agtc-10k_20180630.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting common shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $64.9 million, computed by reference to the closing sale price of the common stock as reported by The Nasdaq Global Market on December 29, 2017, the last trading day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. The Company has no non-voting common shares.

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of August 31, 2018 was 18,129,148.

Certain information required to be provided in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K will be provided by a definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Proxy Statement) to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or before October 26, 2018.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the sections entitled “Business,” “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains forward-looking statements. These statements may relate to, but are not limited to, expectations of our future results of operations, business strategies and operations, financing plans, potential growth opportunities, potential market opportunities and the effects of competition, as well as assumptions relating to the foregoing. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified. These risks and other factors include, but are not limited to, those listed under “Risk Factors.” In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “intend,” “potential,” “might,” “would,” “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions. Actual events or results may differ materially.

There may be events in the future that we are not able to accurately predict or control and that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations we describe in our forward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, including the securities laws of the United States and the rules and regulations of the SEC, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K after we file it, whether as a result of any new information, future events or otherwise. Before you invest in our common stock, you should be aware that the occurrence of any of the events described in the “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements.

As used herein, except as otherwise indicated by context, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company” refer to Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation.

Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (“AGTC”) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that uses a proprietary gene therapy platform to develop transformational genetic therapies for patients suffering from rare and debilitating diseases. Our initial focus is in the field of ophthalmology, where we continue to progress clinical programs in X-linked retinoschisis (XLRS), X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP), and achromatopsia (ACHM) and a preclinical program in optogenetics. In addition to ophthalmology, we have initiated preclinical programs in adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), which is a disease of the central nervous system (CNS) and several programs in otology. With a number of important clinical milestones on the horizon, we believe we are well positioned to advance multiple programs towards pivotal studies. In addition to our product pipeline, we have also developed broad technological capabilities in the design, construction and manufacture of viral vectors using adeno-associated virus (AAV) technology. Finally, our collaboration with Biogen, which includes clinical programs in XLRS and XLRP and discovery programs in ALD and two ophthalmology indications, validates our approach and technology, and continues to provide us with cash runway to advance our wholly owned candidates.

Our objective is to become a leader in developing and commercializing gene therapy treatments for patients with severe diseases, with an initial focus in ophthalmology, and thereby provide a better life for patients with these diseases. Our strategy to accomplish this goal is to:

Sight is critical to the human experience. Many people fear blindness more than premature death. Consequently, we have decided to focus our expertise in gene therapy on orphan diseases in ophthalmology. These orphan indications have patient populations that are small enough to allow for clinical trials on a manageable scale but have a sufficient prevalence to provide substantial commercial opportunity. By focusing initially on orphan ophthalmology product candidates, we are also able to leverage our experience and develop strong relationships within the relevant scientific and medical communities. Our clinical trials are conducted mainly at academic test centers and by working with the principal investigators and surgeons at these test centers, we have realized a number of important synergies.

Our most advanced product candidates consist of four ophthalmology development programs across three targets: XLRS caused by mutations in the RS1 gene, ACHM, caused by mutations in either the CNGB3 gene or the CNGA3 gene, and XLRP caused by mutations in the RPGR gene. These three inherited orphan diseases of the eye are caused by mutations in single genes that significantly affect visual function and currently lack effective medical treatments.

In addition to these clinical-stage ophthalmology programs, we have a pre-clinical program in collaboration with Bionic Sight to develop an optogenetic product candidate for patients with advanced retinal disease.

In December 2017, we started enrolling patients in a Phase 1/2 trial designed to test the safety and efficacy of our gene-therapy product candidate for the treatment of ACHM caused by mutations in the CNGA3 gene.

In April 2018, we dosed the first patient in our XLRP Phase 1/2 trial and received a corresponding milestone payment of $2.5M from Biogen.

Also in April 2018, we completed our targeted enrollment of 27 patients in our XLRS Phase 1/2 clinical trial.

In June, 2018, we received approval from the Israeli Ministry of Health (MOH) for our ACHM CNGA3 Phase 1/2 clinical trial, allowing us to begin enrolling patients in Israel for that trial.

In July 2018, we dosed the fourth patient in our XLRP Phase 1/2 trial and earned a corresponding milestone payment of $10M, which was received in August, 2018.Our Strengths

We believe the combination of our technology expertise and product development know-how positions us well to be leaders in the gene therapy field. We believe our strengths include:

Although the concept of gene therapy is relatively straightforward, the process of developing and manufacturing vectors capable of delivering genetic material safely into a patient’s own cells is highly technical and demands significant expertise, experience and know-how. Our approach to gene therapy product development is built on our core competencies in three key areas: vector design, vector manufacturing and vector delivery, each of which is described in further detail below. One of our key capabilities is our depth of understanding of the complex interplay between the clinical disease, the cells in the patient’s body that need treatment, the selection of a capsid and a promoter, the design of the gene construct and the physical administration method. We have spent more than 18 years conducting research on the best combinations of these elements with the aim of developing safe and effective product candidates.

Vector Selection Overview. The success of a gene therapy platform is highly dependent on the vector selected. Our platform is based on the use of a modified version of the non-replicating AAV to deliver the correct DNA directly to the nucleus of the cells affected by the disease. As an underlying platform, we believe that AAV vectors are particularly well suited for treating our target diseases and have advantages over other viral vectors, such as adenovirus, herpes virus and lentivirus. These advantages include:

Vector design. After selection of the vector type, there are other critical factors to be considered to maximize the safety and efficacy of the final gene therapy product:

We have developed a proprietary, high-yield vector manufacturing process using scalable technologies. While our manufacturing method uses the herpes virus as a helper in the first step of a four-step AAV vector manufacturing process, there is no herpes virus in the final product. Our propriety process for AAV manufacturing uses robust cell lines that are well characterized and have been included in multiple regulatory submissions in the United States and Europe. This process is highly efficient and selective, generating more packaged vector with higher fidelity of target sequences than other production systems. We have developed and transferred over 30 robust and quantitative product-specific assays consistent with expected requirements for clinical development and are currently validating the assays as required for regulatory approval. We supplement our deep manufacturing experience with characterization of the resulting candidate technology. We have successfully completed technology transfer for vector manufacturing to three Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMOs) and multiple partners. Additionally, in the last year we have made several process improvements leading to a ten-fold increase in productivity and conversion to a fully scalable suspension process.

Our manufacturing process has been reviewed by the FDA, the Irish Medicines Board, and the Israeli Ministry of Health and has been authorized for production of product candidates for use in clinical trials in the United States, Europe and Israel. To date we have successfully manufactured clinical trial material for seven different indications using three different manufacturing vendors, to ensure sufficient capacity, and believe we are the only AAV gene therapy company with this level of experience. Our manufacturing process is reproducible and scalable. Our process development facility is operational and we are conducting equipment evaluation runs with multiple vendors to support development of commercial processes for our product candidates.

We own or have licensed 67 issued patents, nine pending patent applications and three allowed patent applications covering our manufacturing technology. We believe that our core competency and intellectual property estate in vector manufacturing differentiate us competitively and provide a key differentiating element of our gene therapy platform.

The complexity of gene therapy manufacturing and lack of dedicated infrastructure to support it have historically resulted in poor reproducibility and lack of reliability in meeting material needs beyond the early human clinical setting. rAAV vector manufacturing has been limited by inefficient constructs, poor scalability, inadequate yields and insufficient purity. We have committed substantial resources to developing an integrated production and testing platform capable of meeting both clinical and commercial needs, including:

Taken together, we believe the efficiency, productivity, scalability, characterization and regulatory definition of our proprietary rAAV manufacturing platform uniquely position us to accelerate from early phase human clinical trials to late phase, BLA-enabling data in all our clinical programs.

Our gene therapy platform allows for vector delivery by a variety of methods, and we select the method that is best suited for the disease and cell type that we are targeting.

In ophthalmology, the product candidate can best be delivered to cells in the eye by either injecting the product candidate into the vitreous of the eye, an intravitreal injection, or by injecting the product candidate under the retina, a sub-retinal injection. Our ongoing clinical trial for our XLRS product candidate uses intravitreal injection, which we also expect to use as the method of delivery for Bionic Sights’ optogenetic product candidate. We are using sub-retinal injection as the method of delivery for our ACHM and XLRP product candidates in our ongoing clinical trials.

Surgical techniques used to introduce AAV in otology indications include microinjection into the cochlea via an apical cochleostomy or through the round window membrane. Like the eye, the inner ear sensory organ – the organ of Corti – is bathed by fluid-filled spaces, enabling accessible vector administration.

Once a product candidate is identified in our ALD discovery program, we expect it will be administered by intrathecal delivery, which is an injection into the cerebrospinal fluid.

Our four most advanced product candidates address ophthalmology indications XLRS, ACHM B3, ACHM A3, and XLRP, which are orphan diseases of the eye that are caused by mutations in single genes, significantly affect visual function starting at birth and currently lack effective medical treatments. Ophthalmology is attractive to us as a clinical stage company because treatments for diseases affecting vision have clearly defined, objective clinical endpoints with validated measurement tools that are accepted by regulatory authorities. Other orphan drug companies have spent considerable time and resources working with regulatory authorities to identify acceptable clinical endpoints and develop measurement tools in rare diseases with limited epidemiology data available. In ophthalmology four accepted endpoints—visual acuity, visual fields, contrast sensitivity and color vision—are well understood by clinicians. In addition, the FDA consistently applies these endpoints and works with industry to provide guidance on how much improvement is required for clinical relevancy. We believe that these endpoints could help accelerate the process of clinical study and regulatory approval for our ophthalmic product candidates. We have also been encouraged by recent guidance for rare and inherited retinal disease that we believe signals the agency’s willingness to work collaboratively on novel clinical design and novel endpoints that could help advance products to patients more efficiently.

XLRS is an inherited retinal disease, meaning that children are born with the defective gene that causes poor visual function that significantly affects daily living activities. XLRS is specifically caused by mutations in the RS1 gene, which is located on the X chromosome and encodes the retinoschisin, or RS1, protein. Retinoschisin is expressed and secreted primarily from photoreceptor cells and binds strongly and specifically to the surface of photoreceptor and bipolar cells in the retina. Mutated forms of retinoschisin are unable to bind properly, resulting in schisis, or splitting of the layers of the retina, primarily in the macula. The disease begins early in childhood, and affected boys typically have best-corrected visual acuity of 20/60 to 20/120 at initial diagnosis. Complications such as vitreous hemorrhage or retinal detachment occur in up to 40% of patients, especially in older patients. According to a published study, the incidence rate for XLRS is between one in 5,000 and one in 20,000 males. Using a conservative incidence rate of 1 in 11,500 and assuming half the population is male, we estimate that there are about 35,000 persons with XLRS in the United States and Europe combined.

The diagnosis of XLRS is made based on clinical findings and results of imaging studies and Electroretinogram (ERG). ERG is a clinical test that measures the electrical function of the retina. Clinical findings include reduced visual acuity and a characteristic spoke-wheel appearance of the macula when viewed by an ophthalmoscope, which is the instrument commonly used by ophthalmologists and optometrists to view the retina. Images obtained by optical coherence tomography, or OCT, a method of viewing layers of the eye somewhat like a sonogram, show spaces between the layers of the retina within the macula and fovea in most school-age boys with XLRS. These spaces mean that electrical signals cannot move from the photoreceptors to other retinal neurons and on to the brain, resulting in poor vision.

There is currently no approved treatment for XLRS. Management of disease manifestations includes low vision aids such as large-print textbooks, preferential seating in the front of the classroom and use of handouts with high contrast. Surgery may be required to address complications of vitreous hemorrhage or full-thickness retinal detachment, which occur in up to 40% of patients.

Previous anecdotal evidence has indicated that treatment with carbonic anhydrase inhibitors may provide a reduction in the degree of schisis. However, data from our natural history study demonstrated that topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors provided reduction in the degree of schisis in only some patients. In any case, the absence of controlled clinical trials makes interpretation of these data difficult. In addition, treatment with carbonic anhydrase inhibitors does not address the fundamental genetic defect in persons affected by XLRS. Neither carbonic anhydrase inhibitors nor any other medicinal products have been approved by regulatory agencies for treatment of XLRS.

Our gene therapy approach involves using an AAV vector to insert a functional copy of the RS1 gene into the patient’s retinal cells, thereby inducing those cells to produce the normal retinoschisin protein. Our XLRS product candidate contains the RS1 gene and a promoter that has been shown to work well in primate retinal cells, and is packaged in a proprietary engineered AAV capsid that is able to efficiently enter target cells in the inner layers of the retina after intravitreal injection. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that our XLRS product candidate has relevant activity in an animal model of the disease.

We are currently conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of our XLRS product candidate at nine clinical sites that specialize in inherited retinal diseases. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial is safety, and available data thus far have shown that the XLRS product candidate is generally safe and well tolerated. In addition to safety, this trial will measure biologic activity by assessing changes in visual function, visual acuity and quality of life.

The Phase 1/2 clinical trial protocol, is designed as a dose escalating trial to evaluate our product candidate in XLRS patients at three dose levels. In April, 2018, we completed targeted enrollment of 27 patients and expect to provide topline six-month data for these patients across both safety and biologic activity endpoints by the end of 2018, with the primary analysis of the full twelve-month active trial data six months later. We are also currently enrolling additional pediatric patients in the high dose group.

We have also completed a natural history study in persons affected by XLRS. The results from 56 participants with XLRS were evaluated on cross sectional and longitudinal measures of visual acuity, visual field sensitivity, microperimetry, cyst volume and ERG. The data suggest that patients with XLRS show a spectrum of visual function, with baseline visual acuity ranging from 0 to 82 ETDRS letters (average = 55.5; approximately 20/80). Measures of visual function were stable over time and weakly correlated to changes in cyst volume or patient age.

Successful completion of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial and the natural history study will guide us, and our collaborator Biogen, in finalizing the design of a potential pivotal clinical trial. In a pivotal trial, we would expect to enroll between 40 and 75 patients who will be evaluated for changes in visual function, and other parameters identified in the Phase 1/2 trial, over a 12-month period. If successful, we believe the results of this second trial could support submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, to the FDA in the United States and a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, to the EMA in Europe for our XLRS product candidate.

As a part of our collaboration, Biogen has obtained worldwide commercialization rights for the XLRS program. We will be responsible for the clinical development program through product approval. Biogen will fully reimburse us for the clinical development costs, subject to certain conditions, following the first-in-human study. We have an option to share development costs and profits after the initial clinical trial data are available.

ACHM is an inherited retinal disease, meaning that children are born with the defective gene that causes poor visual function, which significantly affects daily activities. ACHM is present from birth and throughout life and is characterized by a lack of cone photoreceptor function. Cone photoreceptors which are concentrated in the macula and the fovea, respond to moderate or bright intensity light and mediate fine visual acuity. Individuals with ACHM have markedly reduced visual acuity, photophobia or light sensitivity, and complete loss of color discrimination. Their only functioning photoreceptors are rod photoreceptors, which respond to low intensity light conditions and mediate night vision but cannot achieve fine visual acuity. Best-corrected visual acuity in persons affected by ACHM, even under subdued light conditions, is usually about 20/200, a level at which people are considered legally blind. They also experience extreme light sensitivity resulting in even worse visual acuity under normal daylight conditions, or day blindness.

ACHM can be caused by mutations in any of at least five genes that are required for normal cone photoreceptor function. The most common causes are mutations in the CNGB3 gene (about half of all cases) or CNGA3 gene (about one-fourth of all cases). These genes encode the CNGB3 and CNGA3 proteins, which combine to form a channel in the photoreceptor membrane that is required for photo-transduction, the process of converting light into electrical signals that the brain can understand. According to published reports, the incidence rate for ACHM is approximately one in 30,000 people, and we therefore estimate that there are about 10,000 people in the United States and about 17,000 people in Europe with ACHM. Of these, about half, or a total of 13,500 in the United States and Europe combined, have the form of the disease caused by mutations in the CNGB3 gene and approximately 6,800 people have the form of the disease caused by mutations in the CNGA3 gene.

Our gene therapy approach to treatment of ACHM involves using an AAV vector to insert a functional copy of the CNGB3 or CNGA3 gene into the patient’s photoreceptor cells. Our ACHM product candidates contain either the CNGB3 or the CNGA3 gene and a proprietary cone specific promoter that has been shown in preclinical studies to drive efficient gene expression in all three types of primate cone photoreceptors and restores cone photoreceptor function in dog, mouse and sheep models of ACHM.

We are currently enrolling patients in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial at five clinical sites that specialize in inherited retinal diseases. An additional site is performing advanced optical testing on patients. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial is safety, and while available data thus far have shown that the ACHM CNGB3 product candidate is generally safe and well tolerated, we did experience initial variability in surgical procedures which we have now resolved. In addition to safety, this trial will measure biologic activity by assessing changes in visual function, visual acuity and quality of life.

The current clinical protocol, is designed as a dose escalating trial to evaluate our product candidate in ACHM patients at three dose levels.

The dosing levels for this trial were modified in November, 2017 to reflect additional preclinical data indicating the potential for efficacy at lower doses and thus increasing safety margins. As of September 6, 2018, we have completed enrollment of 6 patients across these two groups and two patients in a higher dose group.

We have also completed enrollment in a natural history study in persons affected by ACHM caused by CNGB3 mutations and results from the study will be presented in appropriate scientific meetings and publications.

Successful completion of the Phase 1/2 clinical study and the natural history study will guide us in finalizing the design of a potential pivotal clinical trial. In a pivotal trial, we expect that between 40 and 75 patients will be enrolled and evaluated for changes in visual function over a 12-month period following treatment. If successful, we believe the results of this pivotal trial could support our submission of a BLA to the FDA and of an MAA to the EMA for our ACHM-B3 product candidate.

We are currently enrolling patients in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial at five clinical sites that specialize in inherited retinal diseases. An additional site is performing advanced optical testing on patients. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial is safety, and available data thus far have shown that the ACHM CNGA3 product candidate is generally safe and well tolerated. In addition to safety, this trial will measure biologic activity by assessing changes in visual function, visual acuity and quality of life.

The current clinical protocol, is designed as a dose escalating trial to evaluate our product candidate in ACHM patients at three dose levels. As of September 6, 2018, we have dosed two patients in the low dose group of this trial.

Additionally, we have nearly completed enrollment in a natural history study in persons affected by ACHM caused by CNGA3 mutations and results from the study will be presented in appropriate scientific meetings and publications.

Retinitis pigmentosa is an inherited retinal disease with progressive loss of vision, meaning children are born with defective genes that cause poor visual function that significantly affects daily activities and worsens over time. XLRP is commonly first observed in boys and young men who notice problems with vision under low light conditions, or night blindness, followed by a restriction of peripheral visual fields, or tunnel vision, leading to poor central vision and eventually to total blindness.

The incidence rate for retinitis pigmentosa is about one in 4,000 people, according to a published study, and we estimate that there are about 75,000 people in the United States and 125,000 people in Europe with retinitis pigmentosa, or 200,000 people in the United States and Europe. According to a published study, about 10% of cases of retinitis pigmentosa are XLRP, from which we therefore estimate that there are about 20,000 persons with XLRP in the United States and Europe combined.

Our gene therapy approach to treatment of XLRP involves using an AAV vector to insert a functional copy of the RPGR gene into the patient’s photoreceptor cells. Our XLRP product candidate contains an optimized and stabilized RPGR gene and a promoter that has been shown in preclinical studies to drive efficient gene expression in primate rods, cones and restores photoreceptor function in dog and mouse models of XLRP.

We are currently enrolling patients in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial at four clinical sites that specialize in inherited retinal diseases. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial is safety, and available data thus far have shown that the XLRP product candidate is generally safe and well tolerated. In addition to safety, this trial will measure biologic activity by assessing changes in visual function, visual acuity and quality of life.

The current clinical protocol, is designed as a dose escalating trial to evaluate our product candidate in XLRP patients at three dose levels. As of September 6, 2018, we have dosed 5 patients across two dose groups.

We are also conducting a natural history study in patients with XLRP caused by RPGR mutations. This study documents the progression of the disease in the absence of treatment and is providing important information about the best methods for measuring visual function and other parameters in these patients, which will guide us in the design and evaluation of subsequent clinical trials in which our product candidate will be tested for safety and efficacy.

Successful completion of the Phase 1/2 clinical study and the natural history study will guide us, and our collaborator Biogen, in finalizing the design of a potential pivotal clinical trial. In a pivotal trial, we expect that between 80 and 120 patients will be enrolled and evaluated for changes in visual function over a 24-month period following treatment. If successful, we believe the results of this pivotal trial could support our submission of a BLA to the FDA and of an MAA to the EMA for our XLRP product candidate.

