Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

FORM 10

GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES

Pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $.001 par value

(Title of Class)

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

Table of Contents

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Coronado Biosciences, Inc. is filing this General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 (the “Registration Statement”) to register its common stock, par value $0.001 per share, pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Unless otherwise mentioned or unless the context requires otherwise, when used in this prospectus, the terms “Coronado,” “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Coronado Biosciences, Inc.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements in this Form 10 or in the documents incorporated by reference herein that are not descriptions of historical facts are forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could negatively affect our business, operating results, financial condition and stock price. We have attempted to identify forward-looking statements by terminology including “anticipates,” “believes,” “can,” “continue,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “should,” or “will” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated include those set forth under “Risk Factors” including, in particular, risks relating to:

We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations or any changes in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except as required by law.

WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT US

When this registration statement becomes effective, we will begin to file reports, proxy statements, information statements and other information with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). You may read and copy this information, for a copying fee, at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for more information on its Public Reference Room. Our SEC filings will also be available to the public from commercial document retrieval services, and at the Web site maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.

Our Internet website address is http://www.coronadobiosciences.com. Information contained on the website does not constitute part of this registration statement. When this registration statement is effective, we will make available, through a link to the SEC’s Web site, electronic copies of the materials it files with the SEC (including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, the Section 16 reports filed by executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders and amendments to those reports).

2

Table of Contents

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel immunotherapy biologic agents for the treatment of inflammatory diseases and cancer. Our two principal pharmaceutical product candidates in clinical development are:

CNDO–201

In January 2011, in connection with our acquisition of the assets of Asphelia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Asphelia”), we acquired the exclusive rights to CNDO-201 in North America, South America and Japan under a sublicense agreement with OvaMed GmbH (“OvaMed”), as well as a manufacturing and supply agreement with OvaMed to provide us with our clinical and commercial requirements of CNDO-201.

CNDO-201 is comprised of TSO, the microscopic eggs of a parasitic helminth, or worm, that is found in pigs. TSO is not a human pathogen and is eliminated from the body within several weeks without treatment. Multiple investigator-sponsored clinical trials of TSO for the treatment of Crohn’s and UC have been completed in which TSO demonstrated clinical benefit with regard to accepted outcome measurements of remission of disease and was shown to be well tolerated. Based on a recent meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), we plan to file an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”) with the FDA by the end of the third quarter of 2011 and commence a single dose, dose escalation study in patients with Crohn’s. This study is expected to be completed by the end of 2011. Assuming acceptable tolerance in this study, we expect to initiate a multi-center phase 2 clinical trial in Crohn’s in the United States shortly thereafter. We also plan to have discussions with the FDA regarding the requirements to initiate a Phase 2 trial in patients with MS.

CNDO–109

In November 2007, we acquired exclusive worldwide rights to develop and market CNDO-109 from the University College London Business PLC (“UCLB”). CNDO-109 is a compound that has been shown to activate NK cells. When activated, NK cells have the ability to differentiate between normal cells and cancer cells, and kill cancer cells by granzyme mediated lysis, a biochemical process whereby the NK cells directly kill cancer cells by destroying their cell membranes and structures.

In vitro preclinical studies conducted at the University College of London have demonstrated that CNDO-109 activated NK cells directly kill cells that cause hematologic malignancies including myeloid leukemia and multiple myeloma, as well as breast, prostate and ovarian cancers. We are aware of a Phase 1 clinical trial of CNDO-109 in seven patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”) which demonstrated that the therapy was well tolerated with manageable adverse events given the advanced state of the disease. Although the primary endpoint of the Phase 1 clinical trials was safety, based on the data obtained from the preclinical studies and this Phase 1 study, we believe that CNDO-109 has the potential to benefit patients with a wide variety of hematologic and solid cancers.

We have agreed with the FDA on a plan to submit an IND for a multi-center Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients with relapsed AML currently planned for early 2012. We intend to use the results of this Phase 1/2 clinical trial to develop a plan for future clinical trials of CNDO-109 to support the filing of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) in the United States and similar marketing applications in other countries.

3

Table of Contents

Industry

Immunology Therapeutics Markets

Autoimmune diseases represent a diverse collection of diseases in terms of their demographic profile and primary clinical manifestations. The phenotypic commonality between them, however, is the damage to tissues and organs that arise from the loss of tolerance. Autoimmune disorders include inflammatory bowel disease (“IBD”) such as Crohn’s and UC, MS, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, asthma and type-1 diabetes. According to a 2010 Decision Resources report, in the U.S. and Japan, the prevalence of Crohn’s was 585,000 patients, UC was 712,000 patients and MS was 400,000 patients. Prevalence rates for all autoimmune disorders are expected to continue to rise in the next several years.

Crohn’s is characterized by inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract that causes painful and debilitating symptoms. Most patients with Crohn’s experience relapses, and no current therapy is completely effective in preventing acute flares. Although immunosuppressants and TNF- a inhibitors are effective maintenance therapies, according to an article published in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics in 2011, fewer than 50% of patients maintain long-term remission with these drugs. According to a 1989 article in Gut , the majority of Crohn’s patients require surgery during their lifetime despite available therapies. Therefore, the greatest unmet need is for more effective maintenance therapies that are also safe for long-term use.

The etiology and pathophysiology of ulcerative colitis are not fully understood, but research appearing in several industry publications, including Inflammatory Bowel Disease (2006) and the World Journal of Gastroenterology (2006), strongly suggests that genetic susceptibility and environmental factors, coupled with an abnormal immune response, contribute to the development of the disease. Despite significant advances in the understanding of genetic susceptibility and its role in IBD, novel, targeted therapies for the treatment of UC have yet to be identified. The need for more effective maintenance therapies with sustained long-term efficacy are the greatest unmet need in the management of UC.

MS is an autoimmune inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that is characterized by progressive neuronal loss that manifests clinically as worsening physical disability. The key pathophysiological hallmark of MS is the loss of myelin, a layer of lipids and proteins produced by cells called oligodendrocytes that wrap around the neuron and act like an insulating sheath to facilitate electrical conduction along the nerve. Destruction of myelin by an inflammatory cascade leads to neuronal degeneration. As a result, we believe that there is a substantial unmet need for effective treatments for chronic progressive MS as well as a need for therapies that are more conveniently delivered (e.g., oral agents, less frequently administered injectable drugs).

Each of these diseases is believed to be associated with an excessive inflammatory response by the T helper (Th) cells.

Oncology Therapeutics Markets

The American Cancer Society estimates that over 1.5 million people in the U.S. are expected to be diagnosed with cancer in 2010, excluding basal and squamous cell skin cancers and in situ carcinomas (other than urinary bladder carcinomas). This is an increase of approximately 25% from the estimated number of new cancer diagnoses of approximately 1.2 million in 2000. We believe this rate is unlikely to decrease in the foreseeable future as the causes of cancer are multiple and poorly understood.

Despite continuous advances every year in the field of cancer research, there remains a significant unmet medical need in the treatment of cancer, as the overall five-year survival rate for a cancer patient diagnosed between 1999 and 2005 still averages only 68% according to the American Cancer Society. According to that same source, cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in the U.S. behind heart disease. Overall, the American Cancer Society estimates that approximately one in four deaths in the U.S. is due to cancer.

One of the main treatments for cancer is chemotherapy. While chemotherapy is the most widely used class of anti-cancer agents, individual chemotherapeutic agents show limited efficacy because tumors maintain complex machinery to repair the DNA damage to tumor cells caused by chemotherapy. Solutions to this problem include

4

Table of Contents

combination chemotherapy, but while combination chemotherapy has been intensively studied, it offers only limited hope for improvement as a result of additive toxicities. The limitations inherent in chemotherapy are mirrored by limitations in other therapeutic modalities for cancer, including radiation therapy, targeted therapies and surgical intervention. Each of these therapies either has high levels of toxicity and/or potentially severe adverse events, which in turn frequently limit the amount of treatment that can be administered to a patient.

As a result, we believe that there is a significant unmet medical need for alternatives to existing chemotherapy drugs that do not have the associated toxicities of traditional chemotherapy drugs.

Our Product Candidates

CNDO–201

CNDO-201 is a biologic product candidate comprising TSO for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. We initially plan to investigate TSO for the treatment of Crohn’s, UC and MS. CNDO-201 originates from the work of Dr. Joel V. Weinstock, currently the Chief of the Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology at Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston and a member of our scientific advisory board. Dr. Weinstock’s research has centered on the evolutionary role of parasitic helminth (worm) infections in the prevention of inflammatory diseases such as IBD, specifically Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Dr. Weinstock has discovered that when the microscopic eggs of a certain helminth, preferably T. suis , the pig whipworm, are administered to patients with IBD a beneficial immune response is induced, which provides clinical benefit to the underlying disease with minimal side-effects.

Background

The use of helminths in the treatment of autoimmune disease is based on the belief that the immune systems of populations living in the relatively sterile environments found in developed countries with little or no exposure to parasites may develop in abnormal ways. This “hygiene hypothesis” is based on epidemiologic findings of an inverse relationship between autoimmune diseases and helminthic colonization. According to articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and Inflammatory Bowel Disease in 2009, the incidence of IBD is highest in the developed world and in temperate climates, with positive correlations noted among persons of higher socioeconomic status and high levels of domestic hygiene experienced in childhood. Conversely, the incidence of IBD is rare in less developed countries and in persons with blue-collar jobs involving exposure to dirt and physical exercise.

In contrast to the epidemiologic findings of IBD, according to articles by Dr. Weinstock and others published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and the International Journal for Parasitology in 2007, the prevalence of helminths is highest in warm climates and in populations characterized by crowding, poor sanitation, and impure food supply. Furthermore, the incidence of IBD has increased over the past several decades, while the prevalence of helminths in the United States and Europe has steadily declined during the same time period. These findings have led to the idea that eliminating intestinal helminths in the industrialized world has eliminated a natural T regulatory cell mechanism that prevents excessive T-cell activation such as occurs in IBD as well as in other immune-mediated diseases such as MS, asthma and allergies.

The immunologic basis for helminth therapy for IBD is derived from experimental animal and human data demonstrating that these organisms alter immune responses beyond those directed against the worms. In animal models, helminths blunt Th1 responses and promote Th2 responses associated with increased production of IL-4 and IL-3. Helminthic colonization in humans can result in diminished Th1 immune responses to challenges with unrelated antigens, as well as increased production of immunomodulatory molecules such as IL-10, transforming growth factor (TGF)- ß , and regulatory T-cells. Thus, as noted in the National Review of Immunology in 2007, genetically susceptible persons who are never exposed to helminths may lack a strong Th2 immune response and develop a poorly regulated and destructive intestinal Th1 response, leading to chronic colitis or ileitis.

5

Table of Contents

TSO was chosen as an appropriate helminth for therapeutic application due to its ability to colonize in humans briefly without invading or infecting the host. Although not a human parasite, T. suis resembles the human whipworm T. Trichuris and is able to colonize a human host for several weeks before being eliminated from the body without any specific therapy. As reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2005, TSO has potential for being a natural immune system modulator without significant risk of causing disease in humans. Mature T. suis produce ova that exit the porcine host with the stool, however, ova are not infective until incubating in the soil for several weeks, thereby preventing direct host-to-host transmission. No human diseases have been associated with exposure to T. suis or TSO.

Third Party Clinical Trials

The initial safety and efficacy of TSO in Crohn’s disease has been evaluated in two open-label investigator-sponsored clinical trials. The first, a small pilot clinical trial conducted by Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues and reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2003, administered a single dose of 2500 embryonated TSO orally to four patients with refractory Crohn’s. Patients were followed every two weeks for at least 12 weeks, with the efficacy of therapy determined by the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (“CDAI”) and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life questionnaire (“IBDQ”). Using an IBDQ score > 170 to indicate remission, three of four (75%) patients achieved remission by week 8. Similarly, three of four (75%) patients achieved remission during the observation period as assessed by a CDAI < 150. However, two of the three patients who achieved remission relapsed at the end of the 12-week observation period. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the patients in this study.

In a subsequent open-label clinical trial reported in GUT in 2004, Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of TSO in 29 patients with active Crohn’s, defined by a CDAI > 220. Patients received TSO in individual aliquots of 2500 ova suspended in a solution every three weeks for 24 weeks. Patients maintained diaries of clinical symptoms, and disease activity was measured by CDAI. Therapy with TSO was associated with substantial and sustained improvement, with 79.3% patients experiencing a response (decrease in CDAI > 100 points or CDAI < 150) and 72.4% achieving remission (CDAI < 150) at week 24. TSO was well tolerated. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the patients in this study.

Two investigator-sponsored studies of TSO have been conducted in patients with UC. The first study was a pilot study conducted by Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues ( American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003) in which three patients with refractory UC were treated with a single dose of 2500 embryonated T. suis eggs orally and observed every two weeks for 12 weeks. The IBDQ and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (“SCCAI”) were used to determine the efficacy of therapy. Using an IBDQ score > 170 to define remission, all three patients had achieved remission by week eight. Using an SCCAI < 4 to indicate remission, each of the UC patients achieved remission during the treatment and observation period, and one patient experienced a relapse. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the patients in this study.

As reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2005, Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues subsequently conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to determine the safety and efficacy of TSO in 54 patients with active UC (defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) > 4) who were treated with placebo or 2500 TSO every two weeks for 12 weeks. After the first 12 weeks of treatment, placebo-treated patients were switched to TSO for a second 12-week interval and TSO patients were switched to placebo. The blind was maintained during the crossover phase. In order to calculate UCDAI and SCCAI scores, patients kept diaries detailing their clinical symptoms. The primary measure of efficacy was clinical improvement at 12 weeks, defined as a decrease in UCDAI > 4. Clinical remission, defined as UCDAI < 2, was a secondary endpoint. Of the 54 patients enrolled in the study, 24 received placebo and 30 received TSO during the first 12 weeks of the study. The proportion of patients achieving a favorable response was significantly higher with TSO compared with placebo in both the intention-to-treat (“ITT”) (43.3% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.04) and per protocol (PP) (44.8% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.04) populations. Only patients with active disease (UCDAI > 4) were included in the analysis of the crossover phase of the study. Among 31 patients (n=15 for placebo, n=16 for TSO) analyzed, the percentage of TSO -treated patients achieving response was higher than that for placebo-treated patients (56.3% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.02). When the two study periods were combined, TSO administration was associated with significantly higher responses in both the ITT and PP populations. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the treated patients in this study.

6

Table of Contents

In a study reported in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal in 2011, Dr. John Fleming and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin studied five subjects with newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve, relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). They were given 2500 TSO orally every 2 weeks for 3 months in a baseline versus treatment controlled trial. They showed that the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions (n-Gdþ) fell from 6.6 at baseline to 2.0 at the end of TSO administration, and two months after TSO was discontinued, the mean number of n-Gdþ rose to 5.8 new lesions. No significant adverse effects were observed. In preliminary immunological investigations, increases in the serum level of the cytokines IL-4 and IL-10 were noted in four of the five subjects. These first five patients represented the first part of a 2-part study (known as HINT-1 and HINT-2). Additional patients are currently being studied for up to 10 months. Results from this second cohort are expected in the second half of 2012.

Currently, OvaMed’s European sublicensee for gastroenterology indications is conducting a Phase 2b clinical trial of TSO in Crohn’s in a multi-center European clinical trial expected to enroll approximately 212 patients.

Our Clinical Trial Program

As the result of a recent pre-IND meeting held among representatives of our company, OvaMed and the FDA, we will commence our clinical program with this product with a single dose, dose escalation study in patients with Crohn’s disease. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2011. Assuming acceptable tolerance from this study, we expect to begin a multicenter phase 2 study in the first quarter of 2012 in patients with Crohn’s disease. The FDA indicated that no additional pre-clinical studies are required to open the IND in the United States, which is expected to be submitted by the end of the third quarter of this year. We also plan to have discussions with FDA regarding the requirements to initiate a Phase 2 trial in MS patients.

