potentially could result in increased future tax liability to us.

Risk Related to the Commercialization of our Product Candidates

We have no history of commercializing pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, developing our technology and product candidates and establishing collaborations. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete a pivotal clinical trial, compile an acceptable regulatory submission, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

In addition, 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 research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

Even if rocapuldencel-T or AGS-004 receives regulatory approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

We have never commercialized a product candidate. Even if rocapuldencel-T or AGS-004 receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. Gaining market acceptance for our Arcelis-based products may be particularly difficult as, to date, the FDA has only approved one individualized immunotherapy and our Arcelis-based products are based on a novel technology. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we, or others, later discover that the product is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, our ability to market the product could be compromised.

Clinical trials of our product candidates are conducted in carefully defined subsets of patients who have agreed to enter into clinical trials. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, in a broader patient population or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects. If, following approval of a product candidate, we, or others, discover that the product is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, any of the following adverse events could occur:

Any of these events could have a material and adverse effect on our operations and business and could adversely impact our stock price.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

We have only limited commercial capabilities and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization, outsource these functions to third parties or enter into collaborations or other arrangements with third parties for the distribution or marketing of our product candidates should such candidates receive marketing approval.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

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

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

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates, and will face competition with respect to any products that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we are developing our product candidates. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. Many marketed therapies for the indications that we are currently pursuing, or indications that we may in the future seek to address using our Arcelis precision immunotherapy technology platform, are widely accepted by physicians, patients and payors, which may make it difficult for us to replace them with any products that we successfully develop and are permitted to market.

The FDA has approved several targeted therapies as monotherapies for mRCC, including Nexavar (sorafenib), marketed by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sutent (sunitinib) and Inlyta (axitinib), marketed by Pfizer, Inc.; Avastin (bevacizumab), marketed by Genentech, Inc., a member of the Roche Group; Votrient (pazopanib) and Afinitor (everolimus), marketed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Torisel (temsirolimus), marketed by Pfizer and most recently, Opdivo (nivolumab), marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabometyx (cabozantinib), marketed by Exelixis, for second-line mRCC. In addition, we estimate that there are numerous therapies for mRCC in clinical development by many public and private biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies targeting numerous different cancer types and stages. A number of these are in late stage development including Opdivo (nivolumab) plus Yervoy (ipilimumab) in combination for first-line mRCC, which are currently being compared in a Phase 3 trial to sunitinib. If a standalone therapy for mRCC were developed that demonstrated improved efficacy over currently marketed first-line therapies with a favorable safety profile and without the need for combination therapy, such a therapy might pose a significant competitive threat to rocapuldencel-T.

We are currently conducting our ADAPT trial of rocapuldencel-T plus sunitinib / targeted therapy. We elected to study rocapuldencel-T in clinical trials in combination with sunitinib due in part to sunitinib being the current standard-of-care for first-line treatment of mRCC. Although we do not expect to seek FDA approval of rocapuldencel-T solely in combination with sunitinib and have provided that, under the protocol for the ADAPT trial, investigators may discontinue sunitinib due to disease progression or toxicity and initiate second-line treatment with other approved compatible therapies, if we obtain approval of rocapuldencel-T by the FDA, such FDA approval may be limited to the combination of rocapuldencel-T and sunitinib. In such event, the commercial success of rocapuldencel-T would be linked to the commercial success of sunitinib. As a result, if sunitinib ceases to be the standard-of-care for first-line treatment of mRCC or another event occurs that adversely affects sales of sunitinib, the commercial success of rocapuldencel-T may be adversely affected.

We estimate that there are numerous other cancer immunotherapy products in clinical development by many public and private biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies targeting numerous different cancer types. A number of these product candidates are in late-stage clinical development or have recently been approved in different cancer types including two recently approved checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapies, Nivolumab which is marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pembrolizumab, which is marketed by Merck. These newer immunotherapies are in addition to the targeted therapies, chemotherapeutics, radiation therapy, hormonal therapies and cytokine-based therapies used in the treatment in a wide range of oncology indications.