As a part of our collaboration, Biogen obtained worldwide commercialization rights for our XLRP program. We will lead the clinical development program through the completion of first-in-human trials. Biogen will fully reimburse us for the clinical development costs, subject to certain conditions, following the IND-enabling studies. We have an option to share development costs and profits after the initial clinical trial data are available, and an option to co-promote the second of two product candidates (XLRS and XLRP) to be approved in the United States. As of September 6, 2018, we have earned a total of $12.5M in clinical milestones related to the dosing of patients in this trial.

In support of our clinical programs described above, we continue to conduct research to fully understand the underlying technology. Additionally, we have multiple new programs that are in early safety and preclinical proof of concept of stages that are described below.

Three AAV gene therapy vectors are currently in Phase I/II clinical development for treatment of patients with XLRP. To compare the relative attributes of these vectors, a study was conducted which compared the photoreceptor transduction efficiency of subretinally delivered AAV2tYF, the AAV capsid used in AGTC product candidates, AAV5 and AAV8 capsids in a head-to-head non-human primate (NHP) experiment. Non-human primates were injected with each of the vectors and were followed for 13 weeks. Safety parameters included ocular exams, clinical observations, clinical pathology, and anatomic histopathology. A direct comparison between AAV2tYF (n=12), AAV5 (n=4) and AAV8 (n=8) revealed that AAV2tYF was comparable to or superior to both AAV5 or AAV8 in transduction of photoreceptors in NHPs when delivered subretinally, while demonstrating a similar, moderate inflammatory response. Therefore, AAV2tYF represents, an attractive therapeutic choice for human XLRP gene therapy.

Both intravitreal, and to a lesser extent, subretinal administration elicits an inflammatory response to AAV. The ocular inflammation is most strongly correlated to total vector dose, and appears to occur in two phases: immediate, surgery/injection related (more explicit with sub-retinal injections) and delayed; in response to vector (processing of capsid and/or transgene expression). Much work has been done to understand similar findings in the liver following AAV administration, but in the eye it remains unclear what specific property of the vector preparation drives inflammation. To this end, through a series of detailed, well-controlled studies in non-human primates, we performed a systematic evaluation of the potential contributory factors involved, and have been able to eliminate the following as key drivers of inflammation: production methodology (transfection versus HSV), characteristics of the AAV product (full to empty capsid ratio, transgene and process residuals) and capsid serotype (AAV2 versus AAV8) or novel engineered variant (AAV2tYF). To date, none of the studies indicate that we should make changes in our product candidates, but we continue to work in non-human primates to understand ocular inflammation.

As part of our collaboration with Bionic Sight we are developing an optogenetic candidate treatment for individuals having retinitis pigmentosa (RP) who have lost light sensitivity. RP is a large group of inherited retinal disorders in which progressive degeneration of photoreceptors or retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) leads to vision loss which is independent of a patients’ genetic mutation. In Europe and the United States, about 200,000 patients suffer from RP and every year between 15,000 and 20,000 patients with RP suffer vision loss. The clinical manifestations of affected individuals present first as defective dark adaptation or “night blindness,” followed by reduction of peripheral visual fields and, eventually, loss of central vision. While the photoreceptor cell layers of these patients degenerate, the ganglion cell layer remains intact.

Optogenetics is a biological technique by which cells are modified to express light-sensitive proteins. These light sensitive proteins open or close in response to light and allow millisecond-scale temporal manipulation of electrical events. Therefore, optogenetics provides a way to manipulate the activity of cells by controlling these proteins with light. A number of studies have been published on the effectiveness of these proteins for treating RP in animal models. Other studies have shown their effectiveness supplemented with a vision-enhancing device known as a retinal prosthesis. The device receives images, processes them, and then converts them into the same patterns of electrical pulses that the brain normally receives from normally functioning photoreceptors.

The candidate treatment being developed by AGTC and Bionic Sight is a recombinant AAV that expresses an optogenetic protein, ChronosFP, in the retinal ganglion cells. Light then activates the ChronosFP to send electrical signals from the retinal ganglion cells to the brain. Bionic Sight is developing a device with a retinal code that can provide light signals to the retinal ganglion cells that will result in an image the brain can recognize and may significantly enhance vision in patients who have received the optogenetic treatment. Our collaborator, Bionic Sight, plans to file an IND for this product candidate for the treatment of RP in the first half of calendar 2019.

We believe our current gene therapy platform will enable us to develop and test new AAV vectors that carry gene sequences for other inherited diseases in ophthalmology (it is estimated that approximately 290 genes causing inherited retinal disease have been identified), and that by leveraging our work on our lead programs we can reduce the need for early research work. In this way, we anticipate being able to move products efficiently through preclinical studies and into clinical development. As an example, in January 2016 we announced a research effort in collaboration with the Blue Cone Monochromacy Family Foundation, in blue cone monochromacy (BCM), a rare genetic disease of the retina that almost exclusively affects males. We also believe that there are large-market ophthalmology diseases where AAV vectors may provide benefit, such as wet AMD.

Our collaboration with Biogen includes options for three discovery programs, two in ophthalmic diseases and one in a non-ophthalmic condition. On February 8, 2016, we announced that Biogen had selected adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) as the indication for the non-ophthalmic discovery program.

ALD is an X-linked disorder of fatty acid metabolism that leads to accumulation of very long chain fatty acids in tissues throughout the body, mainly in the central nervous system and the adrenal gland. Clinically, ALD is a heterogeneous disorder with several distinct phenotypes, including rapidly declining neurological function and early death in young boys or progressive muscular weakness leading to lower limb paralysis in adults. There are approximately 14,000 patients with ALD in the United States. We are working with Biogen on vector design, animal model proof of concept and targeting studies in non-human primates in order to obtain data to support moving a potential product candidate to IND enabling studies.

We previously announced a broad initiative in the area of otology in which we will use our capabilities to develop potential gene therapy product candidates that can address genetic causes of hearing loss. Hearing loss is one of the most common human sensory deficits and it is estimated that nearly half of the cases have a genetic origin. Of the inherited forms of hearing loss, more than 300 genetic causes have been defined with the specific gene identified for more than 70. Despite the impairment that can be caused by deafness, very little progress has been made in developing therapies that go beyond the temporary and partial solutions provided by hearing aids and cochlear implants. In multiple academic research studies, replacement of defective genes in animal models with normal copies has been shown to improve sound propagation in the auditory hair cells, making this a potentially promising application of AAV gene therapy. Additionally, the inner ear shares many of the characteristics that make ophthalmology attractive: it is anatomically well defined and is a small, well contained space where the target cells to be treated are easily identified. Also, the clinical outcome measures for treatments for hearing loss are well defined. Developing product candidates for conditions having these characteristics is a natural complement to our ophthalmology portfolio strategy as we apply our core capabilities and expertise to a new disease field. As part of our efforts in otology, we formed a scientific advisory board and have conducted a detailed evaluation of the development and commercial landscape. From these efforts, we have selected targets that are technically feasible and commercially viable. To augment this exercise, we have been actively screening novel capsid variants in mouse and guinea-pig for their ability to transduce the key cell types of the cochlear – inner and outer hair cells, supporting cells and spiral ganglion neurons. Below are representative examples of immunohistochemical analyses, using GFP as the reporter transgene, from the mouse cochlear, demonstrating cell profiles of interest.

To supplement these mouse and guinea-pig studies, we have recently demonstrated that AAV vectors can safely be administered to non-human primates without adversely affecting auditory brainstem responses, and transduce the cell types of interest in the cochlea.

In addition to the capsid identification studies, we intend to control the specificity of transgene expression by designing and testing novel synthetic promoters for the cochlear cell types of interest highlighted above. Such promoters, when placed upstream of the transgene of interest, will ensure that the gene replacement occurs in the correct cell, and limit the likelihood of inappropriate gene expression leading to adverse consequences from a safety perspective.

We have formed strategic alliances in which both parties contribute expertise to enable the discovery and development of potential gene therapy product candidates. To access the substantial funding and other resources required to develop and commercialize gene therapy products, we intend to seek additional opportunities to form strategic alliances with collaborators who can augment our industry-leading gene therapy expertise.

Since inception of the collaboration agreement, we have earned or received milestone payments from Biogen totaling $17.5 million consisting of:

Biogen will also receive an exclusive license to use our proprietary manufacturing technology platform to make AAV vectors for up to six genes, three of which are chosen at our discretion, in exchange for payment of milestones and royalties.

On February 2, 2017, we entered into a strategic research and development collaboration agreement with Bionic Sight to develop therapies for patients with visual deficits and blindness due to retinal disease. Through the AGTC-Bionic Sight collaboration, the companies seek to develop a new optogenetic therapy that leverages AGTC’s deep experience in gene therapy and ophthalmology and Bionic Sight’s innovative neuro-prosthetic device and algorithm for retinal coding.

Under the agreement, AGTC made an initial $2.0 million payment to Bionic Sight for an equity interest in that company. This initial investment represents an approximate 5 percent equity interest in Bionic Sight. In addition to the initial investment, AGTC will contribute to ongoing research and development costs through additional payments or other in-kind contributions. These payments and contributions will be made over time, up to the date that Bionic Sight has received both investigational new drug clearance from the FDA and receipt of written approval from an institutional review board to conduct clinical trials from at least one clinical site for that product candidate.

AGTC will receive additional equity, based on the valuation in place at the beginning of the agreement, for these cash and in-kind research and development contributions and will be obligated to purchase additional equity in Bionic Sight for $4.0 million, upon the filing of an IND for the product candidate at a pre-determined valuation. Our collaborator, Bionic Sight, plans to file an IND for this product candidate for the treatment of RP in the first quarter of calendar 2019.

We will continue to seek to partner with other gene therapy companies and academic institutions to leverage our expertise in vector design, research, manufacturing and the regulatory process. The goal of these collaborations would be to forge strategic partnerships around technologies and programs that would fit with our current and future development pipeline. In general, we would seek new intellectual property, development programs in rare diseases, pipeline products where the regulatory pathway is understood, partners with strong scientific, clinical and management expertise, and programs that have synergy with our current knowledge base and product pipeline that would add to our industry leadership. We would also be looking at programs where the disease being treated has a large enough patient population that there would be adequate financial returns for the investment of resources.

All of our scientific founders spent part of their careers at the University of Florida, or UF, and three are still UF faculty members. Since our inception we have licensed significant technology from and funded research at multiple labs at UF. Pursuant to four agreements, we have licensed three U.S. patents and multiple pending applications covering inventions made at UF. UF has multiple capabilities in genetic cloning, gene therapy manufacturing, novel capsid identification, animal model development and

facilities for both small and large animal testing, and in certain instances we have benefited from the ability to conduct important research at UF without having to expand in-house facilities and personnel. We interact frequently with the Powell Gene Therapy Center at UF and have an excellent working relationship with the UF Office of Technology Licensing.

In May 2013, we and UF were jointly awarded an $8.3 million grant from the National Eye Institute to support development of our ACHM CNGB3 product candidate, with Dr. William Hauswirth, one of our scientific founders a Professor and holder of the Rybaczki-Bullard Chair in the Department of Ophthalmology at UF, as principal investigator. As a sub-awardee, we expect to receive approximately $3.8 million over five years under this grant. As of June 30, 2018, we have received payments in the aggregate amount of $2.8 million under this grant.

We have long believed that when developing product candidates to treat orphan indications it is important to form strong relationships with patient advocacy groups, and we have done this successfully with both the Foundation Fighting Blindness, or FFB, and the Alpha-1 Foundation. Both organizations are well known for their advocacy of patients’ interests in obtaining diagnosis, developing treatments and providing for reimbursement. Both actively support research into treatment, and we have been awarded three research grants totaling $1.6 million from the FFB and one grant of $0.3 million from the Alpha-1 Foundation. More importantly, both organizations have been instrumental in assisting us in forming ties with disease experts, recruiting patients into clinical trials and helping us to understand the needs, wants and concerns of patients. We also have relationships with other advocacy organizations such as Achroma Corp, the BCM Family Foundation, MOMS For Sight, Curing Retinal Blindness Foundation, Sofia Sees Hope, National Organization for Rare Disorders, ALD Connect, The Alpha-one Project and Global Genes.

In addition, we have formed strong relationships with key academic centers across the United States that have core competencies in gene therapy, orphan ophthalmology and AAT deficiency. These centers conduct sponsored research, act as advisors and collaborate with us on grant proposals. Since our inception, we have been awarded a variety of grant funding, either independently or with our collaborators. This funding has provided peer-reviewed scientific validation of our programs and has facilitated critical early stage research for our lead product candidates.

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties and seeking patent term extensions where available. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary technology platform and on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of gene therapy that may be important for the development of our business. In addition to IP and trade secrets, we also will rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations, data exclusivity and market exclusivity for our product candidates, when possible.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our patents; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial product candidates and methods of manufacturing the same.

We have developed or in-licensed numerous patents and patent applications and possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to the development, commercialization and manufacture of gene therapy product candidates. Our proprietary intellectual property, including patent and non-patent intellectual property, is generally directed to, for example, certain genes and promoters, methods of transferring genetic material into cells, processes to manufacture our AAV-based product candidates and other proprietary technologies and processes related to our lead product candidates.

As of August 15, 2018, our patent portfolio included approximately 70 patents and patent applications that we own and approximately 48 patents and patent applications that we have licensed. More specifically, we own nine U.S. patents, seven pending U.S. applications, 32 foreign patents and 22 foreign patent applications. We have licensed six U.S. patents, two pending U.S. applications, 35 foreign patents and two pending foreign patent applications. Of the patents and patent applications that we own or license, 79 cover methods to manufacture AAV vectors, the longest lived and most significant of which is expected to expire in 2029. In October 2017, we were awarded US Patent Number 9,783,826 directed to methods of producing recombinant AAV viral particles using suspension BHK cells. This patent extends the protection on our AAV manufacturing platform from 2025 to 2029. Two of the

patents and 18 of the patent applications that we own are directed to small cone promoters and uses thereof. A patent issuing from this group could have an expiration date in 2034.

Our objective is to continue to expand our portfolio of patents and patent applications in order to protect our gene therapy product candidates and AAV manufacturing process. Our owned and licensed patent portfolio includes patents and patent applications directed to our XLRS, ACHM, and XLRP programs, as well as our foundational AAV production platform. See also “License agreements”.

In addition to the above, we have established expertise and development capabilities focused in the areas of preclinical research and development, manufacturing and manufacturing process scale-up, quality control, quality assurance, regulatory affairs and clinical trial design and implementation. We believe that our focus and expertise will help us develop product candidates based on our proprietary intellectual property and to expand our intellectual property portfolio.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the non-provisional application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. The issued patents that are material to our business are expected to expire on various dates from 2018 to 2029.

The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration of a U.S. patent as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent per approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple product candidates, it can only be extended based on one product candidate. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. When possible, depending upon the length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of a BLA, we expect to apply for patent term extensions for patents covering our product candidates and their methods of use.

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

We have rights to use and exploit multiple technologies disclosed in issued and pending patents under licenses from other entities. We consider the commercial terms of these licenses, which provide for modest milestone and royalty payments, and their provisions regarding diligence, insurance, indemnification and other similar matters, to be reasonable and customary for our industry.

We currently have three agreements with the University of Florida Research Foundation, or UFRF, an affiliate of UF, of which the principal licenses are as follows:

Under the terms of this license, we made cash and stock-based up-front payments to UFRF and JHU and are required to make payments ranging from the mid-five figures to the low-six figures based upon development, regulatory and commercial milestones for any product candidates covered by the in-licensed intellectual property. Assuming that we meet each of the specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones not more than once for each product candidate, which we expect will be the case, the maximum aggregate milestone payments payable under this license with respect to any individual product candidate that we commercialize will be $0.5 million. We will also be required to pay a royalty on net sales of product candidates covered by the in-licensed intellectual property in the low-single digits. We have the right to sublicense our rights under this agreement, and we will be required to pay a percentage of such license

income in the low-double digits. We are required to make annual maintenance payments in the low four figures under this license, which payments are creditable against royalty payments on a year-by-year basis.

This license will terminate upon the earlier to occur of the expiration of all of the patents subject to the license and the date on which royalty payments, once commenced, cease for more than three calendar quarters. Additionally, UFRF and JHU may terminate this license upon certain breaches by us of the terms of the license and we may terminate the license at any time by submitting written notice to UFRF.

Under the terms of these licenses, we made cash up-front payments to UFRF and are required to make payments ranging from the mid-five figures to the low-six figures based upon development, regulatory and commercial milestones for any product candidates covered by the in-licensed intellectual property. Assuming that we meet each of the specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones not more than once for each product candidate, which we expect will be the case, the maximum aggregate milestone payments payable under these licenses with respect to any individual product that we commercialize will be $0.6 million. We will also be required to pay a royalty on net sales of products covered by the in-licensed intellectual property in the low-single digits. We have the right to sublicense our rights under these agreements, and we will be required to pay a percentage of such license income in the mid-single digits. We are required to make annual maintenance payments in the mid four figures under these licenses, which payments are creditable against royalty payments on a year-by-year basis.

These licenses will continue until the expiration of all of the patents subject to the licenses, provided or, if later, a date specified in the license. Additionally, UFRF may terminate this license upon certain breaches by us of the terms of the licenses and we may terminate the licenses at any time by submitting written notice to UFRF.

The longest-lived patent covered by these licenses is expected to expire in 2029. There are also patent applications pending under these licenses.

A license agreement from the UAB Research Foundation affiliated with The University of Alabama at Birmingham signed in 2006, relates to one U.S. patent with claims covering the use of HSV helpers to produce AAV vectors. The patent is expected to expire in 2025. Effective in July 2015, we modified the license from co-exclusive to exclusive.

Under the terms of this license, we made a cash up-front payment to the UAB Research Foundation, and we will be required to make payments ranging from the mid-five figures to the low-six figures based upon development and regulatory milestones for any products covered by the in-licensed intellectual property. Assuming that we meet each of these development and regulatory milestones not more than once for each product, which we expect will be the case, the maximum aggregate milestone payments payable under this license with respect to any individual product that we commercialize will be $0.5 million. We will also be required to pay a royalty on net sales of products covered by the in-licensed intellectual property in the low-single digits. We have the right to sublicense our rights under this agreement, and we will be required to pay a percentage of such license income in the mid-single digits. We are required to make annual maintenance payments in the mid-four figures under this license, which payments are creditable against royalty payments on a year-by-year basis.

This license will terminate upon the expiration of all of the patents subject to the license. Additionally, the UAB Research Foundation may terminate this license upon certain breaches by us of the terms of the license and we may terminate the license at any time by submitting written notice to the UAB Research Foundation.

We continue to collaborate with 4DMT and Synpromics in order to develop optimized capsids to target specific cell populations and novel synthetic promoters, respectively.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense and rapidly changing competition to develop new technologies and proprietary products, and any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will have to compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. While we believe that our proprietary technology estate and scientific expertise in the gene therapy field provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including larger and better-funded pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions that may develop potentially competitive products or technologies.

Currently there are no approved products for any of our lead orphan ophthalmology indications of XLRS, ACHM and XLRP, although at least one company is developing a candidate gene therapy treatment intended to treat each indication. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the success of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience of administration and delivery, price, the level of generic competition, market exclusivity and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Biological products, including gene therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. Before clinical testing of biological products may begin, we must submit an IND which must go into effect, and each clinical trial protocol for a gene therapy product candidate is reviewed by the FDA and, in some instances, the NIH, through its Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or RAC. FDA approval of a BLA also must be obtained before marketing of biological products in the United States. 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 and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals.

Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, regulates gene therapy products. CBER works closely with the NIH and its RAC, which makes recommendations to the NIH on gene therapy issues and engages in a public discussion of scientific, safety, ethical and societal issues related to proposed and ongoing gene therapy protocols. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols. The FDA also has published guidance documents related to, among other things, gene therapy products in general, their preclinical assessment, observing subjects involved in gene therapy studies for delayed adverse events, potency testing, and chemistry, manufacturing and control information in gene therapy INDs.

Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy, genetic testing and genetic research have led to the enactment of legislation such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 and could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive regulations or claims that our product candidates are unsafe or pose a hazard could prevent us from commercializing any product candidates. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

In August 2017, Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) became the first gene therapy product approved by the FDA. It was followed by two additional gene therapy approvals, the most recent being Luxturna (voretigene neparvovec-rzyl) in December 2017. The Luxturna approval is of relevance to AGTC because it is a subretinally administered AAV vector that treats patients with a rare form of inherited vision loss. It is also the first FDA approved gene therapy that targets a disease caused by mutations in a specific gene.