Manufacturing

We have contracted with OvaMed to produce and supply us with all of our requirements of CNDO-201. OvaMed innoculates young pathogen-free pigs with T. suis from a master ova bank and harvests the ova which are incubated to maturity and are processed to remove any viruses and other pathogens. Ova then are processed and extensively tested to assure uniformity. They are then used to repopulate the master ova bank and are processed further into a final formulation of the drug product that is a clear, tasteless and odorless liquid. OvaMed manufacturing is conducted at one facility in Germany, which has received Good Manufacturing Practice, or GMP, certificate granted by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA. OvaMed’s manufacturing operations will be subject to an FDA inspection to assess compliance with FDA standards. See “Government Regulation and Product Approval.”

CNDO–109

CNDO-109 is a lysate (disrupted CTV-1 cells, cell membrane fragments, cell proteins and other cellular components) that activates donor NK cells. CTV-1 is a leukemic cell line recently re-classified as a T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (“ALL”). We acquired exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize CNDO-109 activated NK cells for the treatment of cancer from UCLB.

Background

Standard therapy for patients with advanced cancer include chemotherapy therapies, or therapies that are toxic to the cells, that suppress the immune system and carry significant risks of life-threatening infections and other toxicities in the absence of hope for cure. Despite effective cancer therapies that induce clinical responses, including complete remissions, minimal residual disease (“MRD”), a term referring to disease that is undetectable by conventional morphologic methods, often remains and serves as a source of cancer recurrence. For years, scientists have studied ways to enhance the patient’s immune system to target cancer cells, maintain remission and possibly even eradicate all cancer cells in the body, including MRD. Researchers believe that a cure for cancer might be possible if immunotherapy is successfully applied to the treatment of cancer.

7

Table of Contents

The most common immunotherapy studied to date involves the use of targeted humanized monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab (anti-CD20) or trastuzumab (anti-HER2/neu). These antibodies bind targets that are over-expressed on cancer cells and promote cell death by a number of immune mechanisms, including antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (“ADCC”). In ADCC, the most common mechanism of tumor killing, the antibody tags the cancer cell and recruits the cells from the patient’s immune system to attack the tumor. Immune cells recruited by the antibody to kill the cancer include granulocytes, macrophages and NK cells.

Another common therapy that activates the innate immune system involves the administration of high dose Interleukin-2 (“IL-2”). Through binding to the IL-2 receptor, IL-2 activates NK cells to attack cancer cells. After high-dose IL-2 therapy, NK cells are activated to search out and kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, the use of IL-2 therapy is limited because of its severe side effects, which include severe life-threatening infusion reactions and induction of autoimmune disease.

The importance of NK cells in the host system’s defense against cancer was recognized by Professor Mark Lowdell at the Royal Free Hospital in London and others when they noted that patients who could mount an immune response to their acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”) became long-term survivors after chemotherapy. Researchers identified that a key to the successful immune response of the patient’s immune systems was the NK cell. Professor Lowdell determined that activated NK cells were the key to eliminating AML cells and that NK cells require two signals to kill a tumor cell – a priming signal followed by a trigger signal. NK cells that can be activated by certain cancer cells provide both signals resulting in killing the cancer cell. Cancer cells that cannot be killed only trigger one signal and therefore are considered resistant to NK cells. NK cells which have not been primed cannot respond to the trigger. The “priming signal” can be provided by either cytokines, such as high dose IL-2 or IL-15 or by CNDO-109. In contrast to IL-2 or IL-15, NK cells activated by CNDO-109 retain their activated state after cryopreservation and thawing. This allows commercialization of the process since the NK cells can be activated with CNDO-109 and prepared at a manufacturing facility under GMP conditions and shipped to the clinical center as a frozen patient-specific dose, ready for infusion. The results of the research conducted by Dr. Lowdell and his colleagues were published in the British Journal of Haematology in 2002 and The Journal of Immunology in 2007 and all inventions and related intellectual property that arose from such research are covered by our license agreement with UCLB.

Although AML is the prototype tumor lysed by CNDO-109 activated NK cells, CNDO-109 activated NK cells are expected to be active against most cancer types. Based on in vitro preclinical efficacy studies of CNDO-109 conducted by Professor Lowdell at the Royal Free Hospital in London using human specimens of breast cancer, prostate and ovarian cancer, we expect CNDO-109 to be active against tumors that have been successfully treated by high dose IL-2 therapy such as renal cell carcinoma and melanoma.

The treatment of patients with CNDO-109 activated NK cells involves several steps. The activated NK cells are infused into the patient after resting NK cells are incubated with CNDO-109 for at least eight hours. Preparation of CNDO-109 activated NK cells takes about 24 hours from start to finish. If the source of the NK cells being used is someone other than the patient, “an allogeneic donor”, the patient will need some form of immunosuppression to allow the CNDO-109 activated NK cells to persist long enough to eradicate MRD. Preliminary data on a small number of patients from the UK Phase 1 clinical trial demonstrated that CNDO-109 activated indicate NK cells can remain active for weeks. Due to the complex manufacturing requirements, we anticipate developing CNDO-109 activated NK cell therapy using a third party centralized GMP-compliant processing center.

Completed Clinical Trial

We are aware of a Phase 1 clinical trial of CNDO-109 activated haploidentical NK cells conducted at the Royal Free Hospital in London in patients with high risk (i.e. chemo-sensitive relapsed/refractory) AML who were not eligible for a stem cell transplant. Although the clinical trial was not randomized and included only seven patients, most of these high-risk patients had remission durations and overall survival that were much greater than expected based on their poor risk factors. The principal adverse event observed in this Phase 1 clinical trial was prolonged aplasia with reduction of the red cell, white cell, and platelet counts, which were managed successfully with hospitalization, transfusions, prophylactic antibiotics, and administration of cytokines for hematopoietic stimulation.

8

Table of Contents

Our Clinical Program

We plan to submit an IND for the CNDO-109 activated NK cell product in the U.S. in early 2012 using data from UCL’s Phase 1 clinical trial in the United Kingdom. We plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the United States using CNDO-109 to activate NK cells to treat MRD in AML patients with relapsed/refractory disease. We are also planning selected pilot Phase 1 clinical trials in other tumor types, including multiple myeloma, renal cell carcinoma and ovarian cancer, with both allogeneic and autologous cells.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing process for CNDO-109 activated NK cells is currently under development. We have produced a master cell bank (“MCB”) and a working cell bank (“WCB”) of CTV-1 cells in collaboration with BioReliance in Maryland. Manufacture and testing of CNDO-109 activated NK cells for our planned Phase 1/2 clinical trial will be conducted at Progenitor ^TM Cell Therapy, LLC (“PCT”), with facilities in Allendale, NJ and Mountain View, CA. We have entered into master service agreements with both companies as well as a supply agreement with PCT. The master service agreements provide the general framework for the relationships, with specific terms to be established in connection with particular projects. Indirectly, we also rely on Miltenyi Biotec to provide the equipment and reagents necessary for the identification and selection of NK cells.

Strategic Alliances and Commercial Agreements

Sublicense Agreement with OvaMed GmbH

In January 2011, in connection with our acquisition of the assets of Asphelia relating to CNDO-201, Asphelia assigned the Exclusive Sublicense Agreement, dated December 2005, between Asphelia and OvaMed (as amended, the “OvaMed License”) and Manufacturing and Supply Agreement dated March 2006, between Asphelia and OvaMed (as amended, the “OvaMed Supply Agreement”) to us and we assumed Asphelia’s obligations under these agreements. Under the OvaMed License, we received an exclusive sublicense, with a right to grant additional sublicenses to third parties, under Ovamed’s patent rights and know-how to make, use and sell products encompassing CNDO-201 in North America, South America and Japan. OvaMed’s patent rights arise, in turn, from an exclusive license granted in 2005 by the University of Iowa Research Foundation (“UIRF”) to OvaMed covering inventions and related intellectual property rights that arose as a result of research relating to CNDO-201 performed by Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues while employed by the University of Iowa.

Under the OvaMed License, we are required to make milestone payments to OvaMed totaling up to approximately $5.45 million, primarily upon the achievement of various regulatory milestones for the first product that incorporates CNDO-201, and additional milestone payments upon the achievement of regulatory milestones relating to subsequent indications. In the event that CNDO-201 is commercialized, we are obligated to pay to OvaMed royalties equal to 4% of net sales. Additionally, we are obligated to pay to OvaMed a percentage of certain consideration we receive from sublicensees (ranging from 20% to 10% of such consideration depending on the stage of clinical development at the time of the sublicense), as well as an annual license maintenance fee and reimbursement of patent costs. We are responsible for all clinical development and regulatory activities and costs relating to licensed products in the territory covered by the OvaMed License. The OvaMed License terminates upon the expiration of the last licensed patent right, provided that either party may also terminate the agreement under certain customary conditions of breach and we have the right to terminate the OvaMed License with 30 days prior notice.

Under the OvaMed Supply Agreement, OvaMed agreed to manufacture and supply us with and we are required to purchase from OvaMed our clinical and commercial requirements of CNDO-201 at pre-determined prices. The OvaMed Supply Agreement expires in March 2013 and is subject to early termination by either party under certain customary conditions of breach. The OvaMed Supply Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year periods, unless we give 12 months’ prior notice of our election not to renew, and subject to our right to terminate the agreement in the event of specified failures to supply or regulatory or safety failures.

9

Table of Contents

In January 2011, as part of the purchase price for the Asphelia assets, we paid OvaMed an aggregate of approximately $3.4 million in satisfaction of Asphelia’s agreement to pay OvaMed for certain development costs and for patent reimbursement costs. We agreed that, subject to certain conditions, the IND would initially be submitted by OvaMed and subsequently transferred to us, and that we would commence an FDA-approved clinical trial within 12 months after the IND is accepted by the FDA.

License Agreement with UCL Business PLC

In November 2007, we entered into a license agreement with UCLB under which we received an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize CNDO-109 for the treatment of cancer-related and other conditions. Under a September 2009 amendment, we also received a non-exclusive license, without the right to sublicense, to certain clinical data solely for use in the IND for CNDO-109.

In consideration for the license, we may be required to make future milestone payments totaling up to approximately $22 million upon the achievement of various milestones related to regulatory events for the first three indications for which CNDO-109 is developed. In the event that CNDO-109 is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay to UCLB royalties ranging from 3% to 5% of net sales of the product or, if commercialized by a sublicensee, a percentage of certain consideration we receive from such sublicensee (ranging from 30% to 20% of such consideration depending on the stage of clinical development at the time of the sublicense). Under the terms of the agreement, we must use diligent and reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize CNDO-109 worldwide and may grant sublicenses to third parties without the prior approval of UCLB.

The agreement terminates upon the expiration of the last licensed patent right, unless the agreement is earlier terminated. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of material breach by the other party, subject to prior notice and the opportunity to cure, or in the event the other party enters into bankruptcy or is dissolved for any reasons other than in connection with a merger or acquisition. UCLB may terminate the license agreement if we, or our affiliates, commence or assist in legal proceedings to challenge the validity or ownership of the patents licensed to us under the agreement, or if we market or sell a competing product without UCLB’s prior written consent. In addition, we may terminate the agreement by providing written notice to UCLB at least 30 days’ prior to any contemplated termination.

We have entered into consulting agreements with Dr. Mark Lowdell and UCL Consultants Limited (a wholly-owned subsidiary of UCLB) that provide for Dr. Lowdell to provide various services to us relating to our CNDO-109 program.

Services Agreement with Progenitor Cell Therapy

In April 2010, we entered into a master contract services agreement (the “PCT agreement”), with Progenitor Cell Therapy, LLC (“PCT”) pursuant to which PCT may, from time to time, provide consulting, preclinical, laboratory and/or clinical research-related services, product/process development services, manufacturing services and other services to us in connection with the CNDO-109 development program. PCT is currently performing services related to the development of manufacturing processes for CNDO-109 under the PCT agreement. We pay for services under the PCT agreement pursuant to statements of work entered into from time to time. Any product resulting from the services performed or product improvement, inventions or discoveries, including new uses for product resulting from the services performed and related patent rights which arise as a result of the services performed by PCT under the PCT agreement are owned solely and exclusively by and assigned to us.

The PCT agreement will expire on the completion of all services provided in the statement(s) of work executed by the parties. We may terminate the PCT agreement with 45 days’ notice to PCT if PCT is in default of its material obligations under the PCT agreement or any statement of work and such default is not cured within such 45 day period and may terminate the PCT agreement without cause upon 60 days’ written notice to PCT. PCT

10

Table of Contents

may terminate the PCT agreement with 30 days’ notice to us if we are in default of our material obligations under the PCT agreement or any statement of work and such default is not cured within such 30 day period.

The PCT agreement and any statement of work thereunder may not be assigned in whole or in part by either party without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, except we may assign the PCT agreement and statements of work without PCT’s consent in the event of a merger, acquisition, or transfer of all of our assets related to the PCT agreement to a third party that is not an affiliate of ours, provided further that such assignee, in the reasonable opinion of PCT has financial resources and financial strength comparable to ours.

Intellectual Property

General

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates, formulations, processes, methods and any other proprietary technologies, preserve our trade secrets, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our current product candidates and any future product candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents, both in the United States and abroad. However, patent protection may not afford us with complete protection against competitors who seek to circumvent our patents.

We also depend upon the skills, knowledge, experience and know-how of our management and research and development personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how, which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we currently rely and will in the future rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

CNDO–201

Under the OvaMed License, we have exclusive rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,764,838, 7,250,173 and 7,833,537, owned by the University of Iowa (“UI”) and licensed by UI to OvaMed. These patents claim methods of producing a pharmaceutical preparation comprising an helminthic parasite preparation, pharmaceutical compositions suitable for oral administration comprising an isolated and purified T.suis helminthic parasite preparation, and methods of treating inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s and UC, in an individual by the administration of a T. suis helminthic parasite preparation, respectively. These patents are scheduled to expire in December 2018, except for the ‘537 patent, which is set to expire about nine months later. By operation of the patent term restoration provisions of the patent laws, we may choose to restore the term of one of these patents or any others that may be granted prior to marketing approval of CNDO-201 to recover at least a portion of the delays associated with obtaining regulatory approval. We also have exclusive rights through the OvaMed license under a second patent family owned by UIRF, which is directed to methods of altering regulatory T cell activity. Any patents that mature from this second patent family would not expire until at least November 2023.

Our success for preserving market exclusivity for our product candidates relies on our ability to obtain and maintain a regulatory period of data exclusivity over an approved biologic, currently 12 years from the date of marketing approval, and to preserve effective patent coverage. Once any regulatory period of data exclusivity expires, depending on the status of our patent coverage, we may not be able to prevent others from marketing and selling biosimilar versions of our product candidates. We are also dependent upon the diligence of third parties, which control the prosecution of pending domestic and foreign patent applications and maintain granted domestic and foreign patents.

11

Table of Contents

In addition to any regulatory exclusivity we may be able to obtain, we also seek to protect additional intellectual property rights such as trade secrets and know-how, including commercial manufacturing processes and proprietary business practices.

CNDO–109

We have exclusive rights to International Patent Application No. PCT/GB2006/000960 and all pending U.S. and foreign counterpart applications including pending U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/856,466 and the corresponding national phase applications filed in Australia, Canada, Europe, India and Japan, directed to the method of stimulating natural killer cells using CNDO-109 for the treatment of cancer and other conditions. This patent family has been in-licensed on an exclusive basis from UCLB. The CNDO-109 patents that may issue from this patent family would expire in March 2026 in the absence of any patent term extension.

Additionally, a second International Patent Application (No. PCT/GB2010/051135) has recently been filed with the European Patent Office directed to various aspects of our anticipated CNDO-109 clinical product and its methods of manufacture. This application has an international filing date of July 9, 2010 and, accordingly, any patents eventually issuing therefrom will expire in 2030 absent any further patent term extension. A subsequent provisional patent application was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office directed to treatment of viral infections using CNDO-109. This application was filed in March 2011 and will be converted into an international PCT application in March 2012, such that any patents issuing therefrom will expire in 2032 absent any further patent term extension. Each of these applications were filed at our direction on behalf of UCLB and are included in the license agreement with UCLB.