There are also numerous FDA-approved treatments for HIV, primarily antiretroviral therapies marketed by large pharmaceutical companies. Generic competition has developed in this market as patent exclusivity periods for older drugs have expired, with more than 15 generic drugs currently on the market. The presence of these generic drugs is resulting in price pressure in the HIV therapeutics market and could affect the pricing of AGS-004. Currently, there are no approved therapies for the eradication of HIV. We expect that major pharmaceutical companies that currently market antiretroviral therapy products or other companies that are developing HIV product candidates may seek to develop products for the eradication of HIV.

Our competitors may develop products that are more effective, safer, more convenient or less costly than any that we are developing or that would render our product candidates obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device 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 and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, the products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently passed legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval.

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which 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, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere 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. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Obtaining reimbursement for our products may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with drugs administered under the supervision of a physician. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for 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 not be made permanent. 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 often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment 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.

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

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. These risks may be even greater with respect to our Arcelis-based products which are manufactured using a novel technology. None of our product candidates has been widely used over an extended period of time, and therefore our safety data are limited. We derive the raw materials for manufacturing of our Arcelis-based product candidates from human cell sources, and therefore the manufacturing process and handling requirements are extensive and stringent, which increases the risk of quality failures and subsequent product liability claims.

If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold $10.0 million in product liability insurance coverage, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We will need to increase our insurance coverage when we begin commercializing our product candidates, if ever. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

We have based our research and development efforts on our Arcelis precision immunotherapy technology platform. Notwithstanding our large investment to date and potential future expenditures in our Arcelis platform, we have not yet developed, and may never successfully develop, any marketed drugs using this approach. As a result of pursuing the development of product candidates using our Arcelis platform, we may fail to develop product candidates or address indications based on other scientific approaches that may offer greater commercial potential or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

In addition, we may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates that may be manufactured using our Arcelis platform. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. These research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development.

If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Our reliance on government funding adds uncertainty to our research and commercialization efforts and may impose requirements that increase the costs of commercialization and production of our government-funded product candidates.

Our current development of AGS-004 for HIV is primarily funded by the NIH. We are dependent upon further government funding for continued development of AGS-004. However, increased pressure on governmental budgets may reduce the availability of government funding for programs such as AGS-004. In addition, contracts and grants from the U.S. government and its agencies include provisions that give the government substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts, including provisions that allow the government to:

Government agreements normally contain additional terms and conditions that may increase our costs of doing business, reduce our profits, and expose us to liability for failure to comply with these terms and conditions. These include, for example:

We expect to depend on collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. If those collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates.

We intended to commercialize rocapuldencel-T independently in North America and to collaborate with other third parties to manufacture, develop or commercialize rocapuldencel-T outside North America. We have entered into an exclusive license agreement with Pharmstandard International S.A., or Pharmstandard, for the development and commercialization of rocapuldencel-T in Russia and the other states comprising the Commonwealth of Independent States and an exclusive license agreement with Green Cross Corp., or Green Cross, for the development and commercialization of rocapuldencel-T for the treatment of mRCC in South Korea and an exclusive license agreement with Lummy (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd., or Lummy HK, for the development, manufacture and commercialization of rocapuldencel-T in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau. We have also entered into a license agreement with Medinet under which we granted Medinet an exclusive license to manufacture in Japan rocapuldencel-T for the purpose of development and commercialization for the treatment of mRCC.

We also plan to seek government or other third party funding for continued development of AGS-004 and to collaborate with third parties to develop and commercialize AGS-004. Our likely collaborators for any development, distribution, marketing, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.

Under our existing arrangements we have limited control, and under any additional arrangements we may enter into with third parties we will likely have limited control, over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Collaborations involving our product candidates would pose the following risks to us:

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. If a present or future collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program could be delayed, diminished or terminated.

If we are not able to establish additional collaborations, we may have to alter any development and commercialization plans.