FDA’s acknowledged recognition of the promise of gene therapy and their expectation that the field will continue to expand has led them to take additional steps this past year to support the advancement of gene therapy products. In July 2018 they issued a suite of draft guidance documents that provide insight into their expectations for product development including manufacturing, clinical trial design and development in rare diseases. AGTC’s review of the draft guidelines found we are aligned with the Agency’s approach to product development and we see opportunities to advance our programs as anticipated following the collection of appropriate safety and efficacy data.

In Europe, two gene therapy products have been approved. In 2012, the EMA approved a gene therapy product called Glybera, which is the first gene therapy product approved by regulatory authorities anywhere in the Western world. Most recently, Strimvelis became the second gene therapy product approved by the EMA.

The process required by the FDA before a biological product candidate may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Before testing any biological product candidate, including a gene therapy product candidate, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including applicable GLP requirements.

When a gene therapy trial is conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant DNA research, along with the submission of an IND to the FDA, the protocol and related documentation is submitted to and the trial is registered with the NIH Office of Science Policy, or OSP, pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA, however many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. The oversight bodies at the initial clinical site(s) (Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)) are responsible for recommending whether or not the clinical study requires public review by the RAC, a federal advisory committee, which discusses protocols that raise novel or particularly important scientific, safety or ethical considerations. This recommendation is included with the protocol and related documentation submitted to the OSP as part of the trial registration process. The OSP may agree or disagree with that recommendation. Should the oversight bodies recommend public RAC review and the OSP concurs, the protocol will then be reviewed at one of the NIH RAC’s quarterly meetings for which information must be submitted at least eight weeks in advance. RAC proceedings and reports are posted to the OBA web site and may be accessed by the public.

The clinical trial 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. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, although IND sponsors generally wait until the FDA affirmatively provides notice that the agency has no issues with the IND. If the FDA places the clinical trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. With gene therapy protocols, if the FDA allows the IND to proceed, and the trial oversight bodies and the OSP decide that full public review of the protocol is warranted, initiation of the protocol will be delayed until after completion of the RAC review process. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure 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 trials.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. 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, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the GCP standards, human subject protection requirements, and FDA’s investigational new drug requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Clinical trials also must be reviewed by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap, be combined, or be bifurcated into two parts:

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be required as a condition of approval or may be recommended after initial marketing approval if required. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. Depending on the type of product and mechanism of action, the FDA may recommend that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events as part of a long-term follow up that includes annual examinations and/or annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of trial subjects.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions, any findings from other trials, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. 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 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 can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Human gene therapy products are a new category of therapeutics. Although the FDA recently approved three gene therapy products in the United States, gene therapy remains a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions. Consequently, there can be no assurance as to the length of the trial period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the trials in order to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of human gene therapy products, or that the data generated in these trials will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval. The NIH and the FDA have a publicly accessible database, the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System, which includes information on gene transfer trials and serves as an

electronic tool to facilitate the reporting and analysis of adverse events on these trials. Over the last several years the FDA has issued helpful guidance on development of gene therapy products and has recently shown an increased willingness to work closely with developers, especially with those working in orphan disease areas.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product candidate in commercial quantities in accordance with GMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with the use of biological products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product candidate, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product candidate. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product candidate, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product candidate is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product candidate for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fee schedule for fiscal year 2019, which becomes effective October 1, 2018, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as a BLA, is $2,588,478. PDUFA also imposes an annual prescription drug program fee ($309,915) for certain approved products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for product candidates designated as orphan drugs, unless the product candidate also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product candidate is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with GMP regulations to assure and preserve the product candidate’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product candidate. A REMS may be imposed to ensure safe use of the drug, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product candidate is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product candidate unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with GMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product candidate within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. To assure GMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product candidate 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 candidate. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

One of the performance goals agreed to by the FDA under the PDUFA is to review 90% of standard BLAs in 10 months and 90% of priority BLAs in six months, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States if there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biological product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product candidate. Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product candidate that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years; however, the FDA has not yet established what characteristics of a gene therapy product are relevant to determining whether two gene therapy products would be considered the same for purposes of orphan drug market exclusivity. The FDA may approve a second drug or biological product during an exclusivity period in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product does not have exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, benefits.

The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a Fast Track product candidate at any time during the clinical development of the product candidate. Unique to a Fast Track product candidate, the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product candidate is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product candidate designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review, and aims to review such applications within six months as opposed to ten months for standard review. Additionally, a product candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Under the provisions of the new Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, enacted in 2012, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval and receive the same benefits as drugs with Fast Track designation. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Following the establishment of the breakthrough therapy designation, FDA established the regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT) designation in conjunction with the 2016 21^st Century Cures Act. Like the breakthrough designation, the RMAT designation requires preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the therapy has the potential to address unmet medical needs. However, the RMAT designation does not require evidence to indicate that the drug may offer a substantial improvement over the available therapies, which the breakthrough therapy designation does.

Fast Track designation, priority review, accelerated approval, breakthrough therapy designation and RMAT designation do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Maintaining compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to GMP requirements. We will rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the GMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include reporting of GMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release. In this case, as part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as the prohibition of preapproval promotion, requirements related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in-patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or

manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological 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 GMPs and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain GMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility 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.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of product development and the FDA review of a BLA, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for one or more of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

A biological product can obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This amendment to the PHS Act attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

A reference biologic is granted twelve years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. On June 23, 2016 the Price Relief, Innovation, and Competition for Essential Drugs (PRICED) Act was introduced, which would reduce exclusivity for biological drugs from twelve to seven years. The first biologic product submitted under the biosimilar abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitting under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of (i) one year after the first commercial marketing, (ii) 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, (iii) 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologics’ patents if an application has been submitted, or (iv) 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Sales of our products, when and if approved for marketing, will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government health care programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Given the potential for long term durable therapeutic benefit from the single administration of a gene therapy product, the question of appropriate pricing and method of payment, including annuity payments and “pay for performance” schemes, is currently an active discussion and, depending on outcome, could affect the use of our products and our financial performance.

Although we currently do not have any products on the market, we may be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician sunshine laws and regulations, many of which may become more applicable to us if our product candidates are approved and we begin commercialization. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Our research and development expenses were $32.2 million, $26.2 million and $39.4 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

As of June 30, 2018, we had 78 full-time employees, 48 of whom have Ph.D., M.D. or other post-graduate degrees. Of these full-time employees, 55 are engaged in research and development activities and 23 are engaged in finance, human resources, facilities and general management.

All of our personnel are co-employees of AGTC and a professional human resource service organization, TriNet HR Corporation, or TriNet. Under our agreement with TriNet, TriNet is a co-employer of our personnel, and is responsible for administering all payroll functions, including tax withholding, and providing health insurance and other benefits for these individuals. We reimburse TriNet for these costs and pay TriNet an administrative fee for its services. We are responsible for, and control, all aspects of the hiring, retention, compensation, management and supervision of our personnel. We consider the terms of our contract with TriNet to be reasonable and customary and believe this arrangement provides substantial benefit to us, in the form of lower costs for employee benefits and a reduced administrative burden on us.

We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

We were incorporated in Florida in January 1999 and reincorporated in Delaware in October 2003. On April 1, 2014, we completed our initial public offering of our common stock, which is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “AGTC.” Our principal executive offices are located at 14193 NW 119^th Terrace, Suite 10, Alachua, Florida 32615, and our telephone number is (386) 462-2204. Our corporate website address is www.agtc.com. Through our website, we make available, free of charge, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports, as well as proxy statements, and, from time to time, other documents as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this annual report.

We use “AGTC” and the double helix logo as trademarks in the United States and other countries. As of June 30, 2016, these trademarks have been registered in the United States, European Union and Japan.

This annual report contains references to our trademarks and to trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this annual report, including logos, artwork, and other visual displays, may appear without the or ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any such companies.

As a company with less than $1.07 billion in revenue during our last fiscal year, we qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. As an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of specified reduced disclosure and other requirements that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

We may take advantage of these exemptions for up to five years from the date of our initial public offering of common stock or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.07 billion in annual revenue, we have more than $700 million in market value of our stock held by non-affiliates or we issue more than $1 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some, but not all, of the available exemptions.

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

You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with the information included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and other documents we file with the SEC. The risks and uncertainties described below are those that we have identified as material, but are not the only risks and uncertainties facing us. Our business is also subject to general risks and uncertainties that affect many other companies, such as overall U.S. and non-U.S. economic and industry conditions including a global economic slowdown, geopolitical events, changes in laws or accounting rules, fluctuations in interest and exchange rates, terrorism, international conflicts, major health concerns, natural disasters or other disruptions of expected economic and business conditions. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial also may impair our business operations and liquidity.

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

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company, and we have not yet generated revenues from product sales. With the exception of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, in which we reported net income of $0.4 million due in part to the amortization associated with our collaboration agreement with Biogen, we have incurred losses from operations in each year since our inception in 1999. We reported net losses of $21.3 million and $1.4 million for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018 and 2016, respectively. As of our most recent fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, we had an accumulated deficit of $110.9 million. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and may continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We have devoted most of our financial resources to research and development, including our clinical and preclinical development activities. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities and, to a lesser extent, through research grants from third parties or milestone payments from a collaborator. The amount of our future net losses will depend,

in part, on the rate of our future expenditures and our ability to obtain funding through equity or debt financings, strategic collaborations or additional grants. We anticipate that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our future revenues will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates have received approval, and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, reimbursement from third-party payors and adequate market share for our product candidates in those markets.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular quarter or quarters, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Our ability to generate revenue from product sales is highly uncertain and we may never achieve or sustain profitability, which could depress the market price of our common stock, and could cause you to lose part or all of your investment.

All of our revenue generated to date has come from research grants from third parties or license fees or milestone payments from collaborations. Our ability to generate substantial revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with strategic collaboration partners such as Biogen and Bionic Sight, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, our product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for at least the next several years, if ever. If any of our product candidates fail in clinical trials or do not gain regulatory approval, or if any of our product candidates, if approved, fail to achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our ability to generate future revenues from product sales depends heavily on our success in:

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate, particularly to the extent that we seek to commercialize any product for an indication, such as wet AMD, that has a patient population significantly larger than those addressed by our current lead product candidates. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory agencies, domestic or foreign, to perform clinical trials and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations.

In order to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates, we will need to raise additional funding in the future, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

Other than our product candidates for the treatment of XLRS, XLRP, ACHM CNGB3 and ACHM CNGA3, all of our lead programs in orphan ophthalmology and otology are currently in preclinical development. Developing gene therapy products is expensive, and we expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially as we advance our current product candidates in clinical trials and as we undertake preclinical studies of new product candidates.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. As of June 30, 2018, and 2017, our cash and cash equivalents and investments amounted to $104.9 million and $138.4 million, respectively. Our research and development expenses were $32.2 million, $26.2 million and $39.4 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents at June 30, 2018 will be sufficient to enable us to advance planned preclinical studies and clinical trials for our lead product candidates for at least the next two years. In order to complete the process of obtaining regulatory approval for our lead product candidates and to build the sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure that we believe will be necessary to commercialize our lead product candidates, if approved, we will require substantial additional funding. Also, our current operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or a combination of these approaches.

Any such fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, financing may not be available to us in the future in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and a portion of our operating cash flows, if any, being dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness, and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available, and we may be required to relinquish or license on unfavorable terms rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

If we are unable to obtain needed funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

All of our product candidates are in preclinical or clinical development. Clinical drug development is expensive, time consuming and uncertain, and we may ultimately not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, which regulations differ from country to country. Our product candidates are in various stages of development and are subject to the risks of failure typical of drug development. The development and approval process is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for any of our product candidates. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the later-stage clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA. To receive regulatory approval, we must, among other things, demonstrate with substantial evidence from clinical trials that the product candidate is safe, pure and effective for each indication for which approval is sought, and failure can occur in any stage of development. Satisfaction of the approval requirements typically takes several years and the time needed to satisfy them may vary substantially, based on the type, complexity and novelty of the pharmaceutical product. We cannot predict if or when we might receive regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates currently under development.

The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities also have substantial discretion in the drug approval process. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or condition that the product candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, and there may be varying interpretations of data obtained from preclinical studies or clinical trials, either of which may cause delays or limitations in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. Regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals could materially adversely affect our ability to generate revenue from the particular product candidate, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our

stock price. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a product candidate may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which we may market the product candidate. These limitations may limit the size of the market for the product candidate.

We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States or in other countries until we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA or marketing approval from applicable regulatory authorities outside the United States. Obtaining approval of a BLA can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. If we fail to obtain FDA approval to market our product candidates, we will be unable to sell our product candidates in the United States, which will significantly impair our ability to generate any revenues. In addition, failure to comply with FDA and non-U.S. regulatory requirements may, either before or after product approval, if any, subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

Even if we do receive regulatory approval to market a product candidate, any such approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which we may market the product. It is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals necessary for us or our collaborators to commence product sales. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability.

Our gene therapy product candidates are based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. To date, three gene therapy products have been approved in the United States and two such products have been approved in Europe.

We have concentrated our product research and development efforts on our gene therapy platform, and our future success depends on the successful development of this approach. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our gene therapy platform will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. We may also experience unanticipated problems or delays in expanding our manufacturing capacity or transferring our manufacturing process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of such product candidates. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates.

Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials conducted at institutions that receive funding for recombinant DNA research from the United States National Institutes of Health, or the NIH, are also subject to review by the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or the RAC. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, the RAC review process can delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial design and details and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can put an IND on clinical hold even if the RAC has provided a favorable review of the drug. Also, before a clinical trial can begin at an NIH-funded institution, that institution’s Institutional Review Board, or IRB, and its Institutional Biosafety Committee, or IBC, have to review the proposed clinical trial to

assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of our product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected for orphan ophthalmology product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

Success in animal studies or early clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later trials.

Trial designs and results from animal studies or previous clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of our future clinical trial designs or results, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Our product candidates may also fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite demonstrating positive results in animal studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials. There can be no assurance that the success we achieved in the animal studies for our lead product candidates will result in success in our clinical trials of those product candidates.

There is a high failure rate for drugs and biological products proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in later stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in earlier stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including due to changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates as well as completion of required follow-up periods. If patients are unwilling to participate in our gene therapy studies because of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology or gene therapy industries or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed. For example, trials using early versions of lentiviral vectors, which integrate with, and thereby alter, the host cell’s DNA, have led to several well-publicized adverse events, including reported cases of leukemia. If there are delays in accumulating the required number of clinical events in trials for our product candidates where clinical events are a primary endpoint, there may be delays in completing the trial. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical trials altogether.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with the required or desired characteristics to achieve diversity in a trial, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. For example, enrolling eligible patients in novel orphan drug trials can be challenging and we have encountered slower-than-expected enrollment in our phase 1/2 clinical trial for our XLRS product candidate as a result of patients not meeting one or more study eligibility criteria. Challenges such as these in enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, may cause us to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business. We could also encounter delays if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates

In particular, each of the conditions for which we plan to evaluate our product candidates are rare genetic disorders with limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical trials. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials will further limit the pool of available trial participants.

We plan to seek initial marketing approval for our product candidates in the United States and the European Economic Area, or EEA. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we cannot enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of such product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Our clinical trials have and may continue to be delayed by the necessity to re-test study agent, the decision to use a single surgeon to treat all patients in our ACHM CNGB3 and ACHM CNGA3 trials in the near-term and a protocol amendment that required approval by institutional review boards at the clinical sites. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing.

Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, our collaborators, the IRBs, in the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In appropriate circumstances, we may also elect to temporarily suspend an ongoing clinical trial to further study unexpected results, even if those results would not require us to formally suspend the trial under the applicable regulatory requirements or clinical protocols. Such temporary suspension could include further testing of trial materials and the need to review subject responses to ensure safety. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. Furthermore, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenues from product sales, regulatory and commercialization milestones and royalties. In addition, if we or our third-party collaborators make manufacturing or formulation changes to product candidates, we or they may need to conduct additional trial to bridge the modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

If the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

As with many pharmaceutical and biological products, treatment with our product candidates may produce undesirable side effects or adverse reactions or events. These adverse events may occur despite our belief that our AAV vectors have an improved safety profile over prior such treatments.

Known adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with AAV vectors include an immunologic reaction to the capsid protein or gene at early time points after administration. In previous clinical trials involving AAV viral vectors for gene therapy, some subjects experienced serious adverse events, including the development of T-cell response due to immune response against the vector capsid proteins. If our vectors demonstrate a similar effect, or other adverse events, we may be required to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates. In addition, theoretical adverse side effects of AAV vectors include replication and spread of the virus to other parts of the body and insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth or division results in uncontrolled cell division, also known as cancer, which could potentially enhance the risk of malignant transformation. Potential procedure-related adverse events, including inflammation, can also occur and have, in fact, been observed in our XLRS, XLRP and ACHM CNGB3 trials. There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. If any such adverse events occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The product-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. If we elect or are required to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates will be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of gene therapies for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent or delay us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates and could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be unable to obtain orphan product designation or exclusivity for some of our product candidates. If our competitors are able to obtain orphan product exclusivity for their products that are the same as our product candidates, we may not be able to have competing products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals diagnosed annually in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the

European Union, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union Community. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biological product. Our product candidates for the treatment of XLRS, ACHM (in the form caused by mutations in the CNGB3 and CNGA3 genes) and XLRP (in the form caused by mutations in the RPGR gene) have been granted orphan medicinal product designation by the FDA and the European Commission. We may request orphan drug designation for our other product candidates in the future but there can be no assurances that the FDA will grant any of our product candidates such designation. Additionally, the designation by the FDA of any of our product candidates as an orphan drug does not guarantee that the FDA will accelerate regulatory review of or ultimately approve that product candidate.

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the EMA or the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug and indication for that time period, except in limited circumstances. The FDA has not defined the meaning of “same drug” specifically for gene therapy products and it is possible that the FDA could conclude that no two gene therapy products could be considered the same. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and 10 years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a gene product considered to be the same as our product candidate is superior in certain respects.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. In the United States, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when or if we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate or the approval may be for a narrower indication than we expect.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials, the regulatory agencies may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory agency policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process. Regulatory agencies also may approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our product candidate, may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use or may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products will remain subject to regulatory scrutiny.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval in a jurisdiction for our product candidates, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, and submission of safety and other post-market information. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. For example, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with some types of gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events and this follow-up may extend for many years. The holder of an approved BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.

In addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with GMP requirements and adherence to commitments made in the BLA or foreign marketing application. If we or a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of that product, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions relative to that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of our product candidates, a regulatory agency may:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues.

In addition, the FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Even if we obtain and maintain approval for our product candidates from the FDA, we may never obtain approval for our product candidates outside of the United States, which would limit our market opportunities and adversely affect our business.

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. Sales of our product candidates outside of the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical trials and marketing approval. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries must also approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidates in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products, if approved, is also subject to approval. We intend to submit a marketing authorization application to the EMA for approval in the EEA, but obtaining such approval is a lengthy and expensive process and the EMA has its own procedures for approval of product candidates. Even if a product candidate is approved, the FDA or the EMA, as the case may be, may limit the indications for which the product may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the product labeling or require expensive and time-consuming clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Regulatory authorities in countries outside of the United States and the EEA also have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries.

Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries and regulatory approval of a product candidate in one country does not ensure approval in any other country, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Also, regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be withdrawn. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected.

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct aspects of our product manufacturing and protocol development, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not expect to independently conduct all aspects of our vector production, product manufacturing, protocol development, and monitoring and management of our ongoing and planned preclinical and clinical programs. We have expanded our internal capabilities to include a full-scale pilot facility to facilitate continued improvement in our manufacturing process. We have completed the design phase for a cGMP facility at our Florida headquarters to support later stage clinical development. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, to a significant degree, on third parties for the production of our clinical trial materials. In such cases, we expect to control only certain aspects of their activities.

Under certain circumstances, these third parties may be entitled to terminate their engagements with us or we may seek to terminate our engagement with them. Because of the complexities inherent in gene therapy manufacturing, we expect that any engagement by us of a new third-party manufacturer for our product candidates would take a substantial amount of time to establish. Accordingly, if we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development activities. We are currently negotiating with and conducting pilot work at three alternative third-party manufacturers to expand our capacity and mitigate risk. Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations and study and trial protocols. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated study and trial plans and protocols, or if there are disagreements between us and these third parties, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the preclinical studies and clinical trials required to support future IND submissions and approval of our product candidates. In some such cases, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay with respect to the approval of our product candidates and would thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval, or impact our ability to successfully commercialize future product candidates. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of product manufacture.