Competition

We operate in highly competitive segments of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical markets. We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than us. Large pharmaceutical companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in cancer research, some in direct competition with us. We also may compete with these organizations to recruit scientists and clinical development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

We expect CNDO-201, if approved for the treatment of Crohn’s, to compete directly with Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc.’s Remicade (infliximab), UCB S.A.’s Cimzia (certolizumab pegol) and Abbott Laboratories’ Humira (adalimumab), each of which is currently approved for the treatment of various diseases, including IBD, UC and Crohn’s, and several other products. CNDO-201, if developed and approved for the treatment of MS, would compete with Biogen Idec’s Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals’ Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.’s Copaxone (Glatiramer Acetate) and several other products. New developments, including the development of other pharmaceutical technologies and methods of treating disease, occur in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries at a rapid pace.

Each cancer indication for which we are developing products has a number of established therapies with which our candidates will compete. Most major pharmaceutical companies and many biotechnology companies are aggressively pursuing new cancer development programs, including both therapies with traditional, as well as novel, mechanisms of action. Some of the anticipated competitor treatments for AML include Genzyme

12

Table of Contents

Corporation’s Clolar (clofarabine), currently approved as a treatment for ALL, Eisai Corporation’s Dacogen (decitabine), currently approved as a treatment for MDS, Celgene Corporation’s Vidaza (azacitidine), currently approved as a treatment for MDS, and Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Onrigin (laromustine) currently being developed as a treatment for AML, any or all of which could change the treatment paradigm of acute leukemia. Each of these compounds is further along in clinical development than is the CDNO-109 activated NK cell product.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of CNDO-201 or CNDO-109 nor do we plan to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently depend on third party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, API and finished products for our preclinical and clinical trials. Pursuant to the OvaMed Supply Agreement, we are required to purchase from OvaMed and OvaMed has agreed to manufacture and supply us with clinical and commercial requirements of CNDO-201 at pre-determined prices. We do not have a contractual arrangement for the manufacture of commercial supplies of CNDO-109.

Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable FDA manufacturing requirements contained in the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice standards (“cGMP”) regulations. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. Pharmaceutical product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceutical products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved NDA/BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing.

United States Pharmaceutical Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical (drug and biologic) products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and implementing regulations. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States generally includes the following:

13

Table of Contents

The lengthy process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial resources and approvals are inherently uncertain.

Products for somatic cell therapy are derived from a variety of biologic sources, including directly harvested autologous, allogeneic, or cultured cell lines. Product safety requires that these sources be well characterized, uniform, and not contaminated with hazardous adventitious agents. Also, cells directly from humans pose additional product safety issues. Because of the complex nature of these products a controlled, reproducible manufacturing process and facility, are required and relied on to produce a uniform product. The degree of reliance on a controlled process varies depending on the nature of the product. Because complete chemical characterization of a biologic product is not feasible for quality control, the testing of the biologic potency receives particular attention and is costly.

Before testing any compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the pharmaceutical product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory practices. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the IND on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a pharmaceutical product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the pharmaceutical product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by the sponsor. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA if conducted under a US IND. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practices requirements. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”) or ethics committee if conducted outside of the US, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB or ethics committee is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as

14

Table of Contents

whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB or ethics committee also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. We intend to use third party CROs to administer and conduct our planned clinical trials and will rely upon such CROs, as well as medical institutions, clinical investigators and consultants, to conduct our trials in accordance with our clinical protocols and to play a significant role in the subsequent collection and analysis of data from these trials. The failure by any of such third parties to meet expected timelines, adhere to our protocols or meet regulatory standards could adversely impact the subject product development program.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and may be requested by the FDA as a condition of approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or, if used, its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB or ethics committee can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s or ethics committee’s requirements or if the pharmaceutical product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the pharmaceutical product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the pharmaceutical product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final pharmaceutical product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the pharmaceutical product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

15

Table of Contents

United States Review and Approval Processes

The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the pharmaceutical product, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA/BLA requesting approval to market the product.

The NDA/BLA review and approval process is lengthy and difficult and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA/BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical data or other data and information. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA/BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any pharmaceutical products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, promoting pharmaceutical products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the pharmaceutical product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Failure to comply with FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, enforcement letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, risk minimization action plans and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), other divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the United States Department of Justice and individual United States Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, and state and local governments.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third party reimbursement may not be available for our products to enable us realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of any product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Employees

As of August 22, 2011, we had 11 full-time employees.

16

Table of Contents

1A. Risk Factors.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Our product candidates are at an early stage of development and may not be successfully developed or commercialized.

Our two product candidates are in the early stage of development and will require substantial further capital expenditures, development, testing, and regulatory clearances prior to commercialization. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA regulatory approval process and are commercialized. Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to fund our development programs, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized. If we are unable to develop, or receive regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, we will not be able to generate product revenues.

Because we in-licensed our product candidates from third parties, any dispute with or non-performance by us or by our licensors may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidates.

All of our product candidates were in-licensed from third parties. Under the terms of our license agreements, the licensors generally have the right to terminate such agreement in the event of a material breach by us. Our licenses require us to make annual and milestone payments prior to commercialization of any product and our ability to make these payments depends on our ability to generate cash in the future. These agreements generally require us to use diligent and reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the product candidate. In the case of CNDO-201, the company from which we sublicense CNDO-201, OvaMed, licenses CNDO-201 from a third party, UIRF, in exchange for annual and milestone payments, patent cost reimbursement, royalties based on sales and diligence obligations. Our rights to CNDO-201 are, therefore, also subject to OvaMed’s performance of its obligations to UIRF, certain of which are outside of our control. For example, upon our acquisition of this license from Asphelia, we paid certain overdue patent cost reimbursement obligations to UIRF.

If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of non-performance between us and our licensing partner regarding our rights or obligations under the license agreement, including any conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to satisfy payment obligations under such agreement, our ability to develop and commercialize the affected product candidate may be adversely affected. Similarly, any such dispute or issue of non-performance between our licensor of CNDO-201, OvaMed, and UIRF could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize CNDO-201. Any loss of our rights under our license agreements could delay or completely terminate our product development efforts for the affected product candidate.

Because the results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials, if any, or receive regulatory approval.

Pharmaceutical development has inherent risk. We will be required to demonstrate through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are effective with a favorable benefit-risk profile for use in their target indications before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early clinical trials does not mean that later clinical trials will be successful as product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety or efficacy despite having progressed through initial clinical testing. Companies frequently suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after earlier clinical trials have shown promising results. In addition, only a small percentage of drugs under development result in the submission of an NDA or BLA to the FDA and even fewer are approved for commercialization.

Any product candidates we may advance into clinical development are subject to extensive regulation, which can be costly and time consuming, cause unanticipated delays or prevent the receipt of the required approvals to commercialize our product candidates.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the

17

Table of Contents

United States and by comparable health authorities in foreign markets. In the United States, we are not permitted to market our product candidates until we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA. The process of obtaining BLA approval is expensive, often takes many years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the products involved. Approval policies or regulations may change and the FDA has substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval is never guaranteed.

The FDA or and other regulatory agency can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

With respect to foreign markets, approval procedures vary among countries and, in addition to the aforementioned risks, can involve additional product testing, administrative review periods and agreements with pricing authorities. In addition, recent events raising questions about the safety of certain marketed pharmaceuticals may result in increased cautiousness by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in reviewing new pharmaceuticals based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

Any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may cause unacceptable adverse events or have other properties that may delay or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization or limit their commercial potential.

Unacceptable adverse events caused by any of our product candidates that we advance into clinical trials could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications and markets. This, in turn, could prevent us from commercializing the affected product candidate and generating revenues from its sale.

We have not yet completed testing of any of our product candidates for the treatment of the indications for which we intend to seek product approval in humans, and we currently do not know the extent of adverse events, if any, that will be observed in patients who receive any of our product candidates. If any of our product candidates cause unacceptable adverse events in clinical trials, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize such product.

18

Table of Contents

We may experience delays in the commencement of our clinical trials or in the receipt of data from third parties, which could result in increased costs and delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval.

Delays in the commencement of clinical trials and delays in the receipt of data from preclinical or clinical trials conducted or managed by third parties, such as CROs, could significantly impact our product development costs and the time required to commercialize our products. Before we can initiate clinical trials in the United States for our product candidates, we need to submit the results of preclinical testing to the FDA as part of an IND, along with other information including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and our proposed clinical trial protocol.

We currently plan to rely on preclinical, clinical and quality data from third parties, including, as applicable, OvaMed, UCLB, BioReliance and PCT, as well as any third party contractors on which the foregoing entities may rely, for the IND submissions for both CNDO-201 and CNDO-109. If we are unable to use such data for any reason, including as a result of a contract dispute with any such third party, the insolvency of or cessation of business by any such third party or other reasons outside of our control, it will delay our plans for IND filings, and clinical trial plans. If those third parties do not make this data available to us, we will likely, on our own, have to develop all the necessary preclinical and clinical data which will lead to additional delays and increase the costs of our development of the product candidates. In addition, the FDA may require us to conduct additional preclinical testing for any product candidate before it allows us to initiate the clinical testing under any IND, which may lead to additional delays and increase the costs of our preclinical development. Even assuming an active IND for a product candidate, clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in:

Any delays in the commencement of our clinical trials will delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval for our product candidates. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

Delays in the completion of clinical testing could result in increased costs to us and delay our ability to generate product revenues.

Once a clinical trial has begun, patient recruitment and enrollment may be slower than we anticipate. Clinical trials may also be delayed as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, an IRB, an ethics committee or a Data Monitoring Committee overseeing the clinical trial, any of our clinical trial sites with respect to that site or the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including:

19

Table of Contents

Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance also may occur and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing and the likelihood of a successful completion of a clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or if we must terminate, any clinical trial of any product candidate, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for that product candidate will be delayed and the commercial prospects, if any, for the product candidate may suffer as a result. In addition, many of these factors may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

We intend to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not meet our deadlines or otherwise conduct the trials as required, our clinical development programs could be delayed or unsuccessful and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates when expected or at all.

We do not have the ability to conduct all aspects of our preclinical testing or clinical trials ourselves. We intend to use CROs to conduct our planned clinical trials and will rely upon such CROs, as well as medical institutions, clinical investigators and consultants, to conduct our trials in accordance with our clinical protocols. Our future CROs, investigators and other third parties play a significant role in the conduct of these trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data from the clinical trials.

There is no guarantee that any CROs, investigators and other third parties upon which we rely for administration and conduct of our clinical trials will devote adequate time and resources to such trials or perform as contractually required. If any of these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, fail to adhere to our clinical protocols or otherwise perform in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated. If any of our clinical trial sites terminate for any reason, we may experience the loss of follow-up information on patients enrolled in our ongoing clinical trials unless we are able to transfer the care of those patients to another qualified clinical trial site. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be jeopardized.

If our competitors develop treatments for the target indications of our product candidates that are approved more quickly, marketed more successfully or demonstrated to be more effective than our product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated.

We operate in highly competitive segments of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical markets. We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Our product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, will compete with established therapies, as well as new treatments that may be introduced by our competitors. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than us. Large pharmaceutical companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in cancer research, some in direct competition with us. We also may compete with these organizations to recruit management, scientists and clinical development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. New developments, including the development of other pharmaceutical technologies and methods of treating disease, occur in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries at a rapid pace. Developments by competitors may render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive. We will also face competition from these third parties in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials and in identifying and in-licensing new product candidates.

20

Table of Contents

We rely completely on OvaMed and other third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical pharmaceutical supplies and expect to continue to rely on OvaMed and other third parties to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidate, and our dependence on third party suppliers could adversely impact our business.

We are completely dependent on third party manufacturers for product supply. In particular, we rely and expect to continue to rely exclusively on OvaMed to supply us with our requirements of CNDO-201. OvaMed is the sole supplier of this product, which it is currently producing at only one facility in Germany, where it also is producing product for clinical trials by third parties, including its European sublicensee for gastroenterology indications. If OvaMed becomes unable or unwilling to deliver sufficient quantities of CNDO-201 to us on a timely basis and in accordance with applicable specifications and other regulatory requirements, there would be a significant interruption of our CNDO-201 supply, which would materially adversely affect clinical development and commercialization of the product. Similarly, we rely on BioReliance and PCT for our CNDO-109 requirements and our CNDO-109 clinical program would be adversely affected by a significant interruption in the supply of this product. Furthermore, if OvaMed, BioReliance and/or PCT or any other contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and with FDA regulatory requirements, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain FDA approval for our product candidates.

We will also rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our anticipated clinical trials. There are a small number of suppliers for certain capital equipment and raw materials that are used to manufacture our product candidates. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate or the raw material components thereof for an ongoing clinical trial could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We do not expect to have the resources or capacity to commercially manufacture any of our proposed products, if approved, and will likely continue to be dependent upon third party manufacturers. Our dependence on third parties to manufacture and supply us with clinical trial materials and any approved products may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our products on a timely basis.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or fail to enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell any products we may successfully develop, we may not be able to effectively market and sell any such products and generate product revenue.

We do not currently have the infrastructure for the sales, marketing and distribution of any of our product candidates, and must build this infrastructure or make arrangements with third parties to perform these functions in order to commercialize any products that we may successfully develop. The establishment and development of a sales force, either by us or jointly with a development partner, or the establishment of a contract sales force to market any products we may develop will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If we, or our development partners, are unable to establish sales and marketing capability or any other non-technical capabilities necessary to commercialize any products we may successfully develop, we will need to contract with third parties to market and sell such products. We may not be able to establish arrangements with third-parties on acceptable terms, if at all.

If any product candidate that we successfully develop does not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community, the revenues that it generates from their sales will be limited.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. Coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates by third-party payors, including government payors, generally is also necessary for commercial success. The degree of market acceptance of any approved products will depend on a number of factors, including:

21

Table of Contents

If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products and may not become or remain profitable.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, and claims could be brought against us if use or misuse of one of our product candidates causes, or merely appears to have caused, personal injury or death. While we intend to obtain clinical liability insurance prior to the commencement of any clinical trials, our coverage may not be sufficient to cover claims that may be made against us. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could severely harm our financial condition, strain our management and other resources or destroy the prospects for commercialization of the product which is the subject of any such claim.

Healthcare reform and restrictions on reimbursements may limit our financial returns.

Our ability or the ability of our collaborators to commercialize any of our product candidates that may receive the requisite regulatory approval may depend, in part, on the extent to which government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will reimburse consumers for the cost of these products. These third parties are increasingly challenging both the need for and the price of new drug products. Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third party reimbursement may not be available for our product candidates to enable us or our collaborators to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on their and our investments in research and product development.

If we fail to attract and retain key management and clinical development personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates.

We will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial and other resources in order to successfully pursue our clinical development and commercialization efforts. As a company with a limited number of personnel, we are highly dependent on the development, regulatory, commercial and financial expertise of the members of our senior management, in particular Glenn L. Cooper, M.D. our executive chairman, and Bobby W. Sandage, Jr., Ph.D, our president and chief executive officer. The loss of such individuals or the services of any of our other senior management could delay or prevent the further development

22

Table of Contents

and potential commercialization of our product candidates and, if we are not successful in finding suitable replacements, could harm our business. Our success also depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel and we may not be able to do so in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, as well as universities and research organizations. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel, we may experience significant impediments to our ability to implement our business strategy.

We use biological materials and may use hazardous materials, and any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming or costly.

We may use hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological agents and compounds, that could be dangerous to human health and safety or the environment. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and wastes. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our product development efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage and our property and casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended.

Our success depends upon our ability to protect our intellectual property and our proprietary technologies, and the intellectual property protection for our product candidates depends significantly on third parties.