Our drug development programs and any potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of our product candidates, we may collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and commercialization of those product candidates. For example, we have entered into license agreements with third parties to develop, manufacture and/or commercialize rocapuldencel-T in Russia and the other states comprising the Commonwealth of Independent States, South Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau, we may seek to collaborate with other third parties to develop and commercialize rocapuldencel-T in other parts of the world. We also intend to collaborate with third parties to develop and commercialize AGS-004.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration, and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under existing license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to obtain such funding or enter into collaborations for our product candidates, we may have to curtail the development of such product candidates, reduce or delay a candidate’s development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop these product candidates or bring these product candidates to market and generate product revenue.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

We do not independently conduct clinical trials of our product candidates. We rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to perform this function. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our oversight responsibilities as sponsor of the trial. We remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practice, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, regulatory approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates.

For instance, in December 2015 we received a notice from Health Canada that one of the sites at which we were conducting our Phase 3 ADAPT trial in Canada had been found to be non-compliant with Good Clinical Practice in Canada and that if the issues raised in the notice were not corrected, Health Canada could suspend our authorization to conduct the ADAPT trial at all sites in Canada. We submitted a response to Health Canada and subsequently received a Completion of Response notice from Health Canada stating that our corrective actions were satisfactory and that the matter was officially closed.

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

Risks Related to the Manufacturing of Our Product Candidates

We will need to lease, build out and equip a facility to manufacture our Arcelis-based products on a commercial scale. We do not have experience in manufacturing Arcelis-based products on a commercial scale. If, due to our lack of manufacturing experience, we cannot manufacture our Arcelis-based products on a commercial scale successfully or manufacture sufficient product to meet our expected commercial requirements, our business may be materially harmed.

We currently have manufacturing suites in our Technology Drive and Patriot Center facilities in Durham, North Carolina. We manufacture our Arcelis-based product candidates for research and development purposes and for clinical trials at these facilities.

In 2017, we entered into a ten-year lease agreement with two five-year renewal options for 40,000 square feet of manufacturing and office space at the Center for Technology Innovation, or CTI, on the Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. We had intended to utilize this facility to manufacture rocapuldencel-T to support submission of a BLA to the FDA and to support initial commercialization of rocapuldencel-T.

To provide for capacity expansion beyond the initial few years following potential launch of rocapuldencel-T, we had planned to build-out and equip a second facility, which we refer to as the Centerpoint facility. In August 2014, we entered into a ten-year lease agreement with renewal options. Under the lease agreement, we agreed to lease certain land and an approximately 125,000 square-foot building to be constructed in Durham County, North Carolina. We initially intended this facility to house our corporate headquarters and commercial manufacturing before we entered into the lease for the CTI facility. The shell of the new facility was constructed on a build-to-suit basis in accordance with agreed upon specifications and plans and was completed in June 2015. However, the build-out and equipping of the interior of the facility was suspended as we pursued financing to arrangements to support the further build out of the facility.

Due to the recent IDMC recommendation to discontinue the ADAPT trial, we are currently reassessing our manufacturing plans. We have therefore initiated discussions with the landlords of our CTI facility and our Centerpoint facility regarding these leases. We believe that our Technology Drive and Patriot Center facilities are sufficient for the manufacture of rocapuldencel-T and AGS-004 to support our ongoing clinical trials and any likely near-term clinical trials that we may initiate.

We expect that we would establish both manual and automated manufacturing processes in our commercial manufacturing facilities if we determine to build out such facilities. We had decided to delay the implementation of our automated manufacturing process until after initial commercialization of rocapuldencel-T, and thus planned to seek marketing approval of rocapuldencel-T and, if approved, to initially commercially supply rocapuldencel-T using our manual manufacturing process. Prior to implementing commercial manufacturing of rocapuldencel-T, we would be required to demonstrate that our commercial manufacturing facility is constructed and operated in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. We would also be required to show the comparability between rocapuldencel-T that we produce using the manual processes in our current facility and rocapuldencel-T produced using the manual process in our new facility.

If we transition to automated manufacturing processes, we expect our automated manufacturing processes will be based on existing functioning prototypes of automated devices for the production of commercial quantities of our Arcelis-based product candidates. These devices can be used to perform substantially all steps required for the manufacture of our Arcelis-based product candidates.