We and our contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulatory oversight with respect to manufacturing our products. The manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements and may have limited capacity.

All parties involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical trial or commercial sale are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with GMP requirements. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products

approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s GMP requirements enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, FDA approval of the products will not be granted.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit our manufacturing facilities or those of our third-party manufacturers. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time-consuming for us or our third-party manufacturers to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a manufacturing facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

As described above in “Business,” we have encountered delays in clinical trial material availability as a result of difficulties in proper testing. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers or testing contractors fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product candidate, or revocation of a pre-existing approval. Such an occurrence may cause our business, financial condition and results of operations to be materially harmed.

Additionally, if supply from an approved manufacturer is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply of our products. Because of the complexities inherent in our gene therapy manufacturing, we expect that there will be a significant period of time following our engagement of an alternative third-party manufacturer before that manufacturer will be in a position to provide an adequate supply of our product candidates for our clinical trials. In addition, any alternative manufacturer will also need to be qualified through a BLA supplement which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional trials if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our product candidates, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our products successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements, and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct and supervise our clinical trials, and if these third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.

We expect to continue to rely on academic research institutions and other CROs along with clinical trial sites to ensure our clinical trials are conducted properly and on time. While we will have agreements governing their activities, we will have limited influence over their actual performance and will control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs are required to comply with the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ GCP, GMP and good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements for conducting, recording and reporting the results of our preclinical studies and clinical trials to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. The FDA enforces these requirements through periodic inspections of study sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our future clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving any marketing applications. Upon inspection, the FDA may determine that our clinical trials did not comply with GCP requirements, which may render the data generated in those trials unreliable. In addition, our future clinical trials will require a sufficient number of test subjects to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates. Accordingly, if our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or fail to recruit a sufficient number of patients, we may be required to repeat such clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Our CROs are not our employees, and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we are therefore unable to directly monitor whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical and nonclinical programs. Our CROs also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

Switching or adding CROs involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute our vectors and products for any clinical trials that we may conduct. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development, regulatory review or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, if approved, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

Collaborations with third parties, such as our collaboration with Biogen, may be important to our business. If these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We have a collaboration with Biogen to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize gene therapy products to treat XLRS and XLRP. The collaboration agreement also provides for discovery programs targeting three indications (including our adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) program) whereby we will conduct discovery, research and development activities for those additional drug candidates through the stage of clinical candidate designation, after which, Biogen may exercise an option to continue to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize the designated clinical candidate. In addition, under our manufacturing agreement with Biogen, we granted Biogen an exclusive license to use our proprietary technology platform outside of the collaboration to make AAV vectors for up to three available genes and three additional genes that we may approve in our discretion. An unsuccessful outcome in pending and future clinical trials for which Biogen is responsible could be harmful to the public perception and prospects of our gene therapy platform.

Our license relationships with Biogen and any other current collaboration or collaboration we enter into in the future, may pose a number of risks, including the following:

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our gene therapy platform and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and gene therapy platform. As a result of these or other factors, we may not receive the benefits that we expect from our collaborations.

In the event Biogen terminates the collaboration for a material breach by us, we will be restricted from competing with Biogen for two years in the terminated programs with Biogen having the right, in lieu of termination, to elect to maintain the license from us and reduce the royalties and milestones in a manner specified in the agreement.

Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if one of our collaborators is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected.

We may in the future determine to collaborate with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for development and potential commercialization of product candidates other than those covered by our collaboration with Biogen. These relationships or those like them may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we could face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration agreement with any such new party will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other

alternative arrangements for our product candidates because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If we license product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenues or specific net income that justifies such transaction.

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our gene therapy platform and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to manufacture our viral vectors and our product candidates, and because we collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions on the advancement of our gene therapy platform, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets.

Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate any revenues.

We currently have no sales and marketing organization and have no experience selling and marketing our product candidates. To successfully commercialize any products that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop these capabilities, either on our own or with others. The establishment and development of our own sales force or the establishment of a contract sales force to market any products we may develop will be expensive and time-consuming, particularly to the extent that we seek to commercialize any product for an indication, such as wet AMD, that has a patient population significantly larger than those addressed by our current lead product candidates, and could delay any product launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability. We may enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their mature marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into marketing agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If our future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our future products, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary marketing capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We will be competing with many companies that currently have extensive and well-funded marketing and sales operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

We face intense competition and rapid technological change and the possibility that our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Currently there are no approved products for any of our lead orphan ophthalmology indications of XLRS, ACHM and XLRP. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the success of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience of administration and delivery, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

A number of companies have announced that they are working on AAV-based gene therapy technology and there are companies developing gene therapies in the field of orphan ophthalmology, on which we are currently focused, which have programs that are at the clinical and pre-clinical stages. Other companies could also potentially seek to enter this field.

Many of our potential competitors, alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of treatments and the commercialization of those treatments. To the extent that we develop product candidates for indications with larger patient populations, such as wet AMD, we expect to experience particularly intense competition from larger and better funded pharmaceutical companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, market exclusivity provisions for products with orphan designation could severely limit the sales potential for any of our product candidates that do not gain first-to-market approval.

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our products, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

We expect the cost of a single administration of gene therapy products such as those we are developing to be substantial, when and if they achieve regulatory approval. We expect that coverage and reimbursement by governmental and private payors will be essential for most patients to be able to afford these treatments. Accordingly, sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement for a product from governmental and private payors is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to receive a positive coverage determination. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered and reimbursed. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Currently, no gene therapy products have been approved for coverage under the Medicare program. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, covers some items and services nationally through National Coverage Determinations. More frequently, coverage determinations for new products are made by the individual Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) that operate the program on a day-to-day basis in their awarded geographic jurisdictions. It is difficult to predict what CMS or the local MACs will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Moreover, Medicare reimbursement is determined in part based on where the drug or biologic is administered. Drugs or biologics administered in the inpatient setting are bundled along with other services into Diagnosis Related Groups for payment purposes. In the outpatient setting drugs and biologics such as our product candidates are generally reimbursed at Average Sales Price (ASP) + 6 %. Outside of the United States, agencies in Europe may be more conservative than CMS with respect to reimbursement. For example, a number of cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the United States and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada, and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates and delay their commercial launch. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced or delayed compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and potential legislative changes on both the federal and state levels. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Gene therapy remains a novel technology, with only three gene therapy products approved to date in the United States and only two gene therapy products approved to date in Europe. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in the treatment of those diseases that our product candidates target prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments they are already familiar with and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. For example, trials using early versions of lentiviral vectors, which integrate with, and thereby alter, the host cell’s DNA, have led to several well-publicized adverse events, including reported cases of leukemia. Although none of our current product candidates utilize lentiviral vectors, our product candidates use a viral delivery system. Adverse events in our clinical trials or the clinical trials of other gene therapy companies, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates, and the resulting publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, was passed, which substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and subjects additional drugs to lower pricing under the 340B drug pricing program by adding new entities to the program.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Some of the provisions of the ACA have been subject to judicial and Congressional challenges, and we expect there to be further challenges in the future. On January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. More recently, President Trump and the Republican majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress have been seeking to repeal or replace all or portions of the ACA but to date they have been unable to agree on any such legislation. In the coming years, additional legislative and regulatory changes could be made to governmental health programs that could significantly impact our business. The implications of these actions for our and our partners’ business and financial condition, if any, are not yet clear.

The commercial success of any of our product candidates will depend upon its degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community.

Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy and genetic research could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the products and processes we may use. Even with the requisite approvals from the FDA in the United States and other government bodies internationally, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the medical community’s, patients’, and third-party payors’ acceptance of gene therapy products in general, and our product candidates in particular, as medically necessary, cost-effective, and safe. Any product that we bring to the market may not gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Even if a potential product displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product will not be fully known until after it is launched. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of the product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources than are required by the conventional technologies marketed by our competitors. If any of our product candidates is approved but fails to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, or health care payors, we will not be able to generate significant revenues from such product, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

If we obtain approval to commercialize our product candidates outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may enter into agreements with third parties to market them on a worldwide basis or in more limited geographical regions. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to entering into international business relationships, including:

These and other risks associated with our international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates.

The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize product candidates based on our gene therapy platform. Although certain of our product candidates are currently in clinical or preclinical development, we may fail to identify other potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. For example, our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval.

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts with respect to a particular product candidate, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

We previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, which has now been remediated. If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls over financial reporting, we may not be able to report our financial results timely and accurately, which could adversely affect investor confidence in the Company, and in turn, our results of operations and our stock price.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and operate successfully as a public company. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that companies evaluate and report on their systems of internal control over financial reporting. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm must report on its evaluation of those controls, effective for the fiscal year 2019.

As disclosed in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, we previously identified a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting relating to the design and operation of our closing and financial reporting processes. We completed our remediation efforts related to the material weakness by, among other things, hiring additional employees to provide further support to our finance and accounting team; restructuring our finance team to better align the functional areas to the overall strategy of the company, while at the same time providing more focus for the accounting team in maintaining proper control over the financial reporting process commensurate to support standalone external financial reporting under public company or SEC requirements; providing functional and system training to employees and preparing detailed documentation to clearly define key tasks and actions, as well as the positions responsible for those tasks and actions; engaging a consulting firm to assist in documenting and formalizing our accounting policies and internal control processes and to help strengthen supervisory reviews by our management; designing and implementing monthly manual controls to manage our financial reporting close processes and to help ensure an adequate level of segregation of duties within our finance and accounting function; developing and implementing policies and procedures related to security access, including security access reviews of our key financial systems’ users to ensure the appropriateness of their roles and security access levels; and performing testing related to the functioning of these controls, and continuing to monitor these controls and make enhancements as needed.

Although we have remediated this material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting, any failure to maintain effective internal controls could cause a delay in compliance with our reporting obligations, SEC rules and regulations or Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which could subject us to a variety of administrative sanctions, including, but not limited to, SEC enforcement action, ineligibility for short form registration, the suspension or delisting of our common stock from the stock exchange on which it is listed and the inability of registered broker-dealers to make a market in our common stock, which could adversely affect our business and the trading price of our common stock

If we are unable to manage expected growth in the scale and complexity of our operations, our performance may suffer.

If we are successful in executing our business strategy, we will need to continue to expand our managerial, operational, financial and other systems and resources to manage our operations, continue our research and development activities, and, in the longer term, build a sales force and commercial infrastructure to support commercialization of any of our product candidates that are approved for sale. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. It is possible that our management, finance, development personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and products requires that we continue to develop more robust business processes and improve our systems and procedures in each of these areas and to attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees. We may be unable to successfully implement these tasks on a larger scale and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and growth goals.

We may enter into or seek to enter into business partnerships, combinations and/or acquisitions which may be difficult to integrate, disrupt our business, divert management attention or dilute stockholder value.

A key element of our strategy is to enter into business partnerships, combinations and/or acquisitions. We have limited experience in making acquisitions, which are typically accompanied by a number of risks, including:

If we are not successful in completing acquisitions that we may pursue in the future, we would be required to reevaluate our business strategy and we may have incurred substantial expenses and devoted significant management time and resources in seeking to complete the acquisitions. In addition, we could use substantial portions of our available cash as all or a portion of the purchase price, or we could issue additional securities as consideration for these acquisitions, which could cause our stockholders to suffer significant dilution.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key employees, consultants and advisors and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on our executive officers, the loss of whose services may adversely impact the achievement of our objectives. Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. There is currently a shortage of skilled executives and scientific personnel in our industry, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel is intense and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for individuals with similar skill sets. In addition, failure to succeed in preclinical studies or clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The inability to recruit or loss of the services of any executive, key employee, consultant or advisor may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

In order to induce valuable employees to remain at AGTC, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies.

Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams have in the past and may in the future terminate their employment with us. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers or other key employees and our inability to find suitable replacements could potentially harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level, and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level, and senior scientific and medical personnel.

Many of the other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They may also provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high quality candidates than what we can offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover, develop and commercialize product candidates will be limited.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, CROs, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity or may fail to disclosure unauthorized activities to us. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent failures to comply with:

In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect

and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Our operations may be directly, or indirectly through our prescribers, customers and purchasers, subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws. If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, many of these laws will become more directly applicable to our operations, including, without limitation, the federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal False Claims Acts and Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

In addition, any sale of our products or product candidates, if commercialized outside of the United States, may also subject us to foreign laws governing prescription drug marketing and fraud and abuse, including laws similar to the U.S. healthcare laws mentioned above. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, the ACA, among other things, amends the intent requirements of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the criminal statute governing healthcare fraud. A person or entity can now be found guilty of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal criminal healthcare fraud statute without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, imprisonment, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

If the use of our product Candidates harms patients, we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. For example, we may be sued if any product candidate we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. While we believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current clinical programs. The amount of the product liability coverage that we carry varies from time to time, depending on a number of factors, the most significant of which are the nature and scope of the clinical trials in which we are engaged and the number of patients being treated with our product candidates in these trials. This amount may increase or decrease in the future. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability and any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. If and when we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the commercial sale of our products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

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

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

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We rely on our relationship with a professional employer organization for our human relations function and as a co-employer of our personnel, and if that party failed to perform its responsibilities under that relationship, our relations with our employees could be damaged and we could incur liabilities that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

All of our personnel, including our executive officers, are co-employees of AGTC and a professional employer organization, TriNet HR Corporation, or TriNet. Under the terms of our arrangement, TriNet is the formal employer of all of our personnel, and is responsible for administering all payroll, including tax withholding, and providing health insurance and other benefits for these individuals. We reimburse TriNet for these costs, and pay TriNet an administrative fee for its services. If TriNet fails to comply with applicable laws, or its obligations under this arrangement, our relationship with our employees could be damaged. We could, under certain circumstances, be held liable for a failure by TriNet to appropriately pay, or withhold and remit required taxes from payments to, our employees. In such a case, our potential liability could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Substantially all of our manufacturing operations and a majority of our research and development operations are conducted from our headquarters located near Gainesville, Florida. Hurricanes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, damage our research facilities or destroy stored research materials that could be difficult to replace, and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future CROs and other contractors and consultants and collaborators are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure or that otherwise disrupted our operations or the operations of our third-party contract manufacturer, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from our clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. If our security measures, disaster recovery and business continuity plans are not adequate in the event of such a breach, serious disaster or similar event, we could incur substantial expenses and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Interruptions in the supply of product or inventory loss may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

Our product candidates are manufactured using technically complex processes requiring specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. The complexity of these processes, as well as strict company and government standards for the manufacture and storage of our products, subjects us to production risks. While product batches released for use in clinical trials or for commercialization undergo sample testing, such testing is subject to human error and some defects may only be identified following product release. In addition, process deviations or unanticipated effects of approved process changes may result in these intermediate products not complying with stability requirements or specifications. Most of our product candidates must be stored and transported at temperatures within a certain range. If these environmental conditions deviate, our product candidates’ remaining shelf lives could be impaired or their efficacy and safety could become adversely affected, making them no longer suitable for use.

The occurrence or suspected occurrence of production and distribution difficulties can lead to lost inventories, and in some cases product recalls, with consequential reputational damage and the risk of product liability. The investigation and remediation of any identified problems can cause production delays, substantial expense, lost sales and delays of new product launches. Any interruption in the supply of finished products or the loss thereof could hinder our ability to timely distribute our products and satisfy customer demand. Any unforeseen failure in the storage of the product or loss in supply could delay our clinical trials and, if our product candidates are approved, result in a loss of our market share and negatively affect our revenues and operations.

We may use our financial and human resources to pursue a particular research program or product candidate and fail to capitalize on programs or product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited resources, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for product candidates may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate, or we may allocate internal resources to a product candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a partnering arrangement.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards may be subject to limitation.

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, substantial changes in our ownership may limit the amount of net operating loss carryforwards that could be utilized annually in the future to offset our taxable income. Specifically, this limitation may arise in the event of a cumulative change in ownership of our company of more than 50% within a three-year period. Any such annual limitation may significantly reduce the utilization of our net operating loss carryforwards before they expire. We believe it is likely that transactions that have occurred in the past and other transactions that may occur in the future, could trigger an ownership change pursuant to Section 382, which could limit the amount of net operating loss carryforwards that could be utilized annually in the future to offset our taxable income, if any.

Cyber-attacks or other breaches of network or other information technology security could have an adverse effect on our business.

Cyber-attacks or other breaches of network or information technology security may cause equipment failures or disruptions to our operations. While, to date, we have not been subject to cyber-attacks or other cyber incidents which, individually or in the aggregate, have been material to our operations or financial condition, the preventative actions we take to prevent or detect the risk of cyber incidents and protect our information technology and networks may be insufficient to prevent or detect a major cyber-attack in the future. If we fail to prevent the theft of valuable information such as financial data, sensitive information about the us, our patients or our intellectual property, or if we fail to protect the privacy of patient and employee confidential data against breaches of network or information technology security, it would result in damage to our reputation, which could adversely impact the confidence of our partners, investors and employees. Any of these occurrences could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

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

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in issued patents that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Even if our owned and licensed patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

In addition, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging claims of intellectual property infringement, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding foreign patent offices. 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 pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.

Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, methods for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to gene therapy product components and processes for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Presently we have rights to the intellectual property to develop our gene therapy product candidates. Because a key element of our business strategy is to pursue in-licensing and intellectual property acquisitions for additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify on terms that we find acceptable, or at all. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with United States and foreign academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such right of first negotiation for intellectual property, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights, our business, financial condition and prospects for growth could suffer.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues and is complicated by the rapid pace of scientific discovery in our industry. We are a party to intellectual property license agreements with the University of Florida Research Foundation, an affiliate of the University of Florida, Johns Hopkins University and the UAB Research Foundation, an affiliate of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, each of which is important to our business, and we expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to market products covered by the license.

We may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. It is possible that we may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current product candidates or future products, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.

In many cases, patent prosecution of our licensed technology is controlled solely by the licensor. If our licensors fail to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we license from them, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, and our competitors could market competing products using the intellectual property. In certain cases, we control the prosecution of patents resulting from licensed technology. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

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

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property or the patents or other intellectual property of our licensors. In response, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us, alleging that we infringe their patents. Additionally, if the party against whom we bring a claim of infringement has a relationship with one or more of our collaborators, licensors or other strategic counterparties, our relationship with that counterparty may be harmed. Similarly, because our intellectual property is potentially useful for the treatment of serious diseases, any third-party infringers may be viewed sympathetically by the public and our assertion of an infringement claim against them may hurt our reputation. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

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. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Issued patents covering our product candidates or methods of manufacturing could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, or methods of manufacturing our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate or method is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before

administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Such proceedings could result in the revocation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or manufacturing methods. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our product candidates or methods of manufacturing our products. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

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

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. We could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

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

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

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The United States Patent and Trademark Office and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-

compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Changes in United States patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and therefore obtaining and enforcing biotechnology patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The United States Patent and Trademark Office recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Moreover, recent United States Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the United States Congress, the federal courts, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

We have not yet sought FDA approval of names for any of our product candidates and failure to secure such approvals could adversely affect our business.

Any name we propose to use with our product candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

The market price for our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be volatile, which could contribute to the loss of your investment.

Fluctuations in the price of our common stock could contribute to the loss of all or part of your investment. Our stock price has been volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, many of which are beyond our control. Since our initial public offering in March 2014 and through August 20, 2018, the price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market has ranged from $3.25 to $34.37. Any of the factors listed below could have a material adverse effect on your investment in our common stock. In such circumstances, the trading price of our common stock may not recover and may experience a further decline.

Broad market and industry factors may materially harm the market price of our common stock irrespective of our operating performance. The stock market in general, and The Nasdaq Global Market and the market for biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of the particular companies affected. The trading prices and valuations of these stocks, and of ours, may not be predictable. A loss of investor confidence in the market for technology or software stocks or the stocks of other companies which investors perceive to be similar to us, the opportunities in the digital simulation market or the stock market in general, could depress our stock price regardless of our business, prospects, financial conditions or results of operations.

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they downgrade our stock, the price of our common stock could decline.

The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us, our business, our markets and our competitors. We do not control these analysts. As a newly public company, we have only limited coverage by securities analysts. If securities analysts do not continue to cover our common stock, the lack of research coverage may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, if one or more of the analysts who do cover us downgrade our stock or if those analysts issue other unfavorable commentary about us or our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fails to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the market and interest in our stock could decrease, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline and may also impair our ability to expand our business with existing customers and attract new customers.