Our success will depend, in large part, on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates and their formulations and uses, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. UIRF and OvaMed are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining patent protection relating to CNDO-201 and UCLB is responsible for prosecuting and maintaining patent protection for CNDO-109, in each case at our expense. If UIRF, OvaMed and/or UCLB fail to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for these product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize these product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. This failure to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to these product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or our partners will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

23

Table of Contents

In addition to patents, we and our partners also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, third parties may still obtain this information or come upon this same or similar information independently. If any of these events occurs, or we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know-how, the value of this information may be greatly reduced.

If we or our partners are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our success also depends upon our ability and the ability of any of our future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous United States and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing products, some of which may be directed at claims that overlap with the subject matter of our intellectual property. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or proprietary technologies may infringe. Similarly, there may be issued patents relevant to our product candidates of which we are not aware.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims that we or any of our licensors, suppliers or collaborators infringe the third party’s intellectual property rights, we may have to:

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

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, found to be unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. 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.

We may be subject to claims that our consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their other clients or former employers to us.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these consultants were previously employed at, or may have previously been or are currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may become subject to claims that we or

24

Table of Contents

these consultants have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers or their former or current customers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Risks Relating to our Finances, Capital Requirements and Other Financial Matters

We are a development stage company with a history of operating losses that are expected to continue and we are unable to predict the extent of future losses, whether we will generate significant revenues or whether we will achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a company in the development stage and our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. We have generated operating losses in all periods since our inception in June 2006, including losses of approximately $3.8 million, $3.7 million and $10.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. At June 30, 2011, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $46.5 million. We expect to make substantial expenditures and incur increasing operating costs in the future and our accumulated deficit will increase significantly as we expand development and clinical trial efforts for our product candidates. Our losses have had, and are expected to continue to have, an adverse impact on our working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity. Because of the risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses, whether we will ever generate significant revenues or if we will ever achieve or sustain profitability.

We will need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our development programs or commercialization efforts.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. During the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, we incurred research and development expenses of approximately $2.9 million, $2.3 million and $8.3 million, respectively. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts on product development, including conducting clinical trials for our product candidates, manufacturing clinical supplies and potentially expanding our development programs. We believe that our cash on hand will sustain our operations through 2012 and that we will require substantial additional funds to support our continued research and development activities, as well as the anticipated costs of preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory approvals and potential commercialization, past 2012. We have based this estimate, however, on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could spend our available financial resources much faster than we currently expect.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue and achieve profitability, we expect to finance future cash needs through equity or debt financings or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements. We currently have no commitments or agreements relating to any of these types of transactions and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital when required or on acceptable terms, we may have to significantly delay, significantly curtail or eliminate one or more of our product development programs.

Raising additional funds by issuing securities or through licensing or lending arrangements may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, the share ownership of existing stockholders will be diluted. Any future debt financing may involve covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, redeem our stock, make certain investments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset sale transactions, among other restrictions. In addition, if we raise additional funds through licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potentially valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

25

Table of Contents

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting in the future, our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements could be impaired, which could harm our operating results, investors’ views of us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related rules (collectively, “SOX”), commencing the year following our first annual report required to be filed with the SEC, our management will be required to report on, and our independent registered public accounting firm to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. To comply with the requirements of being a reporting company under the Exchange Act, we may need to upgrade our systems, including information technology, implement additional financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures and hire additional accounting and finance staff.

As a private company with limited resources, historically we have not had sufficient accounting and supervisory personnel with the appropriate level of technical accounting experience and training necessary for, or adequate documented accounting policies and procedures to support effective internal controls. These material weaknesses have contributed to audit adjustments for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008. While we have commenced the process of documenting, reviewing and improving our internal controls over financial reporting for compliance with Section 404 of SOX and have made efforts to improve our internal controls and accounting policies and procedures, including hiring new accounting personnel and engaging external temporary resources, we may continue to identify deficiencies and weaknesses in our internal controls. If material weaknesses or deficiencies in our internal controls exist and go undetected, our financial statements could contain material misstatements that, when discovered in the future could cause us to fail to meet our future reporting obligations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Risks Associated with our Capital Stock

One of our directors and principal stockholders can individually control our direction and policies, and his interests may be adverse to the interests of our other stockholders.

At June 30, 2011, Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D., a member of our board of directors, beneficially owned approximately 18.3% of our issued and outstanding capital stock, and certain trusts established for the benefit of Dr. Rosenwald and his family members additionally beneficially owned an aggregate of approximately 7.8% of our issued and outstanding capital stock. By virtue of his holdings and his membership on our board of directors, Dr. Rosenwald may influence the election of the members of our board of directors, our management and our affairs and may make it difficult for us to consummate corporate transactions such as mergers, consolidations or the sale of all or substantially all of our assets that may be favorable from our standpoint or that of our other stockholders.

No public market exists for our securities and we cannot assure you that our common stock will be listed on any securities exchange or quoted on any over-the-counter quotation system or that an active trading market will ever develop for any of our securities.

There is no public market for our capital stock. Following the effectiveness of this Form 10, we intend to register for resale under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), the common stock issuable upon conversion of our preferred stock and will seek to list our common stock on the NYSE Amex or the NASDAQ Stock Market. We cannot assure you that we will be able to meet the initial listing standards of any of such markets or any other stock exchange, or predict the timing of such listing or that, if listed, we will be able to maintain such a listing. If our common stock is listed on an over-the-counter system, an investor may find it more difficult to dispose of shares or obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock.

26

Table of Contents

Because we are becoming a reporting company under the Exchange Act by means of filing this Form 10, we may not be able to attract the attention of research analysts at major brokerage firms.

Because we do not intend to become a reporting company by conducting an underwritten initial public offering (“IPO”) of our common stock, we do not expect security analysts of major brokerage firms to provide coverage of our company in the near future. In addition, major investment banks may be less likely to agree to underwrite secondary offerings on our behalf than they might if we were to become a public reporting company by means of an IPO. The failure to receive research coverage or support in the market for our shares will have an adverse effect on our ability to develop a liquid market for our common stock.

Our common stock may become subject to the SEC’s penny stock rules, so broker-dealers may experience difficulty in completing customer transactions and trading activity in our securities may be adversely affected.

The SEC has adopted regulations which generally define “penny stock” to be an equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to specific exemptions. The market price of our common stock may be less than $5.00 per share for some period of time and therefore would be a “penny stock” according to SEC rules, unless we are listed on a national securities exchange. Under these rules, broker-dealers who recommend such securities to persons other than institutional accredited investors must:

If required to comply with these rules, broker-dealers may find it difficult to effectuate customer transactions and trading activity in our securities may be adversely affected.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile and may fluctuate in a way that is disproportionate to our operating performance.

Even if an active trading market develops for our common stock, our stock price may experience substantial volatility as a result of a number of factors, including:

27

Table of Contents

Many of these factors are beyond our control. The stock markets in general, and the market for pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies in particular, have historically experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. These broad market and industry factors could reduce the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance

Following the effectiveness of this Form 10, we intend to file a registration statement on Form S-1 to register for resale the shares underlying our preferred stock. The availability of a substantial number of shares for resale may adversely impact any trading market that may develop for our common stock.

We intend to file a registration statement on Form S-1 under the Securities Act shortly following the effectiveness of this Form 10 to permit the resale of the shares of common stock underlying our outstanding preferred stock. Following the effective date of such registration statement, a large number of shares of common stock will become available for sale in the public market. In addition, there are approximately 7.0 million shares of common stock outstanding, as well as a substantial number of shares of our common stock underlying outstanding options and warrants. The availability of a substantial number of shares for resale under the registration statement or pursuant to Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act may adversely impact any trading market that may develop for our common stock.

We have never paid and do not intend to pay cash dividends.

We have never paid cash dividends on any of our capital stock and we currently intend to retain future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business.

Delaware law and our charter may inhibit a takeover that stockholders consider favorable and could also limit the market price of our common stock.

We are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of Delaware General Corporate Law. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us. In addition, our certificate of incorporation authorizes the issuance of preferred stock having such rights and preferences as our board of directors may determine without any further action by our stockholders. These provisions of Delaware law and our certificate of incorporation may prevent or frustrate any attempt by our stockholders to change our management or the direction in which we are heading and could reduce the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock in the future.

28

Table of Contents

Item 2. Financial Information.

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

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements in the following discussion and throughout this report that are not historical in nature are “forward-looking statements”. You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “intend,” “believe,” and similar expressions. Although we believe the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements are inherently subject to risk and we can give no assurances that our expectations will prove to be correct. Actual results could differ from those described in this report because of numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include, without limitation, those described under Item 1A “Risk Factors.” We undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report or to reflect actual outcomes. Please see “Forward Looking Statements” at the beginning of this Form 10.

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Form 10.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel immunotherapy agents for inflammatory diseases and cancer. Our two principal pharmaceutical product candidates in clinical development are:

We acquired the CNDO-201 sublicense in January 2011 from Asphelia for an aggregate purchase price of $20.7 million, consisting of 2,525,677 shares of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series B shares”) valued at $6.38 per share, the assumption of promissory notes due to Paramount Credit Partners, LLC (“PCP”) in the amount of $750,000 and the assumption of Asphelia’s obligation to reimburse OvaMed for certain development costs and paid cash of $3.8 million, including $3.4 million to OvaMed and $0.4 million for repayment of Asphelia’s debt, including $61,000 to a related party. Under the terms of the sublicense agreement, we are required to make annual license payments to OvaMed of $250,000, reimburse patent expenses, make potential future payments totaling up to $5.45 million upon the achievement of various milestones related to regulatory events for the first product, and make additional milestone payments upon the achievement of regulatory events relating to subsequent indications. In the event that CNDO-201 is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay annual royalties based upon net sales of the product as well as a portion of certain sublicense revenues. We are also required to purchase our clinical and commercial requirements of CNDO-201 from OvaMed at pre-determined prices.

We acquired an exclusive worldwide license to CNDO-109 in November 2007 from UCLB. In consideration for the license, we paid UCLB initial license fees totaling $100,000 and are required to make future milestone payments totaling up to $22 million upon the achievement of various milestones related to regulatory events for the first three indications. If CNDO-109 is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay to UCLB annual royalties based upon net sales of the product or a portion of sublicensing revenues.

29

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued expenses and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Form 10. We believe the following accounting policies to be most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

Research and Development (R&D) Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued R&D expenses. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, reviewing the terms of our license agreements, communicating with our applicable personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of actual cost. The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our consolidated financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of our estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary. Examples of estimated accrued R&D expenses include fees to:

We base our expenses related to clinical studies on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contracts with multiple research institutions and contract research organizations that conduct and manage clinical studies on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows and expense recognition. Payments under some of these contracts depend on factors such as the successful enrollment of patients and the completion of clinical trial milestones. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, we adjust the accrual accordingly. Our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in our reporting changes in estimates in any particular period.

Expenses related to annual license fees are accrued on a pro rata basis throughout the year. Milestone payments are recognized and accrued upon achievement of each milestone event.

Stock-Based Compensation

We expense stock-based compensation to employees over the requisite service period based on the estimated grant-date fair value of the awards and considering estimated forfeiture rates. For stock-based compensation awards to non-employees, we re-measure the fair value of the non-employee awards at each reporting period prior to vesting and finally at the vesting date of the award. Changes in the estimated fair value of these non-employee awards are recognized as compensation expense in the period of change.

30

Table of Contents

Determining the appropriate fair value of stock-based awards requires the use of subjective assumptions. In the absence of a public trading market for our common stock, we conducted periodic assessments of the valuation of our common stock. These valuations were performed concurrently with the achievement of significant milestones or with major financing. We use a Black-Scholes option-pricing model to determine the fair value of stock options. The determination of the grant date fair value of options using an option-pricing model is affected by our estimated common stock fair value as well as assumptions regarding a number of other subjective variables. These variables include the fair value of our common stock, our expected stock price volatility over the expected term of the options, stock option exercise and cancellation behaviors, risk-free interest rates, and expected dividends, which are estimated as follows:

The estimation of the number of stock awards that will ultimately vest requires judgment, and to the extent actual results or updated estimates differ from our current estimates, such amounts will be recorded as a cumulative adjustment in the period in which estimates are revised. We consider many factors when estimating expected forfeitures, including types of awards, employee class and historical experience. Actual results, and future changes in estimates, may differ substantially from our current estimates.

For the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009, and 2010, stock-based compensation expense was $25,000, $39,000 and $2.3 million, respectively. For the six month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2011, stock-based compensation expense was $2.0 million and $0.4 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2010, we had approximately $1.8 million of total unrecognized compensation expense, net of related forfeiture estimates which we expect to recognize over a weighted-average period of approximately 2.4 years.

If any of the assumptions used in a Black-Scholes model changes significantly, stock-based compensation for future awards may differ materially compared with the awards granted previously.

Common Stock Valuations

The fair value of the common stock underlying our stock options, common stock warrants and restricted stock was determined by our board of directors, which intended all options granted to be exercisable at a price per share not less than the per share fair value of our common stock underlying those options on the date of grant.

31

Table of Contents

However, certain options granted on October 5, 2010 were granted with an exercise price that was below the fair value of our common stock as determined by an independent valuation as of that date. All other options previously granted or to be granted in the future were or are expected to be granted at the grant date fair value. The valuations of our common stock were determined in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation. The assumptions we use in the valuation model are based on future expectations combined with management judgment. In the absence of a public trading market, our board of directors with input from management exercised significant judgment and considered numerous objective and subjective factors to determine the fair value of our common stock as of the date of each option, restricted stock and warrant grant, including the following factors:

In valuing our common stock, we have used a variety of methodologies that have evolved as the life cycle of our company has progressed. For the underlying valuations of our common stock in periods prior to December 31, 2009, given the early stage of our company and its development programs, we used a cost approach to estimate the fair value of our commons stock. The cost approach is based on the premise that an investor would pay no more for an asset than its replacement or reproduction cost. The cost to replace the asset would include the cost of constructing a similar asset of equivalent utility at prices applicable at the time of the valuation analysis. Under this methodology, a valuation analysis is performed for the company’s identified fixed, financial, intangible and other assets. The derived aggregate fair value of the assets is then netted against the estimated fair value of all existing and potential liabilities, resulting in an indication of the fair value of total equity. This approach was considered an appropriate indication of value as the programs were still in early stages of the development cycle.

As our business and programs evolved, beginning in 2010, we migrated away from the cost approach to a market approach to incorporate the indication of value established through our development efforts and reflected in our Series A Preferred Stock issuances during 2010. Under this approach, the business enterprise value was established based on the contemporaneous equity offerings. Pursuant to the AICPA Guidelines, an option pricing method was used to value the shares using a contingent claims analysis, which applies a series of call options whose inputs reflect the liquidation preferences and conversion behavior of the different classes of equity. The value of the common stock was then derived by analyzing the fair value of these options. After the equity value of the business enterprise was determined, the total equity value of any equity instruments such as preferred stock, stock options, restricted stock and warrants outstanding and the concluded common stock value on a converted basis is allocated. Next, the option pricing method was used to allocate the residual equity value (inclusive of any infusion of cash from in-the-money options and warrants) to the common stock of the company. Since the Company’s shares are not publicly traded, a discount for lack of marketability was applied . This lack of marketability discount was estimated to be 10% for the 2010 valuations, using a theoretical put option model that captures the cost to ensure stock could be sold at the price prevailing at the valuation date after the time required to finding a market, or the time until an expected liquidity event. The put option model considers the expected time to a liquidity event, estimated volatility based on peer company data, risk free interest rates and management judgment. The ultimate fair values of the Company’s common stock was used as an input in determining the fair value of the warrants, restricted stock and stock options at various period of time.