We do not have experience in manufacturing products on a commercial scale. In addition, because we are aware of only one company that has manufactured an individualized immunotherapy product for commercial sale, there are limited precedents from which we can learn. We may encounter difficulties in the manufacture of our Arcelis-based products due to our limited manufacturing experience. These difficulties could delay the build-out and equipping of a commercial manufacturing facility and regulatory approval of the manufacture of our Arcelis-based products using the facility, increase our costs or cause production delays or result in us not manufacturing sufficient product to meet our expected commercial requirements, any of which could damage our reputation and hurt our profitability. If we are unable to successfully increase our manufacturing capacity to commercial scale, our business may be materially adversely affected.

If we fail to establish commercial manufacturing operations in compliance with regulatory requirements, or augment our manufacturing personnel, we may not be able to initiate commercial operations or produce sufficient product to meet our expected commercial requirements. We have delayed the implementation of our automated manufacturing process and may not be able to use such process on a timely basis or at all.

In order to meet our business plan, which contemplated manufacturing our product first using manual processes and later using automated processes for the commercial requirements of rocapuldencel-T and any other Arcelis-based product candidates that might be approved, we planned to build out and equip a leased commercial manufacturing facility and add manufacturing personnel in advance of any regulatory submission for approval of rocapuldencel-T. If we determine to continue our plan to build out and equip a leased commercial manufacturing facility, we will require substantial capital expenditures and additional regulatory approvals. In addition, it will be costly and time consuming to recruit necessary additional personnel.

If we are unable to successfully build out and equip a commercial manufacturing facility in compliance with regulatory requirements or hire and train additional necessary manufacturing personnel appropriately, our filing for regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed or denied.

We plan to delay the implementation of our automated manufacturing process until we complete the clinical development of rocapuldencel-T and secure additional funding. Thus, if we are able to successfully complete the clinical development of rocapuldencel-T and obtain marketing approval, we plan to initially commercially supply rocapuldencel-T using manual manufacturing processes. Prior to implementing commercial manufacturing of rocapuldencel-T, we will be required to demonstrate that the commercial manufacturing facility is constructed and operated in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP. If we continue the development of rocapuldencel-T, we will also be required to show the comparability between rocapuldencel-T that we produce using the manual processes in our current facility and rocapuldencel-T produced using the manual process in the new facility.

Our implementation of automated processes could take longer, particularly if we are unable to achieve any of the required tasks on a timely basis, or at all. We are collaborating with Invetech and Saint-Gobain to develop the equipment and disposables necessary to implement the automated manufacturing processes for Arcelis-based products. If Invetech or Saint-Gobain do not perform as expected under the agreements or the projects with Invetech or Saint-Gobain are unsuccessful for any other reason, our timelines for the implementation of our automated manufacturing processes could be further delayed and our business could be adversely affected.

Prior to implementing the automated manufacturing processes for Arcelis-based products, we will be required to:

We will need regulatory approval to use the automated manufacturing processes for commercial purposes. If the FDA requires us to conduct a bridging study to demonstrate comparability between rocapuldencel-T that we produce manually and rocapuldencel-T produced using the automated processes, the implementation of the automated manufacturing processes and the filing for such approval will likely be delayed.

If we are unable to successfully implement the automated processes required and demonstrate comparability between the rocapuldencel-T that we produce manually and the rocapuldencel-T produced using the automated processes, our filing for regulatory approval of the commercial use of our automated manufacturing processes may be delayed or denied and we may not be able to initiate commercial manufacturing using our automated manufacturing processes. In such event, our commercial manufacturing costs will be higher than anticipated and we may not be able to manufacture sufficient product to meet our expected commercial requirements.

Lack of coordination internally among our employees and externally with physicians, hospitals and third- party suppliers and carriers, could cause manufacturing difficulties, disruptions or delays and cause us to not have sufficient product to meet our clinical trial requirements or potential commercial requirements.