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

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act t, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. As a result, changes in rules of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles or their interpretation, the adoption of new guidance or the application of existing guidance to changes in our business could significantly affect our financial position and results of operations. Based on the market value of our common stock at December 31, 2017 and the number of shares of our common stock held by non- affiliates, we expect to continue to be an emerging growth company until June 30, 2019. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may continue to qualify as a “smaller reporting company” which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements. However, we do expect to be required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 because we are an “accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

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

We expect that significant additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded research and development activities, potential acquisitions, in-licenses, or collaborations and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner, we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to the holders of our common stock.

We do not currently intend to pay dividends on our common stock and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on the appreciation in the price of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to fund our future growth and do not expect to declare or pay any dividend on shares of our common stock in the foreseeable future. As a result, you may only receive a return on your investment in our common stock if the market price of our common stock appreciates and you sell your shares at a price above your cost.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

Anti-takeover provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as provisions in Delaware law, might discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our management and, therefore, depress the trading price of our common stock.

Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that could have the effect of rendering more difficult or discouraging an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders or remove our current management. Our corporate governance documents include provisions:

These provisions, alone or together, could delay hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management.

As a Delaware corporation, we are also subject to provisions of Delaware law, including Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person which together with its affiliates owns, or within the last three years has owned, 15% of our voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

The existence of the foregoing provisions and anti-takeover measures could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. They could also deter potential acquirers of our company, thereby reducing the likelihood that you could receive a premium for your common stock in an acquisition.

Our corporate headquarters are located in Alachua, Florida. In January 2016, we moved into a new combined-use facility consisting of approximately 21,000 square feet of laboratory and office space. The initial lease term for this facility is 10 years and we have options to extend the term of the lease for three additional five-year periods. Our prior leased facilities encompassed approximately 7,000 square feet of office and laboratory space. Operating leases associated with the prior facilities expired in December 2015.

In August 2015, we entered into a two-year lease to occupy approximately 3,000 square feet of office and laboratory space in Cambridge, Massachusetts. On July 31, 2017, we entered into a new lease to increase our office and laboratory space in Cambridge by approximately 5,000 square feet to a total of approximately 8,000 square feet and extend the term of the lease for an additional seven years, with an option to further extend the lease for one additional three-year term. The Cambridge facility primarily focuses on business development, pharmacology, and basic research and development.

Our common stock has been listed on The NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “AGTC” since March 27, 2014. Prior to that date, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low intraday sales prices of our common stock as reported by The NASDAQ Global Market:

As of August 31, 2018, a total of 18,129,148 shares of our common stock were outstanding and we had 35 holders of record of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. We do not expect to pay any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

For information regarding securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans, see Part III, Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.”

The following table provides certain information with respect to our purchases of shares of the Company’s common stock during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018

The following selected financial data should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and with our “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our selected statement of operations data for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017, and 2016 and our selected balance sheet data as of June 30, 2018 and 2017 are derived from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this report. The selected statements of operations data for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 and the balance sheet data as of June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are derived from our audited financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for any future period. The selected financial data in this section are not intended to replace our financial statements and the related notes.

	Year Ended June 30,
	2018			2017			2016			2015			2014
	(in thousands except per share data)
Statement of Operations Data:
Revenue:
Collaboration Revenue	$	24,057		$	39,282		$	46,751		$	-		$	-
Grant revenue		129			191			610			1,682			917
Sponsored research and other revenue		-			-			-			672			212
Total revenue		24,186			39,473			47,361			2,354			1,129
Operating expenses:
Research and development		32,181			26,217			39,376			18,118			8,503
General and administrative		14,389			11,354			10,074			8,768			5,182
Total operating expenses		46,570			37,571			49,450			26,886			13,685
Income (loss) from operations		(22,384	)		1,902			(2,089	)		(24,532	)		(12,556	)
Other income (expense):
Investment income, net		1,301			952			711			216			42
Fair value adjustments to warrant liabilities		-			-			-			-			(441	)
Fair value adjustments to Series B purchase rights		-			-			-			-			(2,904	)
Other		(125	)		(47	)		(3	)		(2	)		(49	)
Total other income (expense), net		1,176			905			708			214			(3,352	)

Income (loss) before provision for income taxes		(21,208	)		2,807			(1,381	)		(24,318	)		(15,908	)
Provision for income taxes		72			2,400			-			-			-
Income (loss) before equity in net losses of affiliate		(21,280	)		407			(1,381	)		(24,318	)		(15,908	)
Equity in net losses of affiliate		(20	)		-			-			-			-
Net income (loss)	$	(21,300	)	$	407		$	(1,381	)	$	(24,318	)	$	(15,908	)
Net income (loss) per share, basic ⁽¹⁾	$	(1.18	)	$	0.02		$	(0.08	)	$	(1.50	)	$	(4.46	)
Net income (loss) per share, diluted ⁽¹⁾	$	(1.18	)	$	0.02		$	(0.08	)	$	(1.50	)	$	(4.46	)
Weighted-average shares outstanding, basic		18,105			18,072			17,810			16,253			3,568
Weighted-average shares outstanding, diluted		18,105			18,385			17,810			16,253			3,568

	June 30,
	2018		2017		2016		2015		2014
	(in thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	31,065	$	30,706	$	28,868	$	39,187	$	8,623
Short and long-term investments	$	73,840	$	107,743	$	143,847	$	46,083	$	64,450
Total assets	$	118,531	$	147,923	$	180,797	$	90,174	$	77,407
Current liabilities	$	14,395	$	28,156	$	54,743	$	4,642	$	2,534
Total stockholders’ equity	$	99,182	$	115,329	$	109,288	$	85,532	$	74,873

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in Part IV, Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report, including but not limited to those set forth in “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors.”

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company that uses a proprietary gene therapy platform to develop transformational genetic therapies for patients suffering from rare and debilitating diseases. Our initial focus is in the field of ophthalmology, where we have active clinical programs in X-linked retinoschisis (XLRS), X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP), and achromatopsia (ACHM) and a preclinical program in optogenetics. In addition to ophthalmology, we have initiated preclinical programs in adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) and otology. With a number of important clinical milestones on the horizon, we believe we are well positioned to advance multiple programs towards pivotal studies. In addition to our product pipeline, we have also developed broad technological capabilities through our collaborations with Synpromics Limited (Synpromics), and the University of Florida, which provide us with expertise in vector design and manufacturing as well as synthetic promoter development and optimization. Finally, our partnership with Biogen, which includes our clinical XLRS and XLRP programs, a discovery program in ALD and two ophthalmology programs, validates our approach and technology, and provides us with a significant cash runway to advance our wholly-owned candidates.

Since our inception in 1999, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to development efforts relating to our proof-of-concept programs in ophthalmology and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, or AAT deficiency, an inherited orphan lung disease, including activities to manufacture product in compliance with good manufacturing practices, preparing to conduct and conducting clinical trials of our product candidates, providing general and administrative support for these operations and protecting our intellectual property. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have funded our operations primarily through the private placement of preferred stock, common stock, convertible notes and warrants to purchase preferred stock, through public offerings of common stock , and through upfront and milestone payments from our partners. We have also been the recipient, either independently or with our collaborators, of grant funding administered through federal, state, and local governments and agencies, including the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and by patient advocacy groups such as The Foundation Fighting Blindness, or FFB, and the Alpha-1 Foundation.

We have incurred losses from operations in each other year since inception except for fiscal 2017. Our net loss for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 was $21.3 million, compared to net income of $0.4 million and net losses of $1.4 million for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Substantially all our net losses resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant operating expenses for at least the next several years and anticipate that such expenses will increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, as we:

As of June 30, 2018, we had cash and cash equivalents and investments totaling $104.9 million.

We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for one or more of our product candidates, which we expect will take a number of years and which we believe is subject to significant uncertainty. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents and investments at June 30, 2018, will be sufficient to allow us to generate data from our ongoing clinical programs, to move our pre-clinical optogenetic program in collaboration with Bionic Sight into the clinic and to fund our currently planned research and discovery programs for at least the next two years. In order to complete the process of obtaining regulatory approval for our lead product candidates and to build the sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure that we believe will be necessary to commercialize our lead product candidates, if approved, we will require substantial additional funding. Also, our current operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements or a combination of these approaches. However, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other arrangements when needed on favorable terms or at all. Our failure to raise capital or enter into such other arrangements as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to develop our product candidates.

In July 2015, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Biogen, which we refer to as the collaboration agreement, pursuant to which we and Biogen will collaborate to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize gene therapy products to treat XLRS, XLRP, and discovery programs targeting three indications based on our adeno-associated virus vector technologies. The Collaboration Agreement became effective on August 14, 2015.Under the collaboration agreement, we will conduct all development activities through regulatory approval in the United States for the XLRS program (with activities through Phase 1/2 completion being pre-funded under the agreement and any further activities subject to incremental consideration), and all development activities through the completion of the first in human clinical trial for the XLRP program (with activities through filing the IND being pre-funded under the agreement and any further activities subject to incremental consideration). In addition, the collaboration agreement provides for discovery programs targeting three indications whereby we will conduct discovery, research and development activities for those additional drug candidates through the stage of clinical candidate designation, after which, Biogen may exercise an option to continue to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize the designated clinical candidate. In February 2016, we announced Biogen’s selection of adrenoleukodystrophy as the non-ophthalmic indication of the discovery programs. Under the terms of the collaboration agreement, we, in part through our participation in joint committees with Biogen, will participate in overseeing the development and commercialization of these specific programs.

Under the collaboration agreement, we received a non-refundable upfront payment of $94.0 million in August 2015. As a result of the upfront payment made by Biogen, we became liable to our various research partner institutions for sub-license payments, which led us to record an expense of $10.6 million. We paid these costs in full during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016.

During 2018, 2017 and 2016, we recognized revenue of approximately $24.1 million, $39.3 million and $46.8 million, respectively from our collaboration with Biogen. We are also eligible to receive payments of up to $467.5 million based on the successful achievement of future milestones under the two lead programs and up to $592.5 million based on the exercise of the option for and the successful achievement of future milestones under the three discovery programs. Biogen will pay revenue-based royalties for each licensed product at tiered rates ranging from high single digit to mid-teen percentages of annual net sales of the XLRS or XLRP products and at rates ranging from mid-single digit to low-teen percentages of annual net sales for the discovery products. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the achievement of the future milestones, such payments were not considered fixed or determinable at the inception of the collaboration agreement and accordingly, will not be recognized as revenue unless and until they become earned. We achieved the first milestone under the XLRS program in August 2015 for enrollment of the first patient in our Phase 1/2 trial, which triggered a milestone payment from Biogen of $5.0 million and the recording of milestone revenue and sublicense expense of $1.4 million. We achieved the first milestone under the XLRP program in April 2018 for dosing of the first patient in our Phase 1/2 trial, which triggered a milestone payment from Biogen of $2.5 million and the recording of milestone revenue and sublicense expense of $0.6 million. In July 2018, we earned the second milestone under the XLRP program for enrolling the fourth patient in our Phase 1/2 trial, which will trigger a milestone payment from Biogen of $10.0 million and the recording of milestone revenue and sublicense expense of $2.3 million. We are not able to reasonably predict if and when any of the remaining milestones will be achieved.

In addition to the collaboration agreement, on July 1, 2015, we also entered into an equity agreement with Biogen. Under the terms of the equity agreement, Biogen purchased 1,453,957 shares of our common stock, at a purchase price equal to $20.63 per share, for an aggregate cash purchase price of $30.0 million. We received these cash proceeds from Biogen in August 2015. The shares issued to Biogen constitute restricted securities that may not be resold by Biogen other than in a transaction registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or pursuant to an exemption from such registration requirement.

In February 2017, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Bionic Sight to develop a gene therapy treatment to be used with Bionic Sight’s innovative neuroprosthetic device and algorithm for retinal coding. Under the agreement, AGTC made an initial $2.0 million payment to Bionic Sight for an equity interest in that company. This initial investment represents an approximate 5 percent equity interest in Bionic Sight. In addition to the initial investment, we will contribute to ongoing research and development support costs through additional payments or other in-kind contributions. These payments and contributions will be made over time, up to the date that Bionic Sight has received both investigational new drug clearance from the FDA and receipt of written approval from an internal review board to conduct clinical trials from at least one clinical site for that product candidate (the “IND Trigger”.) If the IND Trigger is attained, we will receive additional equity, based on the valuation in place at the beginning of the agreement, for its cash and research and development contributions and will be obligated to purchase additional equity in Bionic Sight for $4.0 million upon the filing of the IND for the product candidate at a pre-determined valuation. Our collaborator, Bionic Sight, plans to file an IND for this product candidate in the first half of calendar 2019.

In December 2015, we entered into an agreement with Synpromics Limited (“Synpromics”) to utilize Synpromics' proprietary technology to develop and optimize synthetic promoters. In the event that results from the research are promising, we have options to license promoters that result from the collaboration efforts.

In April 2015, we signed an agreement with 4DMT to conduct research on optimized next generation capsids to target specific target cell populations within the human retina using 4DMT’s Directed Evolution AAV vector discovery platform. If promising capsids result from the research, we have an option to enter into a licensing agreement.

We primarily generate revenue through collaboration agreements, sponsored research arrangements with nonprofit organizations for the development and commercialization of product candidates and from federal research and development grant programs. In the future, we may generate revenue from a combination of: product sales, license fees, milestone payments, development services, research and development grants, and from collaboration and royalty payments for the sales of products developed under licenses of our intellectual property.

We expect that any revenue we generate will fluctuate from quarter to quarter as a result of the timing and amount of license fees, research and development programs, manufacturing efforts and reimbursements, collaboration milestone payments, and the sale of our products, to the extent any are successfully commercialized. We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales for the foreseeable future, if at all. If we or our collaborators fail to complete the development of our product candidates in a timely manner or obtain regulatory approval for them, our ability to generate future revenue, our results of operations and financial position would be materially adversely affected.

We will adopt ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“Topic 606”) as of July 1, 2018, the first day of our fiscal year 2019. The adoption of Topic 606 may impact the timing and pattern of revenue recognition; however, the quantification of such impact is ongoing. Upon adoption and in accordance with the disclosure requirements under Topic 606, we will report revenue amounts under Topic 606 but will continue to disclose the amount of revenue that would have been recognized under ASC 605, Revenue Recognition, during our fiscal year 2019. See Note 2 of the notes to the financial statements appearing elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K for additional commentary on the adoption of Topic 606.

We expect in fiscal year 2019 that revenues from our Biogen collaboration associated with amortization of non-refundable upfront fees will decrease under ASC 605 approximately $12.0 million compared to fiscal year 2018. This decrease is primarily due to the forecasted completion of the XLRS service period during fiscal year 2019, reaching the end of the XLRP service period in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018, and to a lesser extent, due to changes in estimates associated with the period of performance under the preclinical programs. We expect in fiscal year 2019 that milestone revenues recognized under the Biogen collaboration will increase under ASC 605 approximately $7.5 million compared to fiscal year 2018. In April 2018, the first patient was dosed in the XLRP Phase 1/2 clinical trial and we earned a $2.5 million milestone payment. In July 2018 the fourth patient was dosed in the XLRP Phase 1/2 clinical trial and we earned a $10.0 million milestone payment. We expect in fiscal year 2019 developmental services revenues from the Biogen collaboration will increase under ASC 605 by approximately $2.0 million compared to fiscal year 2018 due to the initiation of the XLRP Phase 1/2 clinical trial.

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for the development of our product candidates, which include:

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Costs for certain development activities are recognized based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using information and data provided to us by our vendors and our clinical sites.

We cannot determine with certainty the duration and completion costs of the current or future clinical trials of our product candidates or if, when, or to what extent we will generate revenues from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. The duration, costs, and timing of clinical trials and development of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of a product candidate could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate. For example, if the FDA, or another regulatory authority were to require us to conduct clinical trials beyond those that we currently anticipate will be required for the completion of clinical development of a product candidate or if we experience significant delays in enrollment in or execution of any of our clinical trials, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of clinical development.

From inception through June 30, 2018, we have incurred approximately $169.2 million in research and development expenses. We expect our research and development expenses to increase for the foreseeable future as we continue the development of our product candidates and explore potential applications of our gene therapy platform in other indications. Additionally, we expect sublicensing fees to increase during the first quarter of fiscal 2019 due to earning a $10.0 million milestone payment from Biogen. We expect sublicensing fees to be approximately 23% of the Biogen milestone payment.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs for personnel, including share-based compensation and travel expenses for our employees in executive, operational, legal, business development, finance and human resource functions. Other general and administrative expenses include costs to support employee training and development, board of directors’ costs, depreciation, insurance expenses, facility-related costs not otherwise included in research and development expense, professional fees for legal services, including patent-related expenses, and accounting, investor relations, corporate communications and information technology services. We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will continue to increase in the future as we hire additional employees to support our continued research and development efforts, collaboration arrangements, and the potential commercialization of our product candidates. Additionally, if and when we believe a regulatory approval of the first product candidate appears likely, we anticipate an increase in payroll and related expenses as a result of our preparation for commercial operations, especially as it relates to the sales and marketing of our product candidates.

Other income and expense consists primarily of interest earned on cash and cash equivalents and our held-to-maturity investments.

The following discussion of critical accounting policies identifies the accounting policies that require application of management’s most difficult, subjective or complex judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain and may change in subsequent periods. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all of our significant accounting policies, which are more fully described in Note 2 of the notes to the financial statements appearing elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K. In many cases, the accounting treatment of a particular transaction is specifically dictated by generally accepted accounting principles, with no need for management’s judgment in their application. There are also areas in which the selection of an available alternative policy would not produce a materially different result.

We have generated revenue primarily through collaboration agreements, sponsored research arrangements with nonprofit organizations for the development and commercialization of product candidates and revenues from federal research and development grant programs. We recognize revenue when amounts are realized or realizable and earned. Revenue is considered realizable and earned when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; (3) the price is fixed or determinable; and (4) collection of the amounts due are reasonably assured.

We evaluate the terms of sponsored research agreement grants and federal grants to assess our obligations and if our obligations are satisfied by the passage of time, revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis. In situations where the performance of our obligations has been satisfied when the grant is received, revenue is recognized upon receipt of the grant. Certain grants contain refund provisions. We review those refund provisions to determine the likelihood of repayment. If the likelihood of repayment of the grant is determined to be remote, the grant is recognized as revenue. If the probability of repayment is determined to be more than remote, we record the grant as a deferred revenue liability, until such time that the grant requirements have been satisfied.

As described above, on July 1, 2015, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Biogen. The terms of this agreement contains multiple elements, or deliverables, which include, among others, (i) licenses, or options to obtain licenses, to our technology, and (ii) research and development activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborative partner. Payments made under this arrangement includes one or more of the following: non-refundable, up-front license fees; option exercise fees; funding of research and/or development efforts; milestone payments; and royalties on future product sales.

Multiple element arrangements are analyzed to determine whether the deliverables within the agreement can be separated or whether they must be accounted for as a single unit of accounting.

Deliverables under an agreement are required to be accounted for as separate units of accounting provided that (i) a delivered item has value to the customer on a stand-alone basis; and (ii) if the agreement includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item, delivery or performance of the undelivered item is considered probable and substantially in the control of the vendor. The allocation of consideration amongst the deliverables under the agreement is derived using a “best estimate of selling price” if vendor specific objective evidence and third-party evidence of fair value is not available. If the delivered element does not have stand-alone value or if the fair value of any of the undelivered elements cannot be determined, the arrangement is then accounted for as a single unit of accounting, and we recognize the consideration received under the arrangement as revenue on a straight-line basis over our estimated period of performance.

We determine the estimated selling price for deliverables within each agreement using vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, of selling price, if available, third-party evidence, or TPE, of selling price if VSOE is not available, or best estimate of selling price, or BESP, if neither VSOE nor TPE are available. Determining the best estimate of selling price for a deliverable requires significant judgment. We use BESP to estimate the selling price related to licenses to our proprietary technology, since we often do not have VSOE or TPE of selling price for these deliverables. In those circumstances where we utilize BESP to determine the estimated selling price of a license to our proprietary technology, we consider market conditions as well as entity-specific factors, including those factors contemplated in negotiating the agreements as well as internally developed models that include assumptions related to the market opportunity, estimated development costs, probability of success and the time needed to commercialize a product candidate pursuant to the license. In validating our best estimate of selling price, we evaluate whether changes in the key assumptions used to determine the best estimate of selling price will have a significant effect on the allocation of arrangement consideration among multiple deliverables.

If the delivered element does not have stand-alone value or if the fair value of any of the undelivered elements cannot be determined, the arrangement is then accounted for as a single unit of accounting, and we recognize the consideration received under the arrangement as revenue on a straight-line basis over our estimated period of performance. Our anticipated periods of performance, typically the terms of our research and development obligations, are subject to estimates by management and may change over the course of the collaboration agreement. Such changes could have a material impact on the amount of revenue we record in future periods.