32

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

General

To date, we have not generated any revenues from operations and at June 30, 2011 had an accumulated deficit of $46.5 million primarily as a result of expenditures for research and development, general and administrative expenses and purchase of in-process research and development. While we may in the future generate revenue from a variety of sources, including license fees, milestone payments, research and development payments in connection with strategic partnerships and/or product sales, our product candidates are at an early stage of development and may never be successfully developed or commercialized. Accordingly, we expect to continue to incur substantial losses from operations for the foreseeable future and there can be no assurance that we will ever generate significant revenues.

R&D Expenses

Conducting research and development is central to our business model. For the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the six months ended June 30, 2011, R&D expenses were $2.9 million, $2.3 million, $8.3 million and $3.4 million, respectively, and such expenses were $19.3 million for the period from inception (June 28, 2006) to June 30, 2011. R&D expenses consist primarily of:

We expect to continue to incur substantial expenses related to our research and development activities for the foreseeable future as we continue product development. Since product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later stage clinical trials, we expect that our R&D expenses will increase in the future. In addition, if our product development efforts are successful, we expect to incur substantial costs to prepare for potential commercialization of any late-stage product candidates and, in the event one or more of these product candidates receive regulatory approval, to fund the launch of the product.

From inception through June 30, 2011, direct, external development costs incurred for our CNDO-109 product development program were $3.4 million, including $0, $0.4 million and $2.1 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and $0.8 million and $0.8 million, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2011. From inception through June 30, 2011, direct, external development costs incurred for our CNDO-201 product development program were $0.4 million, including $0, $0 and $0.2 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and $0 and $0.2 million, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2011, but excluding $20.7 million of in-process-research and development costs related to our acquisition of the product in the six month period ended June 30, 2011. Our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2011 include direct, external development costs incurred in connection with two product development programs that have been discontinued. From inception through June 30, 2011, such expenses totaled $5.2 million.

General and Administrative (“G&A”) Expenses

G&A expenses consist principally of personnel-related costs, professional fees for legal, consulting, audit and tax services, rent and other general operating expenses not otherwise included in R&D. For the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the six months ended June 30, 2011, G&A expenses were $0.3 million, $0.3 million, $0.9 million and $2.2 million, respectively, and such expenses were $4.0 million from inception through June 30, 2011. We anticipate G&A expenses will increase in future periods, reflecting:

33

Table of Contents

R&D expenses increased $6.1 million from the year ended December 31, 2009 to the year ended December 31, 2010. This increase was attributable to $2.3 million higher non-cash charges for stock-based compensation, $2.2 million higher salaries and administrative costs associated with increased staffing and related overhead costs, $1.7 million higher expenses related to the technology transfer for CNDO-109 to a GMP environment, and $0.3 million higher costs relating to our two discontinued product development programs.

G&A expenses increased $0.6 million from the year ended December 31, 2009 to the year ended December 31, 2010. This increase is primarily attributable to higher legal, accounting and other professional expenses and increased personnel-related costs due to increased staffing to support our product development programs and establish and infrastructure to support growth.

Interest income was $61,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010. There was minimal interest income for the year ended December 31, 2009. The interest income in 2010 was primarily attributable to cash balances resulting from the proceeds of our Series A shares issued in April 2010.

Other income of $0.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 reflects the government grant received by us under the Therapeutic Discovery Project. This income will not be recurring.

Interest expense, net includes interest on our senior notes, related party notes and the amortization of costs associated with charges for the issuance of debt. For the year ended December 31, 2010 total interest expense, net, was $1.5 million, compared with $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. $0.8 million in 2010 related to the amortization of the embedded conversion feature of the senior convertible and related party notes, partially offset by reduced interest expense on this debt that converted to Series A shares in April 2010.

34

Table of Contents

R&D expenses were $2.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $2.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. The $0.6 million decrease was primarily attributable to reduced service provider fees related to our discontinued product development programs.

G&A expenses remained relatively stable during the years ended December 31 2008 and 2009 and consisted primarily of internal salaries and external legal and accounting costs.

Interest income for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 was not significant.

Interest expense, net for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $1.1 million compared to $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. This increase of $0.5 million is primarily attributable to the issuance of a second bridge note of $3.5 million in the third quarter of 2009.

R&D expenses during the six months ended June 30, 2011 decreased $1.1 million, or 25%, from the six months ended June 30, 2010. This was primarily due to a $1.6 million decrease in stock-based compensation expense related to the vesting of restricted common stock issued to non-employees in 2007 and a $0.7 million decrease in development costs related to discontinued product candidates. These decreases were partially offset by increased personnel costs of $0.6 million attributable to increased staffing, $0.4 million of consulting costs related to

35

Table of Contents

development of our current product candidates and $0.2 million of external development costs related to CNDO-201. We expect our R&D expenses to increase in future quarters as we commence our clinical programs for CNDO-201 and CNDO-109. We also expect to incur a milestone-related charge of $1.5 million in the three month period ending September 30, 2011 relating to the filing of an IND for CNDO-201.

G&A expenses during the six months ended June 30, 2011 increased $1.9 million, or 778%, from the six months ended June 30, 2010, reflecting the substantial increase in the level of our business activity during 2011. The increase in G&A expenses consisted of a $1.2 million increase in professional fees, consisting primarily of legal and accounting fees associated with the acquisition of CNDO-201, an audit of our financial statements and the completion of an equity financing, as well as a $0.5 million increase in personnel costs and a $0.1 million increase in stock-based compensation expense.

On January 7, 2011, we acquired from Asphelia a sublicense and related agreements for CNDO-201, an early stage development compound, and assumed certain liabilities of Asphelia. In exchange for the assets, we issued 2,525,677 Series B shares valued at $6.38 per share, assumed the PCP promissory note of $750,000 and a cash payment of approximately $3.8 million, including $3.4 million to OvaMed and $0.4 million for repayment of Asphelia’s debt, including $61,000 to a related party. The total consideration paid in connection with the acquisition of Asphelia’s assets and assumption of related liabilities was $20.7 million, which was recorded as in-process research and development expense in the consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2011.

In the six months ended June 30, 2011, we incurred $34,000 of interest expense related to the PCP note of $750,000 which was assumed in connection with the Asphelia acquisition. In the six months ended June 30, 2010, the $1.5 million of interest expense related to an aggregate of $9.9 million of debt which was either repaid or converted to our Series A shares between April 2010 and December 2010.

The increase in interest income for the six months ended June 30, 2011 compared to the same period last year was primarily due to higher cash balances.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

To date, we have funded our operations through the sale of debt and equity securities. At June 30, 2011, we had cash and cash equivalents of $29.6 million. On June 30, 2011, we completed a private placement of our Series C Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series C shares”) which resulted in net proceeds, after placement agent commissions and offering expenses, of approximately $22.9 million. As of August 22, 2011, we had cash and cash equivalents of $27.8 million. The following table summarizes our funding sources as of June 30, 2011:

36

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2010, all notes and other debt was either repaid or converted into our Series A shares. At June 30, 2011, we had outstanding $750,000 of promissory notes due to PCP which we assumed from Asphelia. These notes are due in December 2013.

The warrant liability of $1.3 million at June 30, 2011 reflects the value of the warrants for Series C shares issued to the placement agent for their services in connection with the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock financing (“Series C Financing”). This liability will be marked-to-market at each reporting date and will be reclassified to equity upon effectiveness of a Form S-1 that registers the common stock underlying the Series C shares.

Management believes that cash and cash equivalents, including cash raised in the Series C Financing, are sufficient to sustain operations through 2012 based on our existing business plan and given the ability to control the timing of significant expense commitments.

We expect to incur substantial expenditures in the foreseeable future for the research, development and potential commercialization of its product candidates. We will require additional financing to develop, obtain regulatory approvals, fund operating losses, and, if deemed appropriate, establish manufacturing, sales and marketing capabilities. We will seek funds through equity or debt financings, collaborative or other arrangements with corporate sources, or through other sources of financing. Adequate additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed could have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategies. If adequate funds are not available to us, we may be required to delay, reduce or eliminate research and development programs.

Operating Activities

Cash used in operating activities increased $3.3 million from the year ended December 31, 2009 to the year ended December 31, 2010 primarily due to increased operating expenses partially offset by the government grant received in 2010.

Cash used in operating activities decreased $1.2 million from the year ended December 31, 2008, to the year ended December 31, 2009 primarily due to cash provided from a $0.6 million net change in the components of operating assets and liabilities, a $0.2 million increase in noncash interest expense, a $0.2 million amortization of deferred financing costs and a $0.1 million decrease in net loss.

Investing Activities

Cash used in investing activities for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 was not significant.

Financing Activities

Cash provided by financing activities increased $15.2 million from the year ended December 31, 2009 to the year ended December 31, 2010 primarily due to the issuance of our Series A shares which resulted in net proceeds of $19.4 million in 2010, while the primary source of cash from financing activities in 2009 was $3.9 million from net debt proceeds.

37

Table of Contents

Cash provided by financing activities increased $0.4 million from the year ended December 31, 2008 to the year ended December 31, 2009, primarily due to increased borrowings.

Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 and 2010

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities increased $1.9 million from the six months ended June 30, 2010 to the six months ended June 30, 2011. The increase in net loss of $19.8 million was offset by $20.7 million of noncash expense for in-process research and development expense related to the Asphelia asset purchase less a $1.6 million decrease in stock-based compensation and a $0.8 million decrease in the change in fair value of the senior convertible note warrant liability.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $3.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and consisted of cash payments related to the Asphelia asset purchase.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities in the six months ended June 30, 2011 of $23.0 million consisted primarily of $22.9 million of net proceeds from the Series C Financing. Net cash provided by financing activities in the six months ended June 30, 2010 of $9.8 million consisted primarily of $9.5 million of net proceeds from the issuance of our Series A shares.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of June 30, 2011, excluding amounts related to contingent milestone payments, as described below.

38

Table of Contents

Contingent Milestone Payments

Based on our development plans and license agreements in effect as of June 30, 2011, we have committed to make potential future milestone payments to our licensors upon achievement of certain development or regulatory milestones for each indication for which the licensed product is developed. Under the license agreement for CNDO-201, the milestone payments aggregate approximately $5.45 million for the first indication and $2 million for each subsequent indication. Under the UCLB license, the milestone payments aggregate approximately $22 million for the first three indications. Because the achievement of these milestones had not occurred as of June 30, 2011, such contingencies have not been recorded in our financial statements. We anticipate that we may incur expense for approximately $1.5 million of milestone payments in 2011, which would be paid in 2012, provided various development and regulatory milestones are achieved. Amounts related to contingent milestone payments are not included in the contractual obligations table above due to the uncertainty of the successful achievement of certain development activities, regulatory approval and commercial milestones.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not currently have, nor have we ever had, any relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. In addition, we do not engage in trading activities involving non-exchange traded contracts.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risks

We held no marketable securities at December 31, 2009 and 2010. Our existing debt is at a fixed rate and we currently do not have exposure to foreign currency fluctuations.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Pursuant to Section 404 of SOX, commencing the year following our first annual report required to be filed with the SEC, our management will be required to report on, and our independent registered public accounting firm to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. To comply with the requirements of being a reporting company under the Exchange Act, we may need to upgrade our systems, including information technology, implement additional financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures and hire additional accounting and finance staff.

As a private company with limited resources, historically we have not had sufficient accounting and supervisory personnel with the appropriate level of technical accounting experience and training necessary for, or adequate documented accounting policies and procedures to support effective internal controls. These material weaknesses have contributed to audit adjustments for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008. While we have commenced the process of documenting, reviewing and improving our internal controls over financial reporting for compliance with Section 404 of SOX and have made efforts to improve our internal controls and accounting policies and procedures, including hiring new accounting personnel and engaging external temporary resources, we may continue to identify deficiencies and weaknesses in our internal controls. If material weaknesses or deficiencies in our internal controls exist and go undetected, our financial statements could contain material misstatements that, when discovered in the future could cause us to fail to meet our future reporting obligations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

39

Table of Contents

Net Operating Loss Tax Carry-Forwards

As of December 31, 2010, we had net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $6.3 million to offset future federal income taxes through 2024. Current federal and state tax laws include substantial restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss and tax credits in the event of an ownership change. Even if the carryforwards are available, they may be subject to annual limitations, lack of future taxable income, or future ownership changes that could result in the expiration of the carryforwards before they are utilized. At December 31 2010, we recorded a 100% valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets of approximately $6.6 million, as our management believes it is uncertain that they will be fully realized. If we determine in the future that we will be able to realize all or a portion of our net operating loss carryforwards, an adjustment to our net operating loss carryforwards would increase net income in the period in which we make such a determination.

Item 3. Properties.

Our principal executive offices at 15 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 are occupied under a one-year lease expiring in July 2012 for approximately 600 square feet of space providing for rental payments of approximately $5,200 per month.

Item 4. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management.

The following table sets forth, as of August 15, 2011, certain information concerning the beneficial ownership of our common stock by (i) each stockholder known by us to own beneficially five percent or more of our outstanding common stock; (ii) each director; (iii) each named executive officer; and (iv) all of our executive officers and directors as a group, and their percentage ownership and voting power.

40

Table of Contents

41

Table of Contents

None of the events listed in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K has occurred during the past ten years and that is material to the evaluation of the ability or integrity of any of our directors, director nominees or executive officers.

The following is a brief account of the business experience during the past five years (and, in some instances, for prior years) of each director and executive officer of our company.

Executive Officers

Glenn L. Cooper, M.D . has served as a member of our board of directors since October 2009, as our executive chairman since July 2010 and served as our acting chief executive officer from December 2010 to April 2011. Dr. Cooper has extensive leadership experience in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries with expertise in transforming development stage companies into commercial organizations. From 1993 to 2009, Dr. Cooper was the chairman and chief executive officer of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceuticals company. Indevus was acquired by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2009. Prior to joining Indevus in 1993, Dr. Cooper held numerous executive level positions, including president and chief executive officer of Progenitor, Inc., executive vice president and chief operating officer of Sphinx Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and various clinical and regulatory positions with Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Cooper also serves on the board of directors of Gentium S.p.A. and Repligen Corporation. Dr. Cooper holds a B.A. from Harvard College and received his M.D. from Tufts University School of Medicine. Based on Dr. Cooper’s position as the executive chairman, his other senior management experience and service on boards of directors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, our board of directors believes that Dr. Cooper has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

Bobby W. Sandage, Jr., Ph.D. has served as our president and chief executive officer since April 2011. Dr. Sandage has over 30 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, most recently as the vice president and head of oncology research and development for Covidien Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceuticals company, a position he held from March 2010 until March 2011. From November 1991 to December 2009, Dr. Sandage held various positions at Indevus Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceuticals company, including executive vice president of research and development and chief scientific officer, prior to the sale of the company to Endo Pharmaceuticals. Prior to joining Indevus Pharmaceuticals, from 1981 to 1991, Dr. Sandage held senior drug development positions at DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company, DuPont Critical Care (formerly American Critical Care) and Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sandage is currently a member of the board of directors of Gentium S.p.A., a pharmaceutical company. Dr. Sandage has also served as a member of the board of directors of Osteologix, Inc. and Genta Incorporated. Dr. Sandage has a B.S. in pharmacy from

42

Table of Contents

the University of Arkansas and a Ph.D. in clinical pharmacy from Purdue University. Based on Dr. Sandage’s position as the president and chief executive officer, his substantial experience in the pharmaceutical industry and service on boards of directors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, our board of directors believes that Dr. Sandage has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

Dale Ritter has served as our senior vice president, finance, chief accounting officer and acting chief financial officer since May 2011. Mr. Ritter has over 20 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. From September 2009 until joining us, he was an independent consultant, most recently serving as a financial consultant to Helicos BioSciences Corporation, an innovative genetic analysis technologies company, from January to May 2011. From 1994 to 2009, Mr. Ritter was the senior vice president of finance and chief accounting officer at Indevus Pharmaceuticals until the sale of the company to Endo Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Ritter has a B.A. from Syracuse University and an MBA from Babson College Graduate School of Business Administration.