Manufacturing our Arcelis-based product candidates requires coordination internally among our employees and externally with physicians, hospitals and third party suppliers and carriers. For example, a patient’s physician or clinical site will need to coordinate with us for the shipping of a patient’s disease sample and leukapheresis product to our manufacturing facility in a timely manner, and we will need to coordinate with them for the shipping of the manufactured product to them. Such coordination involves a number of risks that may lead to failures or delays in manufacturing our Arcelis-based product candidates, including:

If we are unable to coordinate appropriately, we may encounter delays or additional costs in achieving our clinical and commercialization objectives, including in obtaining regulatory approvals of our product candidates and supplying product, which could materially damage our business and financial position.

If our existing manufacturing facilities or any commercial manufacturing facility that we use are damaged or destroyed, or production at one of these facilities is otherwise interrupted, our business and prospects would be negatively affected.

We currently have two manufacturing facilities. If we build out and equip a commercial manufacturing facility, it will be our only commercial manufacturing facility in North America. If our existing manufacturing facilities or a new commercial manufacturing facility that we decide to build out and equip, or the equipment in either of these facilities, is damaged or destroyed, we likely would not be able to quickly or inexpensively replace our manufacturing capacity and possibly would not be able to replace it at all. Any new facility needed to replace either our existing manufacturing facility or a new commercial manufacturing facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements, need to be tailored to our specialized automated manufacturing requirements and require specialized equipment. We would need FDA approval before selling any products manufactured at a new facility. Such an event could delay our clinical trials or, if any of our product candidates are approved by the FDA, reduce or eliminate our product sales.

We maintain insurance coverage to cover damage to our property and equipment and to cover business interruption and research and development restoration expenses. If we have underestimated our insurance needs with respect to an interruption in our clinical manufacturing of our product candidates, we may not be able to adequately cover our losses.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we fail to comply with our obligations under our intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to a number of intellectual property license agreements with third parties, including with respect to each of rocapuldencel-T and AGS-004, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these licenses, our licensors may have the right to terminate these license agreements, in which event we might not be able to market any product that is covered by these agreements, or to convert the license to a non-exclusive license, which could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under the license agreement. Termination of these license agreements or reduction or elimination of our licensed rights may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses with less favorable terms.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if our licensors are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for the technology or products that we license from them, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on our and our licensors’ ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We and our licensors have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and products that are important to our business. This process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development efforts before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology or products that we license from third parties and are reliant on our licensors. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and applications will be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If such licensors fail to maintain such patents, or lose rights to those patents, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our licensors’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our and our licensors’ pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Third parties could practice our inventions in territories where we do not have patent protection. Furthermore, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, we own or exclusively license patents relating to our process of manufacturing an individualized drug product. A U.S. patent may be infringed by anyone who, without authorization, practices the patented process in the United States or imports a product made by a process covered by the U.S. patent. In foreign countries, however, importation of a product made by a process patented in that country may not constitute an infringing activity, which would limit our ability to enforce our process patents against importers in that country. Furthermore, the legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. If competitors are able to use our technologies, our ability to compete effectively could be harmed.

Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention is entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. Under the America Invents Act, or AIA, enacted in September 2011, the United States moved to a first inventor to file system in March 2013. The United States Patent and Trademark Office only recently finalized the rules relating to these changes and courts have yet to address the new provisions. These changes could increase the costs and uncertainties surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our patent rights. Furthermore, we may become involved in interference proceedings, opposition proceedings, or other post-grant proceedings, such as reissue, reexamination or inter partes review proceedings, which may challenge our patent rights or the patent rights of others. For example, we have filed an application for reissue of one of our U.S. patents directed towards methods of manufacture of dendritic cells from monocytes stored for more than six hours and up to four days without freezing. An adverse determination in any such proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third party patent rights.

Even if our owned and licensed patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to or stop or prevent us from stopping others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. For example, certain of the U.S. patents we exclusively license from Duke University expired in 2016 and the European and Japanese patents exclusively licensed from Duke University expire in 2017. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

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

Competitors may infringe our patents. To counter such infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims against third parties, which can be expensive and time consuming. In addition, during an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that the patent rights we are asserting are invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, our licensors may have rights to file and prosecute such claims and we are reliant on them.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot ensure that third parties do not have, or will not in the future obtain, intellectual property rights such as granted patents that could block our ability to operate as we would like. There may be patents in the United States or abroad owned by third parties that, if valid, may block our ability to make, use or sell our products in the United States or certain countries outside the United States, or block our ability to import our products into the United States or into certain countries outside the United States.