We apply the milestone method of accounting to recognize revenue from milestone payments when earned, as evidenced by written acknowledgement from the collaborator or other persuasive evidence that the milestone has been achieved and the payment is non-refundable, provided that the milestone event is substantive. A milestone event is defined as an event (i) that can only be achieved based in whole or in part on either our performance or on the occurrence of a specific outcome resulting from our performance; (ii) for which there is substantive uncertainty at the inception of the arrangement that the event will be achieved; and (iii) that would result in additional payments being due to us. Events for which the occurrence is either contingent solely upon the passage of time or the result of a counterparty’s performance are not considered to be milestone events. A milestone event is substantive if all of the following conditions are met: (i) the consideration is commensurate with either our performance to achieve the milestone, or the enhancement of the value to the delivered item(s) as a result of a specific outcome resulting from our performance to achieve the milestone; (ii) the consideration relates solely to past performance; and (iii) the consideration is reasonable relative to all the deliverables and payment terms (including other potential milestone consideration) within the arrangement.

We assess whether a milestone is substantive at the inception of the arrangement. If a milestone is deemed non-substantive, we account for that milestone payment in accordance with the multiple element arrangements guidance and recognize revenue consistent with the related units of accounting for the arrangement over the related performance period.

Research and development costs include costs incurred in identifying, developing and testing product candidates and generally comprise compensation and related benefits and non-cash share-based compensation to research related employees; laboratory costs; animal and laboratory maintenance and supplies; rent; utilities; clinical and pre-clinical expenses; and payments for sponsored research, scientific and regulatory consulting fees and testing.

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued expenses. This process involves reviewing quotations and contracts, identifying 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 the actual cost. The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed or when contractual milestones are met. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. The significant estimates in our accrued research and development expenses are related to expenses incurred with respect to academic research centers, CROs, and other vendors in connection with research and development activities for which we have not yet been invoiced.

There may be instances in which our service providers require advance payments at the inception of a contract or in which payments made to these vendors will exceed the level of services provided, resulting in a prepayment of the research and development expense. Such prepayments are charged to research and development expense as and when the service is provided or when a specific milestone outlined in the contract is reached.

We account for share-based awards issued to employees in accordance with Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation (“ASC 718”) generally recognize share-based compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the periods during which the employees and non-employee directors are required to provide service in exchange for the award. In addition, we issue stock options and restricted shares of common stock to non-employees in exchange for consulting services and account for these in accordance with the provisions of ASC Subtopic 505-50, Equity-Based Payments to Non-employees (“ASC 505-50”). Under ASC 505-50, share-based awards to non-employees are subject to periodic fair value re-measurement over their vesting terms.

For purposes of calculating stock-based compensation, we estimate the fair value of stock options using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The determination of the fair value of share-based payment awards utilizing the Black-Scholes model is affected by our stock price and a number of assumptions, including expected volatility, expected life, risk-free interest rate and expected dividends. The expected volatility is primarily based on the historical volatility of peer company data while the expected life of the stock options is based on historical and other economic data trended into the future. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based on observed interest rates appropriate for the expected terms of our stock options. The dividend yield assumption is based on our history and expectation of no dividend payouts. If factors change and we employ different assumptions, stock-based compensation expense may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the past. If there is a difference between the assumptions used in determining stock-based compensation expense and the actual factors which become known over time, specifically with respect to anticipated forfeitures, we may change the input factors used in determining stock-based compensation costs for future grants. These changes, if any, may materially impact our results of operations in the period such changes are made.

We use the asset and liability method for accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective income tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled.

As required by U.S. GAAP, we recognize the financial statement benefit of a tax position only after determining that the relevant tax authority would more likely than not sustain the position following an audit. For tax positions meeting the more-likely-than-not threshold, the amount recognized in the financial statements is the largest benefit that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the relevant tax authority. Any interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions will be reflected in income tax expense. The Company is subject to examination of its income tax returns in the federal and state income tax jurisdictions in which it operates. On December 28, 2015, the United States Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, notified the Company of an income tax audit for the tax period ending June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2017, the IRS audit was closed and the Company incurred no penalties or payment liabilities for its income tax positions. For fiscal years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, we recorded income tax expense related to uncertainties related to state income tax.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) was enacted on December 22, 2017. The Tax Act contains several key provisions including, among other things, reducing the U.S. federal corporate tax rate from 34% to 21%. We have enacted this reduction in tax rate effective January 1, 2018, and as such is using a blended rate for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. In addition, federal net operating losses (“NOLs”) generated during future periods will be carried forward indefinitely, but will be subject to an 80% utilization against taxable income. We continue to evaluate the impact of the Tax Act and analyze additional guidance.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded an income tax provision, related to the Company’s Federal alternative minimum tax credit and uncertainties related to state income tax. The Company calculates its alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) using the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) system. The Company’s federal income tax liability is the greater of the tax computed using the regular tax system or the tax under the AMT system. Corporations are exempt from AMT for all prior years in which their annual gross receipts for the 3-year period ending before the current tax year did not exceed $7.5 million. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, the Company no longer qualifies for the small company exclusion. The AMT system limits the use of net operating losses used by taxpayers to offset taxable income.

In May 2017, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2017-09, Scope of Modification Accounting, which amends ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation. The amendments in this Update provide guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting in Topic 718. The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years and early adoption is permitted. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption of this standard on our financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which amends ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation. The amendments simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, forfeitures, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those fiscal years and early adoption is permitted. We have adopted this standard for our 2018 fiscal year and it did not have a material effect on our balance sheets, results of operations or cash flows.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) in order to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet for those leases previously classified as operating leases under GAAP. The standard requires, in most instances, a lessee to recognize on its balance sheet a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and also a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those periods, using a modified retrospective approach and early adoption is permitted. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption of this standard on our financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) which replaces the existing accounting standards for revenue recognition with a single comprehensive five-step model. The core principle is to recognize revenue upon the transfer of goods or services to customers at an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be received. It also requires enhanced disclosures about revenue, provides guidance for transactions that were not previously addressed comprehensively, and improves guidance for multiple-element arrangements. The guidance applies to any entity that either enters into contracts with customers to transfer goods or services or enters into contracts for the transfer of nonfinancial assets unless those contracts are within the scope of other standards. Since its issuance, the FASB has amended several aspects of the new guidance, including provisions that address revenue recognition associated with the licensing of intellectual property. In July 2015, the FASB delayed the effective date of this guidance by one year. The guidance is now effective for public companies for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017 as well as interim periods within those annual periods using either the full retrospective approach or modified retrospective approach.

We adopted Topic 606 as of July 1, 2018, the first day of our fiscal year 2019. The adoption of Topic 606 may impact the timing and pattern of revenue recognition; however, the quantification of such impact is ongoing. Upon adoption and in accordance with the disclosure requirements under Topic 606, we will report revenue amounts under Topic 606 but we will continue to disclose the amount of revenue that would have been recognized under ASC 605, Revenue Recognition, during our fiscal year 2019. See Note 2 of the notes to the financial statements appearing elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K for additional commentary on the adoption of Topic 606.

The JOBS Act permits an “emerging growth company” such as ours to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. We have chosen to “opt out” of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted. This decision to opt out of the extended transition period under the JOBS Act is irrevocable.

	Year ended June 30,				Increase			% Increase
	2018		2017		(Decrease)			(Decrease)
	(dollars in thousands)
Collaboration revenue
Amortization of upfront fees	$	18,529	$	38,231		(19,702	)		(52	)%
Development services		3,028		1,051		1,977			188	%
Milestone revenue		2,500	$	-		2,500		n/m
Total Collaboration revenue	$	24,057	$	39,282	$	(15,225	)		(39	)%
Grant revenue		129		191		(62	)		(32	)%
Total revenue	$	24,186	$	39,473	$	(15,287	)		(39	)%

Total revenue for fiscal year 2018 decreased by $15.3 million to $24.2 million compared to fiscal year 2017 primarily due to the reduction in amortization of upfront fees. Non-refundable upfront fees received under our collaboration with Biogen are amortized to collaboration revenue on a straight-line basis over the estimated service period. Development services revenue primarily consists of reimbursement of Post-Funding Development Activities under the Biogen Collaboration. Amortization revenue decreased by $19.7 million during fiscal 2018 compared to fiscal 2017, primarily due to reaching the end of the XLRP service period during the first quarter of fiscal 2018, and to a lesser extent, due to changes in estimates associated with the period of performance under the XLRS and preclinical programs. Development services revenue increased $2.0 million during fiscal 2018 compared to fiscal 2017, primarily due to activities associated with the Phase 1/ 2 clinical trial for XLRP. In fiscal 2018 the first patient was dosed in the XLRP Phase 1/ 2 clinical trial and we earned a $2.5 million milestone payment. Grant revenue decreased by $62,000 during fiscal 2018 compared to fiscal 2017, largely attributable to reduced research and development activities on grant-funded projects

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses by product candidate or program for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 and 2017:

	Year Ended June 30,				Increase			% Increase
	2018		2017		(Decrease)			(Decrease)
	(dollars in thousands)
External research and development expenses
ACHM	$	4,202	$	3,699	$	503			14	%
XLRS		2,399		2,062		337			16	%
XLRP		2,688		1,788		900			50	%
Research and discovery programs		6,077		3,677		2,400			65	%
Total external research and development expenses		15,366		11,226		4,140			37	%
Internal research and development expenses
Employee-related costs		8,897		7,808		1,089			14	%
Share-based compensation		2,443		2,546		(103	)		(4	)%
Other		5,475		4,637		838			18	%
Total internal research and development expenses		16,815		14,991		1,824			12	%
Total research and development expense	$	32,181	$	26,217	$	5,964			23	%

External research and development costs consist of collaboration, licensing, manufacturing, testing, and other miscellaneous expenses that are directly attributable to our most advanced product candidates and discovery programs. We do not allocate personnel-related costs, including stock-based compensation, costs associated with broad technology platform improvements or other indirect costs, to specific programs, as they are deployed across multiple projects under development and, as such, are separately classified as internal research and development expenses in the table above.

Research and development expenses for fiscal 2018 were $32.2 million, compared to $26.2 million for fiscal 2017, an increase of $6.0 million, or 23%. This increase was primarily attributable to:

General and administrative expenses for the fiscal 2018 were $14.4 million, compared to $11.4 million for fiscal 2017, an increase of $3.0 million, or 27%. The increase was primarily driven by higher employee-related costs and other expenses which resulted from hiring additional employees to support our continued expansion. The increase in other expenses of $2.4 million includes increases in consulting, accounting, state taxes and the provision for uncollectible accounts. The increased expenses were partially offset by lower share-based compensation expenses and legal and professional fees.

For fiscal year 2018, other income (expense), net, which was primarily comprised of investment income, increased to $1.2 million from $0.9 million generated in 2017 due largely to modestly better investment performance.

Income tax expense was $72,000 for the year ended June 30, 2018 compared to income tax expense of $2.4 million for the year ended June 30, 2017. The fiscal year 2018 income tax expense results from an income tax benefit that was recorded for the AMT paid in the fiscal year 2017 that became refundable under the Tax Act and an increase in the Company’s uncertain tax provision liability. The fiscal year 2017 income tax results from the recognition of revenue related to the Biogen agreement for tax purposes, which is accelerated compared to our GAAP revenue, resulting in significantly more taxable income than GAAP net income. While our taxable income is largely offset by the use of NOLs, our income tax expense is primarily due to federal alternative minimum tax expense, the apportionment of income to certain state jurisdictions where we do not have NOLs and the recognition of a reserve for uncertain tax positions. taxable income is largely offset by the use of NOLs, our income tax expense is primarily due to federal alternative minimum tax expense, the apportionment of income to certain state jurisdictions where we do not have NOLs and the recognition of a reserve for uncertain tax positions.

	Year ended June 30,				Increase			% Increase
	2017		2016		(Decrease)			(Decrease)
	(dollars in thousands)
Collaboration revenue
Amortization of upfront fees	$	38,231	$	41,751		(3,520	)		(8	)%
Development services		1,051		-		1,051		n/m
Milestone revenue		-		5,000		(5,000	)	n/m
Total Collaboration revenue	$	39,282	$	46,751	$	(7,469	)		(16	)%
Grant revenue		191		610		(419	)		(69	)%
Total revenue	$	39,473	$	47,361	$	(7,888	)		(17	)%

Total revenue for fiscal year 2017 decreased by $7.9 million to $39.5 million compared to fiscal year 2016. This decrease is primarily due to recognizing $5.0 million of milestone revenue in fiscal year 2016 associated with achieving a XLRS patient enrollment milestone under our collaboration arrangement with Biogen, and to a lesser extent, due to reduced revenue associated with the amortization of upfront fees associated with the Biogen collaboration due to certain delays which have extended our estimate of period of performance and reduced research and development activities under grant-funded projects.

	Year Ended June 30,				Increase			% Increase
	2017		2016		(Decrease)			(Decrease)
	(dollars in thousands)
External research and development expenses
ACHM	$	3,699	$	3,648	$	51			1	%
XLRS		2,062		9,237		(7,175	)		(78	)%
XLRP		1,788		8,604		(6,816	)		(79	)%
Research and discovery programs		3,677		6,911		(3,234	)		(47	)%
Total external research and development expenses		11,226		28,400		(17,174	)		(60	)%
Internal research and development expenses
Employee-related costs		7,808		5,631		2,177			39	%
Share-based compensation		2,546		2,147		399			19	%
Other		4,637		3,198		1,439			45	%
Total internal research and development expenses		14,991		10,976		4,015			37	%
Total research and development expense	$	26,217	$	39,376	$	(13,159	)		(33	)%

Research and development expenses for fiscal year 2017 decreased by $13.2 million to $26.2 million compared to fiscal year 2016. This decrease was primarily driven by a $12.0 million reduction in sublicense expenses associated with our collaboration arrangement with Biogen on the XLRS and XLRP programs and a $3 million reduction in licensing and milestones fees paid to 4D Molecular Therapeutics and Synpromics Limited associated with our research and discovery programs. These decreases were partially offset by increased employee-related expenses related to the hiring of additional employees to support clinical trial execution and research and development activities.

General and administrative expenses for fiscal year 2017 increased by $1.3 million to $11.4 million compared to fiscal year 2016. The increase was primarily driven by the hiring of additional employees which resulted in higher share-based compensation and other employee-related costs.

For fiscal year 2017 other income (expense), net, which was primarily comprised of investment income, increased to $0.9 million from $0.7 million generated in 2016 due largely to modestly better investment performance.

We have incurred cumulative losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception in 1999, and as of June 30, 2018, we had an accumulated deficit of $110.9 million. It will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. We expect that our research and development and general and administrative expenses will continue to increase and as a result, we anticipate that we will require additional capital to fund our operations, which we may raise through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements.

During fiscal year 2016, we received a non-refundable upfront cash payment of $94.0 million under our collaboration arrangement with Biogen. Contemporaneous with this collaboration arrangement, we also entered into an equity agreement with Biogen under which we received an additional $30.0 million in cash in exchange for 1,453,957 shares of common stock that we issued to Biogen at a purchase price of $20.63 per share. During fiscal year 2017, we made an initial $2.0 million payment to Bionic Sight for an equity interest in that company. Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested in accordance with our investment policy which primarily seeks to maintain adequate liquidity and preserve capital by generally limiting investments to certificates of deposit and investment-grade debt securities that mature within 24 months. As of June 30, 2018, we had cash and cash equivalents and investments of $104.9 million.

As of June 30, 2018, our cash and cash equivalents were held in bank accounts and money market funds, while our investments consisted of certificates of deposit and corporate and government bonds, none of which mature more than 12 months after the balance sheet date, consistent with our investment policy that seeks to maintain adequate liquidity and preserve capital.

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

Operating activities. Cash used in operating activities of $32.5 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 was primarily due to changes in operating assets and liabilities of $18.4 million, partially offset by non-cash items of $7.4 million, including $5.2 million in stock-based compensation expense, and a net loss of $21.3 million. Cash used in operating activities of $31.0 million during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 was primarily due to changes in operating assets and liabilities of $38.4 million, partially offset by non-cash items of $7.0 million, including $5.6 million of stock-based compensation expense, and net income of $0.4 million. For both fiscal 2018 and 2017, the changes in operating assets and liabilities was primarily due to the amortization of upfront fees associated with our Biogen collaboration. For fiscal year 2016, net cash provided by operating activities of $71.0 million was primarily associated with the upfront cash proceeds of $104.8 million received in connection with the entry into our collaboration with Biogen, which included an allocation of $10.8 million from the equity agreement, and a milestone payment from Biogen of $5.0 million. These proceeds were partially offset by the impact of our net loss, including the amortization of deferred revenue and payments to certain research partner institutions in the aggregate amount of $12.0 million for sub-license, milestone and other costs which were all associated with the Biogen collaboration, and changes during the period in our working capital accounts.

Investing activities. Cash provided by investing activities of $33.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 was primarily due to maturity of investments of $100.9 million, partially offset by purchases of investments of $67.1 million and the purchase of property and equipment and intellectual property of $0.8 million. Cash provided by investing activities of $32.8 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 was primarily due to maturity of investments of $103.2 million, partially offset by purchases of investments of $67.5 million, a $2.0 million payment to Bionic Sight for an equity interest in that company and purchases of property and equipment of $0.7 million. For the fiscal year 2016, net cash used in investing activities consisted primarily of cash outflows of $208.2 million related to the purchase of investments and $2.6 million related to the purchase of property and equipment and the acquisition of intellectual property, including leasehold improvements at our new facility in Alachua, Florida. These cash outflows were partially offset by $110.0 million of proceeds from the maturity of investments.

Financing activities. Net cash used in financing activities was $136,000 for the fiscal year 2018. Net cash provided by financing was $28,000 for the fiscal year 2017. 2018 net cash used consisted of cash outlays for deferred offering costs and include the proceeds received from the exercise of stock option awards, while 2017included the proceeds received from the exercise of stock options. Net cash provided by financing activities during fiscal year 2016 was $19.5 million and consisted of $19.2 million of cash received in connection with our sale of shares of common stock to Biogen pursuant to the equity agreement executed on July 1, 2015 and $283,000 of cash received in connection with the exercise of stock options.

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

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents and investments at June 30, 2018, will be will be sufficient to allow us to generate data from our ongoing clinical programs, to move our pre-clinical optogenetic program in collaboration with Bionic Sight into the clinic and to fund our currently planned research and discovery programs for at least the next two years. In order to complete the process of obtaining regulatory approval for our lead product candidates and to build the sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure that we believe will be necessary to commercialize our lead product candidates, if approved, we will require substantial additional funding.

We have based our projections of operating capital requirements on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect and we may use all of our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with research, development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products, we are unable to estimate the exact amount of our operating capital requirements. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Our current leased facilities encompass approximately 21,000 square feet of laboratory and office space in Alachua, Florida under a lease arrangement that will expire in December 31, 2025. In addition, we occupy approximately 8,000 square feet of office and laboratory space in Cambridge, Massachusetts. On July 31, 2017, we entered into a new lease to increase our office and laboratory space in Cambridge by approximately 5,000 square feet to a total of approximately 8,000 square feet and extend the term of the lease for an additional seven years, with an option to further extend the lease for one additional three-year term.

We also have obligations arising under our license agreements to make future payments to third parties that become due and payable on the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones (such as the start of a clinical trial, filing of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, approval by the FDA or product launch). We have not included these obligations on our balance sheet or in the table above because the achievement and timing of these milestones is not fixed nor determinable. These obligations include:

If any of our product candidates that utilize technology licensed under these agreements reached commercialization, we will be obligated to make royalty payments ranging from 0.5% to 4.0% of our net sales of the applicable product. We are responsible for a portion of the costs related to the preparation, filing, issuance, prosecution and maintenance of the patents covered by the license agreements.

We enter into contracts in the normal course of business with contract research organizations for preclinical research studies, research supplies and other services and products for operating purposes. These contracts generally provide for termination on notice, and therefore are cancelable contracts.

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

Our financial instruments at June 30, 2018 consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents and investments totaling $104.9 million. These financial instruments are exposed to the impact of interest rate changes which may result in fluctuations to our interest income. Due to the nature of our investments in money market funds, certificates of deposits, and debt instruments of corporations and U.S. government agencies, all of which generally mature within a two-year period of their purchase date, the estimated fair values of these financial instruments approximate their carrying amounts at June 30, 2018.