Non-Employee Directors

Eric K. Rowinsky, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors, as our vice chairman and a consultant since October 2010 and is responsible for overseeing our clinical development plan for acute myeloid leukemia and solid tumor malignancies. Dr. Rowinsky is an internationally renowned expert in oncology with a distinguished background in academics and industry. Following an oncology fellowship at Johns Hopkins, he became an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins and then an associate professor at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Rowinsky then became a professor of medicine and director for drug development, cancer therapy and research at University of Texas, San Antonio. In 2004, Dr. Rowinsky became chief medical officer and senior vice president (later promoted to executive vice president) of ImClone Systems, Inc., a cancer therapeutics company, and spear-headed the further clinical development of Erbitux (cetuximab injection) and eight additional monoclonal antibodies, prior to ImClone’s acquisition by Eli Lilly & Company in 2008. He remained at ImClone as a consultant until December 2010. Dr. Rowinsky is and has been a consultant to multiple biotech companies in cancer drug development and serves on the boards of directors of Biogen-Idec Inc., Neoprobe Inc, PreScience Labs Inc., and DLVR, Inc., each of which are life sciences companies. During the past five years, Dr. Rowinsky has also served on the boards of directors of Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Adventrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which are life sciences companies. Dr. Rowinsky has been an advisor to academic, industrial and FDA advisory boards and has more than 300 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Rowinsky received his B.A. from New York University and his M.D. from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Based on Dr. Rowinsky’s service on boards of directors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries and his extensive experience and background in oncology, our board of directors believes that Dr. Rowinsky has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

David J. Barrett has served as a member of our board of directors since May 2011. Since July 2010, Mr. Barrett has served as the chief financial officer of Ventrus Biosciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company focused on the late-stage clinical development of gastrointestinal products. From October 2009 through June 2010, Mr. Barrett founded and sold a startup venture in the on-line advertising space. From April 2006 to September 2009, Mr. Barrett served as chief financial officer of Neuro-Hitech, Inc., a publicly traded company focused on developing, marketing and distributing branded and generic pharmaceutical products. From September 2003 to April 2006, Mr. Barrett was the chief financial officer/vice president of finance of Overture Asset Managers and Overture Financial Services, which, at the time, was a start-up asset management firm that assembled investment products and platforms to distribute turnkey and unbundled investment solutions to financial intermediaries and institutional investors. From July 1999 to September 2003, Mr. Barrett was employed as a manager at Deloitte & Touche, LLP. Mr. Barrett received his B.S. in accounting and economics in May of 1998 and his M.S. in accounting in May of 1999 from the University of Florida. He is a certified public accountant. Based on Mr. Barrett’s management experience, particularly in areas of finance and investment management, our board of directors believes that Mr. Barrett has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

43

Table of Contents

Jimmie Harvey, Jr., M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since December 2008. Dr. Harvey in 1984 founded Birmingham Hematology and Oncology Associates L.L.C., a private medical company located in Birmingham, Alabama. Dr. Harvey has experience in clinical trial execution and management and has recently been a principal investigator in two trials, one investigating a novel monoclonal antibody and the other a small molecule used to treat immunologic malignancies. Dr. Harvey holds a B.A. degree in Chemistry from Emory University and received his M.D. from Emory University School of Medicine. Dr. Harvey completed his medical oncology training at the Vincent T. Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown University. Based on Dr. Harvey’s medical background, including his oncology expertise, our board of directors believes that Dr. Harvey has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

J. Jay Lobell has served as a member of our board of directors since June 2006. Mr. Lobell is president of Meridian Capital Group, LLC, a commercial real estate mortgage company, which he joined as a senior officer in January 2010. Mr. Lobell also is a founder of, and since December 2009 has served as vice chairman of, Beech Street Capital, LLC, a real estate lending company. Since January 2005, Mr. Lobell has served as president and chief operating officer of PBS, a biotechnology investment and development company, which is largely dormant at this time. In that capacity, he had substantial responsibility for the assembly and oversight of companies founded and incubated by PBS, including Coronado. Mr. Lobell previously has served on the board of directors of NovaDel Pharma Inc., Innovive Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and ChemRx Corporation. Mr. Lobell was a partner in the law firm Covington & Burling LLP from October 1996 through January 2005, where he advised companies and individuals as a member of the firm’s securities litigation and white collar defense practice group. Mr. Lobell received his B.A. (summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) from the City University of New York and his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal. Based on Mr. Lobell’s biotechnology, legal and financial experience, as well as his in-depth understanding of drug commercialization and corporate governance, our board of directors believes that Mr. Lobell has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

Michael W. Rogers has served as a member of our board of directors since May 2011. Since June 2009, Mr. Rogers has served as the executive vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer of BG Medicine, Inc., a life sciences company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel diagnostic tests. Prior to joining BG Medicine, Inc. and since 1999, Mr. Rogers held the position of executive vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer at Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceuticals company, which was acquired by Endo Pharmaceuticals in 2009. In 1998, Mr. Rogers was executive vice president and chief financial and corporate development officer at Advanced Health Corporation, a publicly-traded healthcare information technology company. From 1995 to 1997, he was vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer of AutoImmune, Inc., a publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company. From 1994 to 1995, Mr. Rogers was vice president, investment banking at Lehman Brothers, Inc. From 1990 to 1994, he was associated with PaineWebber, Inc., serving most recently as vice president, investment banking division. Mr. Rogers serves as a director of pSivida, Inc., a publicly-traded medical device company. Mr. Rogers received an M.B.A. from the Darden School at the University of Virginia and a B.A. from Union College. Based on Mr. Rogers’s management experience, particularly in areas of finance and corporate development, our board of directors believes that Mr. Rogers has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since October 2009. Since November 2008, Dr. Rosenwald has served as Co-Portfolio Manager & Partner of Opus Point Partners, LLC (“Opus”), an asset management and broker dealer in the life sciences industry. Prior to that, from August 1991 to October 2008, he served as the Chairman of Paramount BioCapital, Inc. (“PBC”). Over the last 23 years, Dr. Rosenwald has acted as a biotechnology entrepreneur and been instrumental in the founding and recapitalization of numerous public and private biotechnology and life sciences companies. Dr. Rosenwald received his B.S. in finance from Pennsylvania State University and his M.D. from Temple University School of Medicine. Based on Dr. Rosenwald’s biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry experience and in-depth understanding of our business, our board of directors believes that Dr. Rosenwald has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

44

Table of Contents

Item 6. Executive Compensation.

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis explains our compensation philosophy, policies and practices with respect to our named executive officers. To date, executive compensation decisions have been made by the entire board of directors. Following the effectiveness of this Form 10, we expect to establish a compensation committee of the board that will be responsible for creating and reviewing the compensation of our executive officers to the compensation committee of its board of directors, as well as overseeing our compensation and benefit plans and policies and administering our equity incentive plans.

Compensation Philosophy

We believe in providing a competitive total compensation package to our executive management team through a combination of base salary, discretionary bonuses, grants under an equity incentive compensation plan, severance and change of control benefits and broad-based benefits programs. Our executive compensation programs are designed to achieve the following objectives:

Our board of directors believes that our executive compensation programs should include short- and long-term components, including cash and equity-based compensation, and should reward consistent performance that meets or exceeds expectations. The board evaluates both performance and compensation to make sure that the compensation provided to executives remains competitive relative to compensation paid by companies of similar size and stage of development operating in the life sciences industry, taking into account our relative performance and our own strategic objectives.

Setting Executive Compensation

We have historically conducted a review of the aggregate level of our executive compensation, as well as the mix of elements used to compensate our executive officers. As a private company, we have based this review primarily on the experience of the members of our board of directors, many of whom sit on the boards of directors of numerous companies in the life sciences and healthcare fields. It is expected that in the future, our compensation committee will take into account publicly available data relating to the compensation practices and policies of other companies within and outside our industry. Although we expect the compensation committee to use such survey data as a tool in determining executive compensation, we expect that members of the compensation committee will continue to apply their subjective discretion to make compensation decisions. Our board has not yet determined to benchmark executive compensation against any particular group of companies or use a formula to set executive compensation in relation to such survey data.

Elements of Executive Compensation

The compensation program for our executive officers consists principally of three components:

Base Salary

Base salaries for our executives are initially established through arm’s-length negotiation at the time the executive is hired, taking into account such executive’s qualifications, experience, prior salary, the scope of his

45

Table of Contents

or her responsibilities, and competitive market compensation paid by other companies for similar positions within the industry. Base salaries are reviewed annually, typically in connection with our annual performance review process, and adjusted from time to time to realign salaries with market levels after taking into account individual responsibilities, performance and experience. In making decisions regarding salary increases, we may also draw upon the experience of members of our board of directors with other companies. The board of directors has not previously applied specific formulas to determine increases, although it has generally awarded increases as a percentage of an executive officer’s then-current base salary. This strategy is consistent with our intent of offering base salaries that are cost-effective while remaining competitive.

We hired Glenn L. Cooper, M.D., to serve as our executive chairman in July 2010. Initially, Dr. Cooper was compensated as a consultant for a monthly fee of $25,000. This amount was determined as part of the negotiation of Dr. Cooper’s compensation, conducted on our behalf by Dr. Rosenwald and our former chief executive officer and approved by the board of directors. In April 2011, Dr. Cooper’s consulting arrangement was transitioned into an employment arrangement and his annual base salary of $300,000 was approved by the board of directors at that time.

We hired our former executive vice president, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, Gary G. Gemignani, in May 2010. Mr. Gemignani’s base salary for 2010 was set at $350,000, which was determined as part of the negotiation of Mr. Gemignani’s employment agreement, conducted on our behalf by Dr. Tesi and approved by the board of directors. In February 2011, our board of directors approved a 2% increase to the base salary of Mr. Gemignani, based on increased responsibilities in the absence of a full time chief executive officer and audit oversight responsibilities. In May 2011, Mr. Gemignani’s title was changed to vice president of special projects, pending the termination of his employment at the end of June 2011.

In June 2010, our board of directors approved an increase to the base salary of our then-chief executive officer, Raymond J. Tesi, M.D., as part of the negotiation of an amended and restated employment agreement with Dr. Tesi. The annual base salary for Dr. Tesi was increased from $350,000 to $420,000 based on a reallocation of the percentage of his total compensation from discretionary bonus to annual salary. Dr. Tesi’s employment was terminated in September 2010.

We hired Bobby W. Sandage, Jr., Ph.D. to serve as our president and chief executive officer in April 2011. Dr. Sandage’s annual base salary for 2011 was set at $375,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Dr. Sandage’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Dr. Cooper on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Dr. Sandage’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team. Dr. Sandage’s salary was most similar to that of Dr. Tesi, reflective of the fact that Dr. Sandage succeeded Dr. Tesi as our president and chief executive officer.

We hired Dale Ritter to serve as our senior vice president, finance, chief accounting officer and acting chief financial officer in May 2011. Mr. Ritter’s base salary for 2011 was set at $250,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Mr. Ritter’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Drs. Cooper and Sandage on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Mr. Ritter’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team. Mr. Ritter’s salary was most similar to that of Mr. Gemignani, reflective of the fact that Mr. Ritter succeeded to much of Mr. Gemignani’s responsibilities, while taking in account the fact this his role as acting chief financial officer is temporary until such time as we retain a full time chief financial officer.

Discretionary Bonuses

In addition to the payment of base salaries, we believe that discretionary bonuses can play an important role in providing appropriate incentives to our executives to achieve its strategic objectives. As part of the annual performance reviews, the board of directors has in the past, and the compensation committee will, in the future, review and analyze each executive officer’s overall performance against such executive’s base salary. Currently,

46

Table of Contents

we have not set any specific goals. Dr. Sandage and Mr. Ritter are eligible for a maximum discretionary bonus of 50% and 40%, respectively, pursuant to the terms of their employment agreements. In addition, Dr. Sandage is eligible for additional discretionary bonuses of $62,500, $125,000, $250,000, and $500,000 based on milestones tied to reaching a market capitalization of $125 million, $250 million, $500 million and $1 billion, respectively. Our executive chairman, Dr. Cooper, is not generally eligible for a discretionary bonus.

Following the end of 2010, our board of directors reviewed the annual performance of Mr. Gemignani, the only executive officer eligible for a discretionary bonus, as well as our overall performance and approved the payment of a discretionary bonus to Mr. Gemignani in the amount of $175,000. Such discretionary bonus was paid in cash and was provided in order to continue to motivate the executive to achieve our financial and business objectives and was paid in part based on achievements made by the executive and by us during 2010.

Long-term Incentive Program

We believe that by providing our executives the opportunity to increase their ownership of our stock, the best interests of stockholders and executives will be more aligned and we will encourage long-term performance. The stock awards enable our executive officers to participate in the appreciation of the value of our stock, while personally participating in the risks of business setbacks. We have not adopted stock ownership guidelines and our stock incentive plan has provided our executive officers the only means to acquire equity or equity-linked interests in our company. We do not have any program, plan or obligation that requires us to grant equity compensation on specified dates. Authority to make equity grants to executive officers rests with our board of directors, which considers the recommendations of the executive chairman and the chief executive officer for officers other than themselves, and will in the future take into account recommendation of the compensation committee.

We have granted equity awards primarily through our 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2007 plan”), which was adopted by our board of directors and stockholders to permit the grant of stock options, stock bonuses and restricted stock to our officers, directors, employees and consultants. The material terms of our 2007 plan are further described under “2007 Stock Incentive Plan” below.

In 2010, certain named executive officers were awarded stock options under the 2007 plan in the amounts indicated in the section below entitled “Grants of Plan-Based Awards.” The awards were reviewed for consistency internally among the management team and were determined by members of the board of directors to be consistent with other companies in which the members have experience.

In October 2010, as part of the long-term equity incentive program described above, our board of directors awarded Dr. Cooper, Dr. Tesi and Mr. Gemignani stock options under the 2007 plan in the aggregate amounts of 290,235, 144,120 and 200,000 shares, respectively.

Dr. Sandage was awarded an option in April 2011 to purchase 300,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 plan in connection with the commencement of his employment. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of his overall employment package and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Dr. Sandage and the equity ownership of other members of our management team.

Mr. Ritter was awarded an option to purchase 120,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 plan in connection with the commencement of his employment in May 2011. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of his overall employment package and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Mr. Ritter and the equity ownership of other members of our management team.

47

Table of Contents

In February 2011, Mr. Gemignani was awarded an additional option to purchase 25,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan. The number of shares was approved by the board. In approving the number of shares, the board considered Mr. Gemignani’s increased level of responsibilities described above.

In the absence of a public trading market for our common stock, the board of directors has determined the fair market value of our common stock in good faith based upon consideration of a number of relevant factors including the status of development efforts, financial status and market conditions and based upon valuations obtained from an independent valuation firm.

All option grants typically vest over three years, with one third of the shares subject to the stock option vesting on each annual anniversary of the vesting commencement date. All options have a 10-year term. Additional information regarding accelerated vesting upon or following a change in control is discussed below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control.”

Executive Employment Agreements

We entered into employment agreements with Dr. Cooper and Dr. Sandage in April 2011 and with Mr. Ritter in May 2011. The employment agreements provide for at-will employment, base salary, incentive bonuses, standard employee benefit plan participation and recommendations for initial stock option grants. The employment agreements were each subject to execution of standard proprietary information and invention agreements and proof of identity and work eligibility in the United States. Prior to his employment agreement, Dr. Cooper was party to a consulting agreement with us, which was entered into in August 2010.

Dr. Sandage and Mr. Ritter are each entitled to severance and change in control benefits pursuant to their employment, the terms of which are described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control.” We believe that these severance and change in control benefits help us from a retention standpoint and they are particularly necessary in an industry, such as ours, where there has been market consolidation. We believe that they help these executive officers maintain continued focus and dedication to their assigned duties to maximize stockholder value if there is a change of control. We believe that these severance and change in control benefits are an essential element of our overall executive compensation package. Dr. Cooper is not entitled to severance or change in control benefits.