We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology. For example, third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may be unable to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or even obtain a license at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

We have research licenses to certain reagents and their use in the development of our product candidates. We would need commercial licenses to these reagents for any of our product candidates that receive approval for sale in the United States. We believe that commercial licenses to these reagents will be available. However, if we are unable to obtain any such commercial licenses, we may be unable to commercialize our product candidates without infringing the patent rights of third parties. If we did seek to commercialize our product candidates without a license, these third parties could initiate legal proceedings against us.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and products, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. The types of protections available for trade secrets are particularly important with respect to our Arcelis precision immunotherapy technology platform’s manufacturing capabilities, which involve significant unpatented know-how. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

Risks Related to Legal Compliance Matters

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, cGTP requirements, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if regulatory approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market our products for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. In addition, later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

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

Healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Numerous statements made by President Trump and members of the U.S. Congress indicate that it is likely that legislation will be passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump that repeals the PPACA, in whole or in part, and/or introduces a new form of health care reform. It is unclear at this point what the scope of such legislation will be and when it will become effective. Because of the uncertainty surrounding this replacement health care reform legislation, we cannot predict with any certainty the likely impact of the PPACA’s repeal or the adoption of any other health care reform legislation on our financial condition or operating results. Whether or not there is alternative health care legislation enacted in the United States, there is likely to be significant disruption to the health care market in the coming months and years.

Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

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 marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or Medicare Modernization Act, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class in certain cases. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this and other more recent legislation could decrease the coverage and reimbursement that is provided for any approved products. While the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the Medicare Modernization Act or other more recent legislation may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, former President Obama signed into law the Health Care Reform Law, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. Effective October 1, 2010, the Health Care Reform Law revises the definition of “average manufacturer price” for reporting purposes, which could increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates to states. Further, the new law imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance have also been enacted, which may affect our business practices with health care practitioners. We will not know the full effects of the Health Care Reform Law until applicable federal and state agencies issue regulations or guidance under the new law. Although it is too early to determine the effect of the Health Care Reform Law, the new law appears likely to continue the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. In addition, there have been recent public announcements by members of the U.S. congress and the presidential administration regarding their plans to repeal and replace the Health Care Reform Law. However, it remains unclear how a repeal or replacements of these programs might affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which regulatory approval is obtained.

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 marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

With the enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, as part of the Health Care Reform Law, an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products was created. The new abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an existing brand product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be submitted to the FDA until four years, or approved by the FDA until 12 years, after the original brand product identified as the reference product was approved under a BLA. The new law is complex and is only beginning to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning is subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when any such processes may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

We believe that if any of our product candidates were to be approved as biological products under a BLA, such approved products should qualify for the four-year and 12-year periods of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that the U.S. Congress could amend the BPCIA to significantly shorten these exclusivity periods as proposed by President Obama, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

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

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

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

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future success depends on our ability to retain our chief executive officer and other key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on Jeffrey Abbey, our president and chief executive officer, Charles Nicolette, our vice president of research and development and chief scientific officer, Lee F. Allen, our chief medical officer and Richard Katz, our vice president and chief financial officer, as well as the other principal members of our management and scientific teams. Although we have formal employment agreements with each of our executive officers, these agreements do not prevent our executives from terminating their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees. The loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

In March 2017, we announced that our board of directors approved a workforce action plan designed to streamline operations and reduce our operating expenses. As part of the workforce action plan, Joan C. Winterbottom, our vice president and chief human resources officer, will cease her employment with us effective in March 2017. With any change in leadership and reduction in force, there is a risk to retention of employees, as well as the potential for disruption to business operations, initiatives, plans and strategies.