We maintain our investment portfolio in accordance with our investment policy. The primary objectives of this investment policy are to maintain adequate liquidity, preserve capital and to meet our operating needs. Although our investments are subject to credit risk, our investment policy specifies credit quality standards for our investments and limits the amount of credit exposure from any single issue, issuer or type of investment. Our investments are also subject to interest rate risk and may decrease in value if market interest rates increase. However, due to the conservative nature of our investments and relatively short investment periods, we believe interest rate risk is mitigated and an immediate 10% increase in interest rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of our portfolio. We do not own derivative financial instruments. Accordingly, we do not believe that there is any material market risk exposure with respect to derivative or other financial instruments.

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (the Company) as of June 30, 2018, the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes and financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a) (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at June 30, 2018, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

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

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

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

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (the Company) as of June 30, 2017, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended June 30, 2017. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of the Company listed in Item 15(a) as of and for the years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation as of June 30, 2017, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended June 30, 2017, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

	June 30,
In thousands, except per share data	2018			2017
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	31,065		$	30,706
Investments		73,840			95,994
Grants receivable		210			174
Prepaid and other current assets		4,009			3,361
Total current assets		109,124			130,235
Investments, net of current portion		-			11,749
Property and equipment, net		5,254			2,661
Intangible assets, net		968			1,219
Investment in Bionic Sight		1,980			2,000
Other assets		1,206			59
Total assets	$	118,532		$	147,923
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	945		$	998
Accrued and other liabilities		7,155			6,162
Deferred revenue		6,295			20,996
Total current liabilities		14,395			28,156
Deferred revenue, net of current portion		610			4,438
Other long-term liabilities		4,345			-
Total liabilities		19,350			32,594
Stockholders' equity:
Common stock, par value $.001 per share, 150,000 shares authorized; 18,137 and 18,088 shares issued; 18,126 and 18,088 shares outstanding at June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively		18			18
Additional paid-in capital		210,139			204,937
Shares held in treasury of: 11 and 0 at June 30, 2018 and 2017 respectively		(49	)		-
Accumulated deficit		(110,926	)		(89,626	)
Total stockholders' equity		99,182			115,329
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	$	118,532		$	147,923

	Years ended June 30,
In thousands, except per share amounts	2018			2017			2016
Revenue:
Collaboration revenue	$	24,057		$	39,282		$	46,751
Grant revenue		129			191			610
Total revenue		24,186			39,473			47,361
Operating expenses:
Research and development		32,181			26,217			39,376
General and administrative		14,389			11,354			10,074
Total operating expenses		46,570			37,571			49,450
Income (loss) from operations		(22,384	)		1,902			(2,089	)
Other income (expense):
Investment income, net		1,301			952			711
Other expense		(125	)		(47	)		(3	)
Total other income, net		1,176			905			708
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes		(21,208	)		2,807			(1,381	)
Provision for income taxes		72			2,400			-
Income (loss) before equity in net losses of affiliate		(21,280	)		407			(1,381	)
Equity in net losses of affiliate		(20	)		-			-
Net income (loss)	$	(21,300	)	$	407		$	(1,381	)
Net income (loss) per share, basic	$	(1.18	)	$	0.02		$	(0.08	)
Net income (loss) per share, diluted	$	(1.18	)	$	0.02		$	(0.08	)
Weighted average shares outstanding, basic		18,105			18,072			17,810
Weighted average shares outstanding, diluted		18,105			18,385			17,810

	Common Stock				Treasury Stock					Additional
	Outstanding				Outstanding					Paid-in		Accumulated
In thousands	Shares		Amount		Shares		Amount			Capital		Deficit			Total
Balance, June 30, 2015		16,491	$	16		-	$	-		$	174,168	$	(88,652	)	$	85,532
Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs		1,494		2		-		-			19,805		-			19,807
Share-based compensation expense		-		-		-		-			5,007		-			5,007
Shares issued under employee plans		59		-		-		-			283		-			283
Exercise of Warrants		9		-		-		-			40		-			40
Net loss		-		-		-		-			-		(1,381	)		(1,381	)
Balance, June 30, 2016		18,053	$	18		-	$	-		$	199,303	$	(90,033	)	$	109,288
Share-based compensation expense		-		-		-		-			5,606		-			5,606
Shares issued under employee plans		31		-		-		-			28		-			28
Exercise of Warrants		4		-		-		-			-		-			-
Net income		-		-		-		-			-		407			407
Balance, June 30, 2017		18,088		18		-	$	-		$	204,937	$	(89,626	)	$	115,329
Share-based compensation expense		-		-				-			5,193		-			5,193
Shares issued under employee plans		49		-		11		(49	)		9		-			(40	)
Net loss		-		-		-		-			-		(21,300	)		(21,300	)
Balance, June 30, 2018		18,137		18		11	$	(49	)	$	210,139	$	(110,926	)	$	99,182

	Years ended June 30,
In thousands	2018			2017			2016
Cash flows from operating activities
Net income (loss)	$	(21,300	)	$	407		$	(1,381	)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash (used in) operating activities:
Share-based compensation expense		5,193			5,606			5,007
Share-based collaboration expense		-			-			636
Depreciation and amortization		1,175			912			567
Investment premium accretion		85			402			448
Provision for bad debts		375			-			-
Equity in net losses of affiliate		20			-			-
Loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment		1			47			-
Loss on disposal of intangible assets		126			-			-
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
(Increase) decrease in grants receivable		(36	)		780			409
Increase in prepaid and other assets		(1,903	)		(240	)		(1,562	)
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable		(53	)		(333	)		140
Increase (decrease) in deferred revenues		(18,529	)		(38,230	)		63,664
Increase (decrease) in accrued and other liabilities		2,326			(352	)		3,063
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities		(32,520	)		(31,001	)		70,991
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchase of property and equipment		(662	)		(739	)		(2,471	)
Purchase of and capitalized costs related to intangible assets		(141	)		(152	)		(121	)
Investment in Bionic Sight		-			(2,000	)		-
Maturity of investments		100,900			103,244			109,968
Purchase of investments		(67,082	)		(67,542	)		(208,180	)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		33,015			32,811			(100,804	)
Cash flows from financing activities
Proceeds from exercise of common stock options		9			28			283
Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs		-			-			19,211
Payments made toward capital lease obligations		(43	)		-			-
Deferred offering costs		(102	)		-			-
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities		(136	)		28			19,494
Net increase(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		359			1,838			(10,319	)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year		30,706			28,868			39,187
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year	$	31,065		$	30,706		$	28,868
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash financing activities
Cash paid during the year for income taxes	$	617		$	887		$	-
Capital lease obligation related to the purchase of equipment	$	240		$	-		$	-
Lease incentive obligation related to the purchase of leasehold improvements	$	2,588		$	-		$	-
Costs related to future offering costs in accounts payable and accrued liabilities	$	163		$	-		$	-
Issuance of restricted stock for no consideration	$	49		$	-		$	-

Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (the “Company” or “AGTC”) was incorporated as a Florida corporation on January 19, 1999 and reincorporated as a Delaware corporation on October 24, 2003. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that uses a proprietary gene therapy platform to develop transformational genetic therapies for patients suffering from rare and debilitating diseases.

In July 2015, the Company entered into a collaboration agreement (the “Collaboration Agreement”) with Biogen MA, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Biogen Inc. (“Biogen”), pursuant to which the Company and Biogen will collaborate to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize gene therapy products to treat X-linked retinoschisis (“XLRS”), X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (“XLRP”), and discovery programs targeting three indications based on the Company’s adeno-associated virus vector technologies. The Collaboration Agreement became effective in August 2015. The Collaboration Agreement and other transactions with Biogen are discussed further in Note 7 to these financial statements.

The Company has devoted substantially all of its efforts to research and development, including clinical trials. The Company has not completed the development of any products. The Company has generated revenue from collaboration agreements, sponsored research payments and grants, but has not generated product revenue to date and is subject to a number of risks similar to those of other early stage companies in the biotechnology industry, including dependence on key individuals, the difficulties inherent in the development of commercially viable products, the need to obtain additional capital necessary to fund the development of its products, development by the Company or its competitors of technological innovations, risks of failure of clinical studies, protection of proprietary technology, compliance with government regulations and ability to transition to large-scale production of products. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $110.9 million. While the Company expects to continue to generate some revenue from partnering, including under the collaboration with Biogen, the Company expects to incur losses for the foreseeable future. The Company has funded its operations to date primarily through public offerings of its common stock, private placements of its preferred stock, and collaborations. At June 30, 2018, the Company had cash and cash equivalents and investments of $104.9 million.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and, in the opinion of management, include all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows for each period presented.

Operating segments are identified as components of an enterprise about which separate discrete financial information is available for evaluation by the chief operating decision-maker in making decisions regarding resource allocation and assessing performance. To date, we have viewed our operations and managed our business as one segment.

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

Cash consists of funds held in bank accounts. Cash equivalents consist of short-term, highly liquid investments with original maturities of 90 days or less at the time of purchase and generally include money market accounts.

The Company’s investments consist of certificates of deposit and debt securities classified as held-to-maturity. Management determines the appropriate classification of debt securities at the time of purchase and reevaluates such designation as of each balance sheet date. Debt securities are classified as held-to-maturity when the Company has the positive intent and ability to hold the securities to maturity. Held-to-maturity securities are stated at amortized cost, adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity. Such amortization is included in investment income. Interest on securities classified as held-to-maturity is included in investment income.

The Company uses the specific identification method to determine the cost basis of securities sold.

Investments are considered to be impaired when a decline in fair value is judged to be other-than-temporary. The Company evaluates an investment for impairment by considering the length of time and extent to which market value has been less than cost or amortized cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer as well as specific events or circumstances that may influence the operations of the issuer and the Company’s intent to sell the security or the likelihood that it will be required to sell the security before recovery of the entire amortized cost. Once a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, an impairment charge is recorded to other income (expense) and a new cost basis in the investment is established.

The Company maintains its cash and cash equivalents and certificates of deposit with two financial institutions that are federally insured. Some of these financial instruments are in excess of federally insured limits and as a result, could potentially expose the Company to significant concentrations of credit risk. To date, the Company has not experienced any losses associated with this credit risk and continues to believe that this exposure is not significant. The Company invests its excess cash primarily in money market funds, certificates of deposit, and debt instruments of corporations and U.S. government agencies. These investments generally mature within a two-year period from their purchase date, in line with the Company’s investment policy that seeks to maintain adequate liquidity and preserve capital.

Purchases of clinical materials stored for master and working viral banks that remain at the sites in anticipation of their future use at that site are charged to expense when they are incurred. Since the Company can use each of the raw materials in only a single product, each raw material is deemed to have no future economic value independent of the development status of that single drug.

The Company is required to disclose information on all assets and liabilities reported at fair value that enables an assessment of the inputs used in determining the reported fair values. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”), establishes a hierarchy of inputs used when available. Observable inputs are inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company. Unobservable inputs are those that reflect the Company’s assumptions about the inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, and are developed based on the best information available in the circumstances. The fair value hierarchy applies only to the valuation inputs used in determining the reported fair value of financial instruments and is not a measure of the investment credit quality. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

Level 1—Valuations based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access at the measurement date.

Level 2—Valuations based on quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active or for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3—Valuations that require inputs that reflect the Company’s own assumptions that are both significant to the fair value measurement and are unobservable.

To the extent that valuation is based on models or inputs that are less observable or unobservable in the market, the determination of fair value requires more judgment. Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised by the Company in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

Property and equipment, consisting of laboratory equipment, furniture and fixtures, computer equipment and leasehold improvements, are recorded at cost. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, which are generally three to ten years. The weighted average useful life is 6.7 years. Leasehold improvements are stated at cost and are amortized over the shorter of the estimated useful lives of the assets or the lease term, including any renewal periods that are deemed to be reasonably assured. Repair and maintenance costs that do not improve service potential or extend an asset’s economic life are recorded as an expense when incurred.

Intangible assets primarily include licenses and patents. The Company obtains licenses from third parties and capitalizes the costs related to exclusive licenses that have alternative future use in multiple potential programs. The Company also capitalizes costs related to filing, issuance, and prosecution of patents. The Company reviews its capitalized costs periodically to determine that such costs relate to patent applications that have future value and an alternative future use, and writes off any costs associated with patents that are no longer being actively pursued or that have no future benefit.

Amortization expense is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, which are generally eight to twenty years. The weighted average amortization period is 12.4 years. The Company amortizes in-licensed patents and patent applications from the date of the applicable license and internally developed patents and patent applications from the date of the initial application. Licenses and patents converted to research use only are immediately written off to expense.

The Company reviews its long-lived assets for impairment when impairment indicators are present. If impairment indicators exist, management determines whether impairment in value has occurred by comparing the estimated undiscounted cash flows from future operations with the carrying values of the assets. Management considers several indicators in assessing impairment, including trends and prospects, as well as the effects of obsolescence, demand, competition and other economic factors. No impairment charges were recorded for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017, and 2016.

The Company has primarily generated revenue through collaboration agreements, sponsored research arrangements with nonprofit organizations for the development and commercialization of product candidates and revenues from federal research and development grant programs. The Company recognizes revenue when amounts are realized or realizable and earned. Revenue is considered realizable and earned when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; (3) the price is fixed or determinable; and (4) collection of the amounts due are reasonably assured.

Amounts received prior to satisfying the revenue recognition criteria are recorded as deferred revenue in the Company’s balance sheets. Amounts expected to be recognized as revenue within the 12 months following the balance sheet date are classified as current liabilities. The Company recognizes revenue for reimbursements of research and development costs under collaboration agreements as the services are performed. The Company records these reimbursements as revenue and not as a reduction of research and development expenses, as the Company has the risks and rewards as the principal in the research and development activities.

The Company evaluates the terms of sponsored research agreement grants and federal grants to assess the Company’s obligations and if the Company’s obligations are satisfied by the passage of time, revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis. In situations where the performance of the Company’s obligations has been satisfied when the grant is received, revenue is

recognized upon receipt of the grant. Certain grants contain refund provisions. The Company reviews those refund provisions to determine the likelihood of repayment. If the likelihood of repayment of the grant is determined to be remote, the grant is recognized as revenue. If the probability of repayment is determined to be more than remote, the Company records the grant as a deferred revenue liability, until such time that the grant requirements have been satisfied.

On July 1, 2015, the Company entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Biogen. This collaboration is discussed further in Note 7 of notes to the financial statements. The terms of this agreement contains multiple elements, or deliverables, which may include, among others, (i) licenses, or options to obtain licenses, to its technology, and (ii) research and development activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborative partner. Payments made under this arrangement includes one or more of the following: non-refundable, up-front license fees; option exercise fees; funding of research and/or development efforts; milestone payments; and royalties on future product sales.

Multiple element arrangements are analyzed to determine whether the deliverables within the agreement can be separated or whether they must be accounted for as a single unit of accounting. Deliverables under an agreement are required to be accounted for as separate units of accounting provided that (i) a delivered item has value to the customer on a stand-alone basis; and (ii) if the agreement includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item, delivery or performance of the undelivered item is considered probable and substantially in the control of the Company. The allocation of consideration amongst the deliverables under the agreement is derived using a “best estimate of selling price” if vendor specific objective evidence and third-party evidence of fair value is not available. If the delivered element does not have stand-alone value or if the fair value of any of the undelivered elements cannot be determined, the arrangement is then accounted for as a single unit of accounting, and the Company recognizes the consideration received under the arrangement as revenue on a straight-line basis over the estimated period of performance.

The Company determines the estimated selling price for deliverables within each agreement using vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, of selling price, if available, third-party evidence, or TPE, of selling price if VSOE is not available, or best estimate of selling price, or BESP, if neither VSOE nor TPE are available. Determining the best estimate of selling price for a deliverable requires significant judgment. The Company uses BESP to estimate the selling price related to licenses to its proprietary technology, since it often does not have VSOE or TPE of selling price for these deliverables. In those circumstances where it utilizes BESP to determine the estimated selling price of a license to our proprietary technology, the Company considers market conditions as well as entity-specific factors, including those factors contemplated in negotiating the agreements as well as internally developed models that include assumptions related to the market opportunity, estimated development costs, probability of success and the time needed to commercialize a product candidate pursuant to the license. In validating its best estimate of selling price, the Company evaluates whether changes in the key assumptions used to determine the best estimate of selling price will have a significant effect on the allocation of arrangement consideration among multiple deliverables.

If the delivered element does not have stand-alone value or if the fair value of any of the undelivered elements cannot be determined, the arrangement is then accounted for as a single unit of accounting, and the Company recognizes the consideration received under the arrangement as revenue on a straight-line basis over our estimated period of performance. The Company’s anticipated periods of performance, typically the terms of our research and development obligations, are subject to estimates by management and may change over the course of the collaboration agreement. Such changes could have a material impact on the amount of revenue we record in future periods.

The Company applies the milestone method of accounting to recognize revenue from milestone payments when earned, as evidenced by written acknowledgement from the collaborator or other persuasive evidence that the milestone has been achieved and the payment is non-refundable, provided that the milestone event is substantive. A milestone event is defined as an event (i) that can only be achieved based in whole or in part on either the Company’s performance or on the occurrence of a specific outcome resulting from the Company’s performance; (ii) for which there is substantive uncertainty at the inception of the arrangement that the event will be achieved; and (iii) that would result in additional payments being due to the Company. Events for which the occurrence is either contingent solely upon the passage of time or the result of a counterparty’s performance are not considered to be milestone events. A milestone event is substantive if all of the following conditions are met: (i) the consideration is commensurate with either the Company’s performance to achieve the milestone, or the enhancement of the value to the delivered item(s) as a result of a specific outcome resulting from the Company’s performance to achieve the

milestone; (ii) the consideration relates solely to past performance; and (iii) the consideration is reasonable relative to all the deliverables and payment terms (including other potential milestone consideration) within the arrangement.

The Company assesses whether a milestone is substantive at the inception of the arrangement. If a milestone is deemed non-substantive, the Company accounts for that milestone payment in accordance with the multiple element arrangements guidance and recognizes revenue consistent with the related units of accounting for the arrangement over the related performance period.

During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2016, the Company recognized milestone revenue in the amount of $2.5 and $5.0 million, respectively. No milestone revenues were recognized during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017.

The Company uses the asset and liability method for accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective income tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) was enacted on December 22, 2017. The Tax Act contains several key provisions including, among other things, reducing the U.S. federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. In addition, federal net operating losses (“NOLs”) will be carried forward indefinitely, but will be subject to an 80% utilization against taxable income. The Company follows the guidance in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 118 (SAB 118) which provides additional clarification regarding the application of ASC Topic 740 in situations where the Company does not have the necessary information available, prepared, or analyzed in reasonable detail to complete the accounting for certain income tax effects of the Act for the reporting period in which the Act was enacted. SAB 118 provides for a measurement period beginning in the reporting period that includes the Act’s enactment date and ending when the Company has obtained, prepared, and analyzed the information needed in order to complete the accounting requirements but in no circumstances should the measurement period extend beyond one year from the enactment date. The Company has enacted the reduction in tax rate effective January 1, 2018, which resulted in a decrease to the deferred tax asset and a decrease to the valuation allowance. The Company is in the process of evaluating the Tax Act changes in section 162(m), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, regarding deductions for excessive employee compensation. The Company continues to gather and analyze information, including the definition of an employee contract for stock grants not vested as of the enactment date of the Act. It is the intention of the Company to complete the necessary analysis within the measurement period however the Company anticipates that any adjustment would be a decrease to deferred tax asset and valuation allowance with no impact to income tax expense.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded an income tax provision of $72,000 related to the Company’s federal alternative minimum tax credit and uncertainties in state income tax. The Company calculates its alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) using the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) system. The Company’s federal income tax liability is the greater of the tax computed using the regular tax system or the tax under the AMT system. Corporations are exempt from AMT for all prior years in which their annual gross receipts for the 3-year period ending before the current tax year did not exceed $7.5 million. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, the Company no longer qualifies for the small company exclusion. The AMT system limits the use of net operating losses used by taxpayers to offset taxable income. The $791,000 AMT credit at June 30, 2018 was created by AMT paid during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, which became refundable under the Tax Act resulting in an income tax benefit in 2018.

As required by U.S. GAAP, the Company recognizes the financial statement benefit of a tax position only after determining that the relevant tax authority would more likely than not sustain the position following an audit. For tax positions meeting the more-likely-than-not threshold, the amount recognized in the financial statements is the largest benefit that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the relevant tax authority. Any interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions will be reflected in income tax expense. The Company is subject to examination of its income tax returns in the federal and state income tax jurisdictions in which it operates. On December 28, 2015, the United States Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, notified the Company of an income tax audit for the tax period ending June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2017, the IRS audit was closed and the Company incurred no penalties or payment liabilities for its income tax positions.