Perquisites

From time to time our board of directors has provided certain of our named executive officers with perquisites that the board believes are reasonable. We do not view perquisites as a significant element of comprehensive compensation structure, but do believe they can be useful in attracting, motivating and retaining the executive talent for which we compete. We believe that these additional benefits may assist our executive officers in performing their duties and provide time efficiencies for executive officers in appropriate circumstances, and we may consider providing additional perquisites in the future. All future practices regarding perquisites will be approved and subject to periodic review by the compensation committee.

Other Compensation

Consistent with our compensation philosophy, we intend to continue to maintain the current benefits for executive officers, which are also available to our other employees; however, the compensation committee, in its discretion, may in the future revise, amend or add to the benefits of any executive officer if it deems it advisable.

Deductibility of Compensation under Section 162(m)

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 limits our deduction for federal income tax purposes to not more than $1 million of compensation paid to certain executive officers in a calendar year. Compensation above

48

Table of Contents

$1 million may be deducted if it is “performance-based compensation.” We have not yet established a policy for determining which forms of incentive compensation awarded to our executive officers will be designed to qualify as “performance-based compensation.” To maintain flexibility in compensating executive officers in a manner designed to promote our objectives, the board of directors has not adopted a policy that requires all compensation to be deductible. However, it is expected that the compensation committee will evaluate the effects of the compensation limits of Section 162(m) on any compensation it proposes to grant in the future and that future compensation will be provided in a manner consistent with our best interests and those of our stockholders.

Risk Analysis of our Compensation Plans

Our board of directors has reviewed our compensation policies as generally applicable to our employees and believes that the policies do not encourage excessive and unnecessary risk-taking, and that the level of risk that they do encourage is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us. The design of our compensation policies and programs encourage the employees to remain focused on both short-and long- term goals. For example, while our cash bonus plans measure performance on an annual basis, the equity awards typically vest over a number of years, which we believe encourages employees to focus on sustained stock price appreciation, thus limiting the potential value of excessive risk-taking.

Summary Compensation Table

The following table provides information regarding the compensation paid during the year ended December 31, 2010 to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and certain of our other executive officers, who are collectively referred to as “named executive officers” elsewhere in this Form 10. Because Dr. Sandage and Mr. Ritter were not executive officers during 2010, they are not included in the following table.

49

Table of Contents

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

Regardless of the manner in which a named executive officer’s employment terminates, the named executive officer is entitled to receive amounts earned during his term of employment, including salary and unused vacation pay. In addition, each of our named executive officers, other than Dr. Cooper, that are currently employed by us is entitled to severance and change in control benefits described below.

We entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Tesi, our former president and chief executive officer, in June 2010, which superseded a prior employment agreement between Dr. Tesi and us. In January 2011, in connection with the termination of Dr. Tesi’s employment in September 2010, we entered into a separation agreement with Dr. Tesi entitling him to severance benefits. The terms of Dr. Tesi’s separation agreement supersede the terms of his employment agreement. The separation agreement provides that, in exchange for Dr. Tesi’s full release of claims against us, he was entitled to: (i) salary continuation for six months following the effectiveness of the release of claims and (ii) acceleration of vesting for one-third of the options held by him at the time of separation.

We entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Gemignani, our former executive vice president, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, in June 2010. In connection with the termination of Mr. Gemignani’s employment in June 2011, we entered into a separation agreement with Mr. Gemignani entitling him to severance benefits. The terms of Mr. Gemignani’s separation agreement supersede the terms of his employment agreement. The separation agreement provides that, in exchange for Mr. Gemignani’s full release of claims against us, he was entitled to: (i) salary continuation for six months following termination and the effectiveness of the release of claims, (ii) a one-time payment of $89,250, which represented a prorated bonus amount for 2011, (iii) acceleration of vesting for one-third of the options held by him at the time of separation, and (iv) extension of the post-termination exercise period of the accelerated options from three months to six months.

In April 2011, we entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Sandage, our president and chief executive officer, which provides if we terminate Dr. Sandage without cause or he resigns for good reason, he will be entitled to: (i) severance payments at a rate equal to his base salary then in effect for a period of one year following his termination date and (ii) accelerated vesting of one-third of his stock option shares. In addition, if Dr. Sandage is terminated without cause within six months following a change in control, 100% of the shares subject to options and other equity awards granted to him will fully vest as of the date of his execution of a release in connection with such termination. Cause is defined as (a) his willful failure, disregard or refusal to perform his material duties or obligations under the employment agreement which, to the extent it is curable by Dr. Sandage, is not cured within thirty (30) days after we give written notice to him; (b) any willful, intentional or grossly negligent act having the effect of materially injuring (whether financially or otherwise) the business or reputation of us or any of our affiliates; (c) willful misconduct by him with respect to any of the material duties or obligations under the employment agreement, including, without limitation, willful insubordination with respect to lawful directions received from the board of directors which, to the extent it is curable by Dr. Sandage, is not cured within thirty (30) days after we give written notice to him; (d) indictment of any felony involving moral turpitude (including entry of a nolo contendere plea); (e) the determination, after a reasonable and good-faith investigation by us, that he engaged in some form of harassment or discrimination prohibited by law (including, without limitation, age, sex or race harassment or discrimination), unless the actions were specifically directed by the board of directors; (f) material misappropriation or embezzlement of the property of us or our affiliates (whether or not a misdemeanor or felony); or (g) a material breach of any of the provisions of the employment agreement, of any company policy, and/or of his proprietary information and inventions agreement. Good reason is defined as (x) a material reduction of Dr. Sandage’s base salary unless such reduction occurs in connection with a company-wide decrease in executive compensation, (y) a material breach of the employment agreement by us; or (z) a material adverse change in his duties, authority, or responsibilities relative to his duties, authority, or responsibilities in effect immediately prior to such reduction.

In April 2011, we entered into an employment offer letter with Mr. Ritter, our senior vice president, finance, chief accounting officer and acting chief financial officer, which provides if we terminate Mr. Ritter without

50

Table of Contents

cause or he resigns for good reason, he will be entitled to: (i) severance payments at a rate equal to his base salary then in effect for a period of six months following his termination date and (ii) accelerated vesting of one-third of his stock option shares. In addition, if Mr. Ritter is terminated without cause within six months following a change in control, he will be entitled to an additional six months of severance payments (for a total of 12 months) and 100% of the shares subject to options and other equity awards granted to him will fully vest as of the date of his execution of a release in connection with such termination. Cause and good reason are defined as they are for Dr. Sandage and described in the preceding paragraph.

We have routinely granted and will continue to grant our named executive officers stock options under the 2007 plan. For a description of the change in control provisions in such equity incentive plan applicable to these stock options, see “—Equity Incentive Plans—2007 Stock Incentive Plan” below.

The following table sets forth potential payments payable to our named executive officers upon a termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason or termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason following a change in control. The table below reflects amounts payable to our executive officers assuming their employment was terminated on December 31, 2010 and, if applicable, a change in control also occurred on such date. Because Dr. Sandage and Mr. Ritter were not executive officers during 2010 they are not included in the following table.

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

All stock options granted to our named executive officers are incentive stock options, to the extent permissible under the Code. The exercise price per share of each stock option granted to our named executive officers was equal to the fair market value of our common stock as determined in good faith by our board of directors taking into consideration independently-prepared valuation reports on the date of the grant. All stock options were granted under the 2007 plan.

51

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth certain information regarding grants of plan-based awards to our named executive officers for 2010. Because Dr. Sandage and Mr. Ritter were not executive officers during 2010 they are not included in the following table.

52

Table of Contents

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

Our named executive officers did not exercise any stock option awards during the year ended December 31, 2010.

Pension Benefits

None of our named executive officers participate in or have account balances in qualified or non-qualified defined benefit plans sponsored by us.

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

None of our named executive officers participate in or have account balances in qualified or non-qualified defined contribution plans or other nonqualified compensation plans sponsored by us.

Equity Incentive Plans

2007 Stock Incentive Plan

Our board of directors adopted and our stockholders approved our 2007 plan in June 2007 and January 2008, respectively. As of June 30, 2011, 58,040 shares of common stock have been issued under the 2007 plan pursuant to the exercise of options, 2,517,170 shares of common stock were issued as restricted stock awards under the 2007 plan and options to purchase an aggregate of 1,459,070 shares of common stock remain outstanding.

The purpose of the 2007 plan is to provide us with the flexibility to use shares, cash, options or other awards based on our common stock as part of an overall compensation package to provide performance-based compensation to attract and retain qualified personnel. We believe that awards under the 2007 plan may serve to broaden the equity participation of key employees and further link the long-term interests of management and stockholders. Awards under the 2007 plan include shares, cash, options, stock appreciation rights, or a similar right with a fixed or variable price related to the fair market value of the shares and with an exercise or conversion privilege related to the passage of time, the occurrence of one or more events, or the satisfaction of performance criteria or other conditions. Such awards include, without limitation, options, stock appreciation rights, sales or bonuses of restricted stock, restricted stock units or dividend equivalent rights, and an award may consist of one such security or benefit, or two or more of them in any combination or alternative.

There are 6,000,000 shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the 2007 plan, of which 1,965,720 shares are available for issuance as of June 30, 2011.

Administration

The 2007 plan is administered by our board of directors or a committee designated by the board of directors. With respect to grants of awards to our officers or directors, the 2007 plan will be administered by our board of directors or a designated committee in a manner that permits such grants to be exempt from Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. Grants of awards to covered employees as defined under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), will be made only by a committee comprised solely of two or more directors eligible to serve on a committee making awards. The board of directors has the full authority to select recipients of the grants, determine the extent of the grants, establish additional terms, conditions, rules or procedures to accommodate rules or laws of applicable non-U.S. jurisdictions, adjust awards and to take any other action deemed appropriate; however, no action should be taken that is inconsistent with the terms of the 2007 plan.

Available Shares

Subject to adjustment upon certain corporate transactions or events, a maximum of 6,000,000 shares of our common stock may be issued under the 2007 plan. In addition, subject to adjustment upon certain corporate

53

Table of Contents

transactions or events, a participant in the 2007 plan may not receive awards with respect to more than 1,000,000 shares of common stock in any year (and an additional 500,000 shares in connection with a grantee’s commencement of continuous service). Any shares covered by an award which is forfeited, canceled or expires shall be deemed to have not been issued for purposes of determining the maximum aggregate number of shares which may be issued under the 2007 plan, except that the maximum aggregate number of shares which may be issued pursuant to the exercise of incentive stock options shall not exceed 6,000,000. Shares that actually have been issued under the 2007 plan pursuant to an award shall not be returned to the 2007 plan and shall not become available for future issuance under the 2007 plan. To the extent not prohibited by the listing requirements of any established stock exchange or national market system on which our common stock may be traded and any applicable law, any shares covered by an award which are surrendered (i) in payment of the award exercise or purchase price or (ii) in satisfaction of tax withholding obligations incident to the exercise of an award shall be deemed not to have been issued for purposes of determining the maximum number of shares which may be issued pursuant to all awards under the 2007 plan, unless otherwise determined by the plan administrator.

Eligibility and Types of Awards

The 2007 plan permits us to grant stock awards, including stock options to our employees, directors and consultants and the employees, directors and consultants of PBS and its affiliates. A stock option may be an incentive stock option, within the meaning of section 422 of the Code, or a nonstatutory stock option. However, only employees may be granted incentive stock options.

Stock Options

Incentive and nonstatutory stock options are granted pursuant to option agreements adopted by the plan administrator. The plan administrator determines the exercise price for a stock option, within the terms and conditions of the 2007 plan, provided that the exercise price of a stock option cannot be less than 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Options granted under the 2007 plan vest at the rate specified by the plan administrator.

The plan administrator determines the term of the stock options granted under the 2007 plan, up to a maximum of 10 years, except in the case of certain incentive stock options, as described below. Unless the terms of an optionholder’s stock option agreement provide otherwise, if an optionholder’s relationship with us, or any of our affiliates, ceases for any reason other than disability or death, the optionholder may exercise any options vested as of the date of termination but only during the post-termination exercise period designated in the optionholder’s stock option agreement. The plan administrator may determine such other portion of the optionholder’s unvested award that may be exercised during the post-termination exercise period. The optionholder’s stock option agreement may provide that upon the termination of the optionholder’s relationship with us, for cause, the optionholder’s right to exercise its options shall terminate concurrently with the termination of the relationship. If an optionholder’s service relationship with us, or any of its affiliates, ceases due to disability or death, or an optionholder dies within a certain period following cessation of service, the optionholder or beneficiary may exercise any vested options for a period of 12 months. The option term may be extended in the event that exercise of the option following termination of service is prohibited by applicable securities laws or such longer period as specified in the stock option agreement but in no event beyond the expiration of its term.

Acceptable consideration for the purchase of common stock issued upon the exercise of a stock option will be determined by the plan administrator and may include (a) cash or check, (b) surrender of a promissory note acceptable to the plan administrator (subject to minimum interest provisions set forth in the 2007 plan) (c) a broker-assisted cashless exercise, (d) the tender of common stock previously owned by the optionholder, (e) a net exercise of the option, (f) past or future services rendered and (g) any other legal consideration approved by the plan administrator.

54

Table of Contents

Unless the plan administrator provides otherwise, options generally are not transferable except by will, the laws of descent and distribution, or pursuant to a domestic relations order. An optionholder may designate a beneficiary, however, who may exercise the option following the optionholder’s death.

Incentive stock options may be granted only to our employees. The aggregate fair market value, determined at the time of grant, of shares of our common stock with respect to incentive stock options that are exercisable for the first time by an optionholder during any calendar year under the 2007 plan may not exceed $100,000. No incentive stock option may be granted to any employee who, at the time of the grant, owns or is deemed to own stock possessing more than 10% of the total combined voting power or that of any of our affiliates unless (a) the option exercise price is at least 110% of the fair market value of the stock subject to the option on the date of grant and (b) the term of the incentive stock option does not exceed five years from the date of grant.

Stock Awards and Restricted Stock

A stock award consists of the transfer by us to a participant of shares of common stock. The consideration for the shares to be issued shall be determined by the plan administrator. Shares of common stock acquired pursuant to a stock award may, but need not be, subject to a share repurchase option in our favor in accordance with a vesting schedule to be determined by the plan administrator.

Other Awards

In the case of other awards granted under the 2007 plan, the administrator has the authority to determine the exercise or purchase price, if any.

Corporate Transactions

Effective upon the consummation of a corporate transaction, all outstanding awards under the 2007 plan shall terminate. However, all such awards shall not terminate to the extent they are assumed in connection with the corporation transaction.

The plan administrator shall have the authority, exercisable either in advance of any actual or anticipated corporate transaction or change in control or at the time of an actual corporate transaction or change in control and exercisable at the time of the grant of an award under the 2007 plan or any time while an award remains outstanding, to provide for the full or partial automatic vesting and exercisability of one or more outstanding unvested awards under the 2007 plan and the release from restrictions on transfer and repurchase or forfeiture rights of such awards in connection with a corporate transaction of change in control, on such term and conditions as the plan administrator may specify. The plan administrator shall also have the authority to condition any such award vesting and exercisability or release from such limitations upon the subsequent termination of the continuous service of the holder of the award within a specified period following the effective date of the corporate transaction or change in control. The plan administrator may provide that any awards so vested or released from such limitations in connection with a change in control, shall remain fully exercisable until the expiration or sooner termination of the award.

Amendment and Termination

Our board of directors may amend, suspend or terminate the 2007 plan as it deems advisable, except that it may not amend the 2007 plan in any way that would adversely affect a participant with respect to an award previously granted. In addition, our board of directors may not amend the 2007 plan without stockholder approval if such approval is then required pursuant to Section 422 of the Code, the regulations promulgated thereunder or the rules of any stock exchange or similar regulatory body.

55

Table of Contents

In September 2010, we entered into a consulting agreement with Dr. Rowinsky, one of our directors, pursuant to which we granted an option to purchase 193,490 shares of common stock at an exercise price equal to $1.37, the fair market value at the time of grant, to Dr. Rowinsky in connection with his service as our vice chairman. In addition, Dr. Rowinsky is paid $250,000 per year for his services as our vice chairman.