Recruiting and retaining qualified personnel is critical to our success. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel, our setback with respect to rocapuldencel-T, the implementation of our workforce action plan and our limited cash resources. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We have recently reduced the size of our organization, and we may encounter difficulties in managing our business as a result of this reduction, or the attrition that may occur following this reduction, which could disrupt our operations. In addition, we may not achieve anticipated benefits and savings from the reduction .

In March 2017, we announced that our board of directors approved a workforce action plan designed to streamline operations and reduce our operating expenses. Under this plan, we expect to reduce our workforce by 46 employees (or 38%) from 122 employees to 76 employees. The reduction in force, and the attrition that may occur following this reduction, will result in the loss of institutional knowledge and expertise and the reallocation and combination of certain roles and responsibilities across the organization, all of which could adversely affect our operations. Given the complexity and nature of our business, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, manage our facilities and continue to recruit and retain qualified personnel. This will be made more challenging given the reduction in force described above and additional measures we may take to reduce costs. As a result, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day strategic and operational activities, and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these organizational changes. Further, the restructuring and possible additional cost containment measures may yield unintended consequences, such as attrition beyond our intended reduction in force and reduced employee morale. In addition, the reduction in force may result in employees who were not affected by the reduction in force seeking alternate employment which would result in us seeking contract support at unplanned additional expense. In addition, we may not achieve anticipated benefits from the reduction in force. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage our operations or recruit and retain qualified personnel, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure and operations, risks that we may not be able to comply with legal and regulatory requirements, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. If our management is unable to effectively manage this transition and reduction in force and additional cost containment measures, our expenses may be more than expected, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Our executive officers, directors, affiliates of all officers and directors and other of our affiliates who own our outstanding common stock maintain the ability to control all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

Our executive officers, directors, affiliates of our executive officers and directors and other of our affiliates beneficially own, in the aggregate, shares representing approximately 61.53% of our outstanding common stock as of February 28, 2017. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would control the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of voting power could delay or prevent an acquisition of our company on terms that other stockholders may desire.

Our largest stockholder, Pharmstandard, could exert significant influence over us and could limit your ability to influence the outcome of key transactions, including any change of control.

Our largest stockholder, Pharmstandard, beneficially owns, in the aggregate, shares representing approximately 39.52% of our outstanding common stock as of February 28, 2017. In addition, two members of our board of directors are closely associated with Pharmstandard. As a result, we expect that Pharmstandard will be able to exert significant influence over our business. Pharmstandard may have interests that differ from your interests, and it may vote in a way with which you disagree and that may be adverse to your interests. The concentration of ownership of our capital stock may have the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change of control of our company, could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our corporate charter and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

An active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained.

Although our common stock is listed on The NASDAQ Global Market, an active trading market for our shares may not be sustained. If an active market for our common stock is not sustained, it may be difficult for you to sell your shares without depressing the market price for the shares or sell your shares at all. Any inactive trading market for our common stock may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund our operations by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or technologies by using our shares as consideration.

If our stock price continues to be volatile, purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.

Our stock price is likely to be volatile. For example, our stock has traded in a range from a low of $1.05 and high of $13.97 during the period of February 7, 2014 through February 28, 2017. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

In addition, pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant share price volatility in recent years, and securities class action litigation often follows a decline in the market price of a company’s securities. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources.

On March 14, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina against us, our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer, and our vice president of finance, entitled Jeffrey Maurer et al. v. Argos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00216.  The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between February 7, 2014 and February 21, 2017, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the progress of the ADAPT Phase 3 clinical trial of rocapuldencel-T (AGS-003), the planned biologics licensing application for rocapuldencel-T and the prospects for approval.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, unspecified injunctive relief, and costs.  We believe that we have valid defenses to the litigation, and intend to engage in a vigorous defense.  However, an unfavorable resolution of any of this matter may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

We will continue to incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and may remain an emerging growth company for up to five years. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and plan to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. In our 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K, we did not include all of the executive compensation related information that would be required if we were not an emerging growth company. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

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

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. Capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

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

The trading market for our common stock will depend on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. There can be no assurance that analysts will cover us, or provide favorable coverage. If one or more analysts downgrade our stock or change their opinion of our stock to be less favorable, our share price would likely decline. In addition, if one or more analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.