In October 2010, our board of directors adopted a compensation program for our non-employee directors (“the Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy”). Pursuant to the Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy, each member of our board of directors who is not our employee and who is not otherwise receiving compensation from us pursuant to another arrangement, will receive an annual cash retainer of $30,000, payable quarterly, and received an initial option grant to purchase up to 25,000 shares of our common stock. Such stock options vest in three annual installments.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation limits the liability of our directors to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. Delaware law provides that directors of a corporation will not be personally liable for monetary damages for breach of their fiduciary duties as directors, except for liability for any:

56

Table of Contents

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation does not eliminate a director’s duty of care and, in appropriate circumstances, equitable remedies, such as injunctive or other forms of non-monetary relief, remain available under Delaware law. These limitations also do not affect a director’s responsibilities under any other laws, such as the federal securities laws or other state or federal laws. Our amended and restated bylaws provide that we will indemnify our directors and executive officers, and may indemnify other officers, employees and other agents, to the fullest extent permitted by law. Our amended and restated bylaws also provide that we may advance expenses incurred by a director or officer in advance of the final disposition of any action or proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of such director or officer to repay such amount if it shall ultimately be determined that he is not entitled to be indemnified by us and secure insurance on behalf of any officer, director, employee or other agent for any liability arising out of his or her actions in connection with their services to us, regardless of whether our amended and restated bylaws permit such indemnification. We have obtained a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy.

We have entered, and intend to continue to enter, into separate indemnification agreements with our directors and executive officers, in addition to the indemnification provided for in our amended and restated bylaws. These agreements, among other things, require us to indemnify our directors and executive officers for certain expenses, including attorneys’ fees, judgments, fines and settlement amounts incurred by a director or executive officer in any action or proceeding arising out of their services as one of our directors or executive officers, or any of our subsidiaries or any other company or enterprise to which the person provides services at our request. We believe that these bylaw provisions and indemnification agreements are necessary to attract and retain qualified persons as directors and officers.

The limitation of liability and indemnification provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may discourage stockholders from bringing a lawsuit against directors for breach of their fiduciary duties. They may also reduce the likelihood of derivative litigation against directors and officers, even though an action, if successful, might benefit us and our stockholders. A stockholder’s investment may be harmed to the extent we pay the costs of settlement and damage awards against directors and officers pursuant to these indemnification provisions.

At present, there is no pending litigation or proceeding involving any of our directors or executive officers as to which indemnification is required or permitted, and we are not aware of any threatened litigation or proceeding that may result in a claim for indemnification.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

None of our officers currently serves, or has served during the last completed fiscal year, on the compensation committee or board of directors of any other entity that has one or more officers serving as a member of our board of directors.

Item 7. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Related Party Transactions

The following is a description of transactions since January 1, 2008 to which we have been a party, in which the amount involved exceeded or will exceed $120,000, and in which any of our directors, executive officers or beneficial owners of more than 5% of our capital stock, or an affiliate or immediate family member thereof, had or will have a direct or indirect material interest, other than compensation, termination and change-in-control arrangements, which are described under “Executive Compensation.”

57

Table of Contents

Convertible Note and Equity Financings

2008 Bridge Financing

Between February 2008 and April 2008, we issued convertible promissory notes in an aggregate amount of $4.1 million (“2008 Notes”). The 2008 Notes bore interest at the rate of 8% to 10% per annum and, as extended, matured on September 30, 2010. Manchester Securities Corp. (“Manchester”), a holder of more than 5% of our capital stock, purchased $2.0 million principal amount of 2008 Notes. In April 2010, the 2008 Notes held by Manchester, together with accrued interest, were converted into 411,763 shares of our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series A shares”). Brookline, a holder of more than 5% of our capital stock, purchased $1.5 million principal amount of 2008 Notes. In April 2010, the 2008 Notes held by Brookline, together with accrued interest, were converted into 307,212 Series A shares.

2009 Bridge Financing .

Between July 2009 and September 2009, we issued convertible promissory notes in an aggregate amount of $3.5 million (“2009 Notes”). The 2009 Notes bore interest at the rate of 8% to 10% per annum and, as extended, matured on September 30, 2010.

2010 Series A Financing .

In April 2010 and August 2010, we issued an aggregate of 2,584,166 Series A shares for an aggregate purchase price of $21.7 million (not including the conversion of the 2008 Notes and the 2009 Notes) to investors (the “Series A Financing”). Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D., one of our directors and principal stockholders, and Brookline, a principal stockholder, purchased 98,164 and 328,963 Series A shares, respectively, for a purchase price of $8.39 per share.

Asphelia Asset Purchase

In January 2011, we acquired certain assets of Asphelia relating to CNDO-201 pursuant to an asset purchase agreement. The consideration paid for the assets included the assumption of certain Asphelia liabilities and the issuance of 2,525,677 Series B shares. At the time of such acquisition, Mr. Lobell, one of our directors, was the chief executive officer and a director of Asphelia and Dr. Rosenwald, one of our directors and a principal stockholder, was a significant stockholder of Asphelia. One liability assumed from Asphelia was a 10% senior

58

Table of Contents

promissory note (the “PCP Note”) dated January 2009 issued by Asphelia to PCP, an entity whose managing member is Dr. Rosenwald, in the principal amount of $750,000. Interest on the PCP Note is at the rate of 10% per annum payable quarterly, in arrears, and the principal matures on the earliest of (i) December 31, 2013 and (ii) the consummation of a merger, share exchange or other similar transaction.

Other Loans

In December 2007, January 2008, February 2008, May 2009 and July 2009, we issued future advance promissory notes of $415,000 to Capretti Grandi, LLC, $415,000 to the LAR Family Trusts, and $1,391,000 to PBS, all entities affiliated with Dr. Rosenwald. In 2009, we repaid $600,000 of the principal and related interest of the PBS notes. All remaining principal and accrued interest on these promissory notes converted into Series A shares in connection with the first closing of the Series A Financing in April 2010.

In January 2009, May 2009 and June 2009, we issued 10% senior promissory notes to PCP, an entity affiliated with Dr. Rosenwald and Mr. Lobell, two of our directors, in the aggregate principal amount of $570,000. These promissory notes were repaid in full on September 30, 2010.

Placement Agency Agreements

Dr. Rosenwald is the chairman, chief executive officer and sole stockholder of PBC, which served as the placement agent for the offerings of our convertible debt and equity securities in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Pursuant to the engagement agreement for such prior offerings, PBC has a right of first refusal to act as the lead-finder, placement agent or other similar agent in relation to any securities offerings on our behalf during the 18-month period following the date of the final closing of the last offering for which it was our placement agent, which occurred on August 30, 2010. In connection with the provision of placement agency services by PBC for our Series A shares, we paid an aggregate of $2.2 million in cash fees and issued PBC warrants to purchase an aggregate of 258,418 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $8.39 per share. In connection with the placement of our convertible debt, we paid Paramount $529,000 in cash and issued to PBC 90,226 warrants to purchase common stock at $9.229 per share. All of such warrants were subsequently transferred by PBC to other individuals and entities. PBC waived its right of first refusal to act as placement agent for our 2011 Series C Financing.

In October 2010, Dr. Rosenwald indirectly acquired a controlling interest in National Securities Corporation (“National”), which served as the placement agent for the Series C Financing in May and June 2011, through an investment in National Holdings Corporation, the 100% owner and parent of National. Dr. Rosenwald’s investment is through Opus, which beneficially owns approximately 23.6% of National Holdings Corporation. Dr. Rosenwald beneficially owns a 50% interest in Opus. In connection with this private placement, National received commissions of $2.6 million and five year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 461,263 Series C shares at an exercise price of $5.39 per share, which were subsequently transferred by National to other individuals and entities.

Services Agreements

From June 2006 to June 2008, PBS, of which Dr. Rosenwald is the sole member, provided us with certain drug development, professional, administrative and back office support services pursuant to a services agreement. In return for the services provided, we paid PBS $25,000 per month and reimbursed PBS for its actual out-of-pocket expenses of up to $5,000 per month. From July 2008 through June 2011, PBS contributed back office support at a determined value of $10,000 per quarter. In addition to Dr. Rosenwald, one of our non-employee directors, Mr. Lobell, is an employee, president and chief operating officer of PBS.

In 2010, we entered into consulting agreements with two of our directors, Drs. Cooper and Rowinsky, each as more fully described in “Executive and Director Compensation—Non-Employee Director Compensation.” The 2010 letter agreement with Dr. Cooper was superseded by the employment agreement we entered into with him in April 2010.

In July 2011, the board approved an employment agreement with Eli Renov, a nephew of Dr. Lindsay Rosenwald. Pursuant to the agreement, as compensation for providing certain international investor relations services, Mr. Renov receives a monthly salary of $12,500 and is eligible for a maximum discretionary bonus of 25% of his base salary. Mr. Renov was granted an option to purchase 30,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.95 per share.

59

Table of Contents

We have entered into employment arrangements with our executive officers, as more fully described in “Executive and Director Compensation—Executive Employment Agreements” and “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control.”

Stock Options Granted to Executive Officers and Directors

We have granted stock options to our executive officers and directors, as more fully described in the section entitled “Executive and Director Compensation.”

Indemnification Agreements

We have entered, and intend to continue to enter, into separate indemnification agreements with each of our directors and executive officers, as described in “Executive and Director Compensation—Limitation of Liability and Indemnification.”

Director Independence

Board Leadership Structure

Our board of directors has a chairman, Dr. Cooper, who has authority, among other things, to call and preside over board meetings to set meeting agendas and to determine materials to be distributed to the board of directors. Accordingly, the chairman has substantial ability to shape the work of the board of directors. We believe that separation of the positions of chairman and chief executive officer reinforces the independence of the board in its oversight of our business and affairs. In addition, we believe that having a separate board chairman creates an environment that is more conducive to objective evaluation and oversight of management’s performance, increasing management accountability and improving the ability of the board of directors to monitor whether management’s actions are in the best interests of us and our stockholders. As a result, we believe that having a separate board chairman can enhance the effectiveness of the board of directors as a whole.

Role of the Board in Risk Oversight

Our audit committee is primarily responsible for overseeing our risk management processes on behalf of the full board of directors. Going forward, we expect that the audit committee will receive reports from management at least quarterly regarding our assessment of risks. In addition, the audit committee reports regularly to the full board of directors, which also considers our risk profile. The audit committee and the full board of directors focus on the most significant risks we face and our general risk management strategies. While the board oversees our risk management, management is responsible for day-to-day risk management processes. Our board of directors expects management to consider risk and risk management in each business decision, to proactively develop and monitor risk management strategies and processes for day-to-day activities and to effectively implement risk management strategies adopted by the audit committee and the board of directors. We believe this division of responsibilities is the most effective approach for addressing the risks we face and that our board leadership structure, which also emphasizes the independence of the board in its oversight of its business and affairs, supports this approach.

Board Committees

In July 2011, our board of directors established an audit committee comprised of Messrs. Rogers, Barrett and Lobell, each of whom is a non-employee member of the board of directors. Mr. Rogers serves as the chair of the audit committee. The audit committee operates under a charter approved by our board.

The functions of this committee include, among other things:

60

Table of Contents

Our board of directors has determined that each member of the audit committee meets the financial literacy requirements under the applicable NYSE Amex or NASDAQ Stock Market rules and that Mr. Rogers’ employment experience qualifies him as an audit committee financial expert within the meaning of SEC rules and regulations.

Following the effectiveness of this Form 10, we expect to establish a compensation committee of the board that will be responsible for creating and recommending the compensation of our executive officers to our board of directors, overseeing our compensation and benefit plans and policies and administering our equity incentive plans.

Item 8. Legal Proceedings.

We are not party to any pending legal proceedings.

Item 9. Market Price of and Dividends on the Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters.

Market information

There is no established public trading market in our common stock. Our securities are not listed for trading on any national securities exchange nor are bid or asked quotations reported in any over-the-counter quotation service.

Equity Compensation Plans

We expect that in the future we will file a registration statement on Form S-8 under the Securities Act registering the common stock subject to outstanding options or reserved for issuance under our 2007 plan. That registration statement will become effective immediately upon filing, and shares covered by that registration statement will thereupon be eligible for sale in the public markets, subject to grant of the underlying awards, vesting provisions and Rule 144 limitations applicable to our affiliates.

Holders

As of June 30, 2011, there were 7,028,059 shares of common stock outstanding, which were held by approximately 329 record stockholders. In addition, there were 4,357,885 Series A shares outstanding, which

61

Table of Contents

were held by approximately 269 record holders, there were 2,525,677 Series B shares outstanding, which were held by approximately 29 record holders and there were 4,612,624 Series C shares outstanding, which were held by approximately 343 record holders. As of June 30, 2011, each Series A share, Series B share and Series C share was convertible into one share of common stock.

As of the date of this Registration Statement, we have no present commitments to issue shares of our capital stock to any 5% holder, director or nominee, other than pursuant to the exercise of outstanding options and warrants as more fully set forth elsewhere in this Form 10.

Dividends

We have never paid cash dividends on any of our capital stock and currently intends to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business.

Stock Not Registered Under the Securities Act; Rule 144 Eligibility

Our common stock and convertible preferred stock, including our common stock and convertible preferred stock underlying outstanding options and warrants, have not been registered under the Securities Act. Accordingly, the shares of common stock and preferred stock issued and outstanding and the shares of common stock and preferred stock issuable upon the exercise of any options and warrants may not be resold absent registration under the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or an available exemption thereunder.

Rule 144

Shares of our common stock that are restricted securities will be eligible for resale in compliance with Rule 144 (“Rule 144”) or Rule 701 (“Rule 701”) of the Securities Act, subject to the requirements described below. “Restricted Securities,” as defined under Rule 144, were issued and sold by us in reliance on exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. These shares may be sold in the public market only if registered or if they qualify for an exemption from registration, such as Rule 144 or Rule 701. Below is a summary of the requirements for sales of our common stock pursuant to Rule 144, as in effect on the date of this Form 10, after the effectiveness of this Form 10.

Affiliates

Affiliates will be able to sell their shares under Rule 144 beginning 90 days after the effectiveness of this Form 10, subject to all other requirements of Rule 144. In general, under Rule 144, an affiliate would be entitled to sell within any three-month period a number of shares that does not exceed one percent of the number of shares of our common stock then outstanding. Sales under Rule 144 are also subject to manner of sale provisions and notice requirements and to the availability of current public information about us.

Persons who may be deemed to be our affiliates generally include individuals or entities that control, or are controlled by, or are under common control with, us and may include our directors and officers, as well as our significant stockholders.

Non-Affiliates

For a person who has not been deemed to have been one of our affiliates at any time during the 90 days preceding a sale, sales of our shares of common stock held longer than six months, but less than one year, will be subject only to the current public information requirement and can be sold under Rule 144 beginning 90 days after the effectiveness of this Form 10. A person who is not deemed to have been one of our affiliates at any time during the 90 days preceding a sale, and who has beneficially owned the shares proposed to be sold for at least one year, is entitled to sell the shares without complying with the manner of sale, public information, volume limitation or notice provisions of Rule 144 upon the effectiveness of this Form 10.

62

Table of Contents

Rule 701

Rule 701 under the Securities Act, as in effect on the date of this Form 10, permits resales of shares in reliance upon Rule 144 but without compliance with certain restrictions of Rule 144, including the holding period requirement. Most of our employees, executive officers, directors or consultants who purchased shares under a written compensatory plan or contract may be entitled to rely on the resale provisions of Rule 701, but all holders of Rule 701 shares are required to wait until 90 days after the effective date of this Form 10 before selling their shares under Rule 701.

For more information about the material terms of these warrants, please see “Item 11. Description of Registrant’s Securities to be Registered.”

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The following table sets forth information regarding our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2010. There are no equity compensation plans that have not been approved by our security holders.

Item 10. Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities.

The following list sets forth information regarding all securities sold or issued for services by us since January 2008:

63

Table of Contents