For the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company’s tax expense includes an increase in the uncertain tax position liability of $1,009,000 related to uncertainty in how states may tax income. The uncertain tax position liability for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, was $1,959,000 and 950,000. No similar liability was recorded for the year ended June 30, 2016.

As part of the process of preparing financial statements, the Company is required to estimate its accrued expenses. This process involves reviewing quotations and contracts, identifying services that have been performed on its behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when the Company has not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual cost. The majority of the Company’s service providers invoice the Company monthly in arrears for services performed or when contractual milestones are met. The Company makes estimates of its accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in its financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to it at that time. The significant estimates in the Company’s accrued research and development expenses are related to expenses incurred with respect to academic research centers, contract research organizations (“CROs”), and other vendors in connection with research and development activities for which it has not yet been invoiced.

There may be instances in which the Company’s service providers require advance payments at the inception of a contract or in which payments made to these vendors will exceed the level of services provided, resulting in a prepayment of the research and development expense. Such prepayments are charged to research and development expense as and when the service is provided or when a specific milestone outlined in the contract is reached.

Prepayments related to research and development activities were $1.0 million and $1.5 million at June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, and are included within the Prepaid and other current assets line item on the balance sheets.

The Company accounts for share-based awards issued to employees in accordance with ASC Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation (“ASC 718”) and generally recognizes share-based compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the periods during which the employees are required to provide service in exchange for the award. In addition, the Company issues stock options and restricted shares of common stock to non-employees in exchange for consulting services and accounts for these in accordance with the provisions of ASC Subtopic 505-50, Equity-Based Payments to Non-employees (“ASC 505-50”). Under ASC 505-50, share-based awards to non-employees are subject to periodic fair value re-measurement over their vesting terms.

For purposes of calculating stock-based compensation, the Company estimates the fair value of stock options using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The determination of the fair value of share-based payment awards utilizing the Black-Scholes model is affected by the Company’s stock price and a number of assumptions, including expected volatility, expected life, risk-free interest rate and expected dividends. The expected volatility is primarily based on the historical volatility of peer company data while the expected life of the stock options is based on historical and other economic data trended into the future. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based on observed interest rates appropriate for the expected terms of the Company’s stock options. The dividend yield assumption is based on the Company’s history and expectation of no dividend payouts. If factors change and the Company employs different assumptions, stock-based compensation expense may differ significantly from what has been recorded in the past. If there is a difference between the assumptions used in determining stock-based compensation expense and the actual factors which become known over time, specifically with respect to anticipated forfeitures, the Company may change the input factors used in determining stock-based compensation costs for future grants. These changes, if any, may materially impact the Company’s results of operations in the period such changes are made.

Basic net earnings (loss) per share is calculated by dividing net earnings (loss) by the weighted average shares outstanding during the period, without consideration for common stock equivalents. Diluted net earnings (loss) per share is calculated by adjusting weighted average shares outstanding for the dilutive effect of common stock equivalents outstanding for the period, determined using the treasury-stock method. For purposes of the diluted net earnings (loss) per share calculations, stock options and warrants are considered to be common stock equivalents if they are dilutive. For fiscal years 2018 and 2016, basic and diluted net loss per share are the same due to stock options and warrants being considered anti-dilutive. If stock options and warrants had been dilutive, their impact would have increased common stock equivalents outstanding for fiscal 2018 by 0.2 million shares at June 30, 2018. Stock options and warrants were dilutive for fiscal 2017 and increased common stock equivalents outstanding by 0.3 million shares.

Comprehensive income (loss) consists of net income (loss) and changes in equity during a period from transactions and other equity and circumstances generated from non-owner sources. The Company’s net income (loss) equals comprehensive loss for all periods presented.

In May 2017, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2017-09, Scope of Modification Accounting, which amends ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation. The amendments in this Update provide guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting in Topic 718. The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years and early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption of this standard on its financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which amends ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation. The amendments simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, forfeitures, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those fiscal years and early adoption is permitted. The Company has adopted this standard for its 2018 fiscal year and it did not have a material effect on its balance sheets, results of operations or cash flows.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) in order to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet for those leases previously classified as operating leases under GAAP. The standard requires, in most instances, a lessee to recognize on its balance sheet a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and also a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those periods, using a modified retrospective approach and early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption of this standard on its financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which replaces the existing accounting standards for revenue recognition with a single comprehensive five-step model. The core principle is to recognize revenue upon the transfer of goods or services to customers at an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be received. It also requires enhanced disclosures about revenue, provides guidance for transactions that were not previously addressed comprehensively, and improves guidance for multiple-element arrangements. The guidance applies to any entity that either enters into contracts with customers to transfer goods or services or enters into contracts for the transfer of nonfinancial assets unless those contracts are within the scope of other standards. Since its issuance, the FASB has amended several aspects of the new guidance, including provisions that address revenue recognition associated with the licensing of intellectual property. In July 2015, the FASB delayed the effective date of this guidance by one year. The guidance is effective for public companies for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017 as well as interim periods within those annual periods using either the full retrospective approach or modified retrospective approach.

The Company will adopt Topic 606 using the modified retrospective approach, effective July 1, 2018. Under such adoption approach, the Company will present comparative periods under legacy guidance, recognize a cumulative catch-up adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings as of the date of adoption, as applicable, and apply the new guidance to new and existing contracts that were not completed as of the date of adoption.

The Company has substantially completed its adoption plan which included a review of collaboration agreements, applying the five-step model of the new standard and comparing the results to the Company’s current accounting as well as a process of revising its revenue recognition accounting policy and expanding revenue disclosures to reflect the requirements of the amended revenue recognition guidance. These efforts include implementing appropriate changes to controls, processes, and systems to support the appropriate recognition and disclosure of revenue on an ongoing basis. While the assessment and adoption plan are substantially complete, the Company continues to work on finalizing the quantification of the impact of Topic 606 and implementing the necessary changes to processes and internal controls. Therefore, the Company is not able to reasonably quantify the cumulative catch-up to be recorded to opening accumulated deficit or the estimated impact to the timing and pattern of revenue recognition moving forward. The Company will finalize its assessment in the first quarter of the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2018

Cash in excess of our immediate requirements is invested in accordance with the Company’s investment policy that primarily seeks to maintain adequate liquidity and preserve capital.

The following table summarizes the Company’s investments by category as of June 30, 2018 and 2017:

A summary of the Company’s debt securities classified as held-to-maturity is as follows:

	June 30, 2017
In thousands	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses			Fair Value
Investments - Current:
U.S. government and agency obligations	$	92,494	$	-	$	(147	)	$	92,347
Corporate obligations		-		-		-			-
	$	92,494	$	-	$	(147	)	$	92,347

Investments - Noncurrent:
U.S. government and agency obligations	$	7,552	$	-	$	(52	)	$	7,500
Corporate obligations		2,086		-		(12	)		2,074
	$	9,638	$	-	$	(64	)	$	9,574

The amortized cost and fair value of held-to-maturity debt securities as of June 30, 2018, by contractual maturity, were as follows:

The Company believes that the unrealized losses disclosed above were primarily driven by interest rate changes rather than by unfavorable changes in the credit ratings associated with these securities and as a result, the Company continues to expect to collect the principal and interest due on its debt securities that have an amortized cost in excess of fair value. At each reporting period, the Company evaluates securities for impairment when the fair value of the investment is less than its amortized cost. The Company evaluated the underlying credit quality and credit ratings of the issuers, noting neither a significant deterioration since purchase nor other factors leading to an other-than-temporary impairment. Therefore, the Company believes these losses to be temporary. As of June 30, 2018, the Company did not have any intent to sell any of the securities that were in an unrealized loss position at that date.

Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value in the Company’s financial statements or have fair values disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. These assets and liabilities are classified into one of three levels of a hierarchy defined by GAAP. The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular item to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, including the consideration of inputs specific to the asset or liability.

The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value and determine the fair value hierarchy classification of each class of financial instrument included in the table below:

Cash and Cash Equivalents. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents approximates fair value as maturities are less than three months.

Certificates of Deposit. The Company’s certificates of deposit are placed through an account registry service. The fair value measurement of the Company’s certificates of deposit is considered Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy as the inputs are based on quoted prices for identical assets in markets that are not active. The carrying amounts of the Company’s certificates of deposit reported in the balance sheets approximate fair value.

Debt securities – held-to-maturity. The Company’s investments in debt securities classified as held-to-maturity generally include U.S. Treasury Securities, government agency obligations and corporate obligations. U.S. Treasury Securities are valued using quoted market prices. Valuation adjustments are not applied. Accordingly, U.S. Treasury Securities are considered Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair values of U.S. government agency obligations and corporate obligations are generally determined using recently executed transactions, broker quotes, market price quotations where these are available or other observable market inputs for the same or similar securities. As such, the Company classifies its investments in U.S. government agency obligations and corporate obligations within Level 2 of the hierarchy.

The following fair value hierarchy table presents information about each major category of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

In thousands	Quoted prices in active markets (Level 1)		Significant other observable inputs (Level 2)		Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)		Total Fair Value		Total Carrying Value
June 30, 2018
Cash and cash equivalents	$	31,065	$	-	$	-	$	31,065	$	31,065
Certificates of deposit		-		2,100		-		2,100		2,106
Held-to-maturity investments:
Corporate obligations		-		2,002		-		2,002		2,003
U.S. government and agency obligations		69,671		-		-		69,671		69,731
Total assets	$	100,736	$	4,102	$	-	$	104,838	$	104,905

June 30, 2017
Cash and cash equivalents	$	30,706	$	-	$	-	$	30,706	$	30,706
Certificates of deposit		-		5,601		-		5,601		5,611
Held-to-maturity investments:
Corporate obligations		-		2,074		-		2,074		2,086
U.S. government and agency obligations		79,476		20,372		-		99,848		100,046
Total assets	$	110,182	$	28,047	$	-	$	138,229	$	138,449

Depreciation expense of $909,000, $657,000 and $319,000 was recorded for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Amortization expense related to intangible assets for the years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016 was $266,000, $255,000 and $248,000, respectively.

Estimated amortization expense (in thousands) for the next five years and thereafter is as follows:

On July 1, 2015, the Company entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Biogen, pursuant to which the Company and Biogen will collaborate to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize gene therapy products to treat XLRS, XLRP, and discovery programs targeting three indications based on the Company’s adeno-associated virus vector technologies. The Collaboration Agreement became effective on August 14, 2015.

Under the Collaboration Agreement, the Company will conduct all development activities through regulatory approval in the United States for the XLRS program (with activities through Phase 1/2 completion being pre-funded under the agreement and any further activities subject to incremental consideration), and all development activities through the completion of the first in human clinical trial for the XLRP program (with activities through filing the IND being pre-funded under the agreement and any further activities subject to incremental consideration). In addition, the Collaboration Agreement provides for discovery programs targeting three indications whereby the Company will conduct discovery, research and development activities for those additional drug candidates through the stage of clinical candidate designation, after which, Biogen may exercise an option to continue to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize the designated clinical candidate. In February 2016, the Company announced Biogen’s selection of adrenoleukodystrophy as the non-ophthalmic indication of the discovery programs. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, the Company, in part through its participation in joint committees with Biogen, will participate in overseeing the development and commercialization of these specific programs.

The Company has granted to Biogen with respect to the XLRS and XLRP programs, and upon exercise of the option for the applicable discovery program, an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to grant sublicenses, to use adeno-associated virus vector technology and other technology controlled by the Company for the licensed products or discovery programs developed under the Collaboration Agreement. Biogen and the Company have also granted each other worldwide licenses, with the right to grant sublicenses, of their respective interests in other intellectual property developed under the collaboration outside the licensed products or discovery programs.

Activities under the Collaboration Agreement were evaluated under ASC 605-25, Revenue Recognition—Multiple Element Arrangements, as amended by ASU 2009-13, Revenue Recognition ("ASC 605-25"), to determine if they represented a multiple element revenue arrangement. The Collaboration Agreement includes the following significant deliverables:

(1) for each of the XLRS and XLRP programs, exclusive, royalty-bearing licenses, with the right to grant sublicenses, to use adeno-associated virus vector technology and other technology controlled by the Company for the purpose of researching, developing, manufacturing and commercializing licensed products developed under the arrangement (the “License Deliverables”);

(2) for each of the discovery programs, exercisable options to obtain exclusive licenses to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize any of the designated clinical candidates under such discovery programs (the “Option Deliverables”); and

(3) the performance obligations to conduct research and development activities through (a) regulatory approval in the United States, in the case of the XLRS program; (b) completion of the first in human clinical trial, in the case of the XLRP program; and (c) the stage of clinical candidate designation, in the case of each of the discovery programs (the “R&D Activity Deliverables”).

The R&D Activity Deliverables for each program are further segmented by those that are “Pre-Funded Activities” and those that are “Post-Funding Development Activities”. Pre-Funded Activities are those R&D activities for which the Company has primary responsibility and the consideration to be received under the agreement was received at the inception of the arrangement. Post-Funding Development Activities are those activities that may occur after the Pre-Funded Activities and for which the Company is entitled to additional compensation under the agreement from Biogen. Biogen has final decision-making authority for all matters related to the conduct of the Post-Funding Development Activities. Because Biogen is not contractually obligated to continue the programs beyond the Pre-Funded Activities, and due to the uncertain outcome of the discovery, research and development activities, the Post-Funding Development Activities are not considered deliverables at the inception of the arrangement and the associated fees and milestones are not included in the allocable arrangement consideration. The Company has determined that the additional fees it could receive under the arrangement for Post-Funding Development Activities are not priced at a significant and incremental discount.

The Company determined that both the License Deliverables and Option Deliverables do not have stand-alone value and do not meet the criteria to be accounted for as separate units of accounting under ASC 605-25. The factors considered by the Company in making this determination included, among other things, the unique and specialized nature of its proprietary technology and intellectual property, and the development stages of each of the XLRS, XLRP and the discovery programs targeting three indications. Accordingly, the License Deliverables under each of the XLRS and XLRP programs and the Option Deliverables under each of the discovery programs have been combined with the initial, Pre-Funded Activities deliverables associated with each related program and as a result, the Company’s separate units of accounting under its collaboration with Biogen, comprise the XLRS program, the XLRP program, and each of the discovery programs.

Under the Collaboration Agreement, the Company received a non-refundable upfront payment of $94.0 million in August 2015 which it recorded as deferred revenue. This upfront payment of $94.0 million was allocated among the separate units of accounting discussed above using the relative selling price method. In addition to the Collaboration Agreement, on July 1, 2015, the Company also entered into an equity agreement with Biogen. Under the terms of this equity agreement, Biogen purchased 1,453,957 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $20.63 per share, for an aggregate cash purchase price of $30.0 million which the Company also received in August 2015. The shares issued to Biogen represented approximately 8.1% of the Company’s outstanding common stock on a post-issuance basis, calculated on the number of shares that were outstanding at June 30, 2015, and constitute restricted securities that may not be resold by Biogen other than in a transaction registered under, or pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Accounting standards for multiple element arrangements contain a presumption that separate contracts negotiated or entered into at or near to the same time with the same entity were likely negotiated as a package and should be evaluated as a single agreement. The Company determined that the price of $20.63 paid by Biogen included a premium of $7.45 per share over the fair value of the company’s stock price, calculated based upon the stock price on the date of close of the agreement and adjusted for lack of marketability due to restrictions. Accordingly, the total premium of $10.8 million was also recorded as deferred revenue and, together with the $94.0 million, allocated to the separate units of accounting identified above using the relative selling price method as discussed in Note 2 to these financial statements. The Company will record revenue based on the revenue recognition criteria applicable to each separate unit of accounting. For amounts received up-front and initially deferred,

the Company will recognize the deferred revenue on a straight-line basis over the estimated service periods in which it is required to perform the research and development activities associated with each unit of accounting. At the inception of the Collaboration Agreement, the Company initially estimate the service periods to range between 2 and 3 years. However, due to certain delays which have extended our estimated period of performance, the estimated service periods are currently anticipated to be between 2 and 5 from the inception of the Collaboration Agreement.

During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016, the Company recognized revenue of approximately $24.1 million, $39.3 million and $46.8 million, respectively from its collaboration with Biogen. Below is a summary of the components of the collaboration revenue:

During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018 and 2016, the Company recorded and received $2.5 and $5.0 million, respectively of milestone revenue after having achieved a patient enrollment-based milestone under the Collaboration Agreement. No milestone revenue was recorded in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017. Developmental services revenue is comprised of reimbursable costs for post-funding development activities that were conducted by the Company.

As a result of the upfront payment of $94.0 million made by Biogen, as discussed above, the Company became liable to various research partner institutions for sub-license and other payments under existing agreements with such institutions. These agreements obligate the Company to pay to each research partner institution, amounts that range from 5% to 10% of certain proceeds received from collaboration and other arrangements, including any milestone payments received under such arrangements. Accordingly, the Company recorded total collaboration costs of approximately $10.6 million associated with the $94 million upfront payment, including $636,000 of expense that was settled during fiscal year 2016 by the issuance of 40,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to a research partner institution, pursuant to the terms of the existing agreement with that institution. The remainder of these sub-license and milestone fees were fully paid in cash during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016. As a result of the achievement of the $2.5 and $5.0 million milestone payments, discussed above, the Company recorded sub-license expense of $1,375,000 in fiscal year 2016 and $562,500 in fiscal year 2018.

The Company is also eligible to receive payments of up to $467.5 million based on the successful achievement of future milestones under its XLRS and XLRP programs. For XLRS, the Company is eligible to receive up to: (i) $40 million in milestone payments based upon the successful achievement of clinical milestones (relating to dosing in specified trials), (ii) $155 million in milestone payments based upon the achievement of regulatory approvals and first commercial sale in specified territories and (iii) $65 million in milestone payments based upon the achievement of worldwide sales targets. For XLRP, the Company is eligible to receive up to: (i) $42.5 million in milestone payments based upon successful achievement of clinical milestones (relating to dosing in specified trials), (ii) $102.5 million in milestone payments based upon the achievement of regulatory approvals and first commercial sale in specified territories and (iii) $62.5 million in milestone payments based upon the achievement of worldwide sales targets. In addition, the Company is eligible to receive payments of up to $592.5 million based on the exercise of the option for and the successful achievement of future milestones under its discovery programs. Each discovery program is categorized as Category A, Category B or Category C depending on the nature of the indication it seeks to address. For Category A, the Company is eligible to receive payments of up to: (i) $20 million based upon the successful achievement of clinical milestones (relating to dosing in specified trials) and (ii) $70 million in milestone payments based upon the achievement of regulatory approvals and first commercial sale in specified territories. For Category B, the Company is eligible to receive payments of up to: (i) $27.5 million based upon the successful achievement of clinical milestones (relating to dosing in specified trials) and (ii) $105 million in milestone payments based upon the achievement of regulatory approvals and first commercial sale in specified territories. For Category C, the Company is eligible to receive payments of up to: (i) $40 million based upon the successful achievement of clinical milestones (relating to dosing in specified trials) and (ii) $140 million in milestone payments based upon the achievement of regulatory approvals and first commercial sale in specified territories. Under certain limited circumstances, if there are discovery products from more than one discovery program in any of Category A, Category B or Category C, then the milestone payments under the applicable category shall be payable for the applicable discovery product from each such discovery program to achieve the specified milestones.

Biogen will also pay revenue-based royalties for each licensed product at tiered rates ranging from high single digit to mid-teen percentages of annual net sales of the XLRS or XLRP products and at rates ranging from mid-single digit to low-teen percentages of annual net sales for the discovery products. The Company has elected to apply the guidance in ASC 605-28 to the milestones. These milestones, if achieved, are substantive as they relate solely to past performance, are commensurate with estimated enhancement of value associated with the achievement of each milestone as a result of the Company’s performance and are reasonable when compared to other consideration amounts payable under the Collaboration Agreement; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will achieve the milestones or that the Company will receive the related revenue. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the achievement of the future milestones, such payments were not considered fixed or determinable at the inception of the Collaboration Agreement and accordingly, will not be recognized as revenue unless and until they become earned. The Company is not able to reasonably predict if and when the remaining milestones will be achieved.

On February 2, 2017, the Company entered into a strategic research and development collaboration agreement with Bionic Sight, LLC (“Bionic Sight”), to develop therapies for patients with visual deficits and blindness due to retinal disease. Through the AGTC-Bionic Sight collaboration, the companies seek to develop a new optogenetic therapy that leverages AGTC’s deep experience in gene therapy and ophthalmology and Bionic Sight’s innovative neuro-prosthetic device and algorithm for retinal coding.

Under the agreement, AGTC made an initial $2.0 million payment to Bionic Sight for an equity interest in that company. This initial investment represents an approximate 5% equity interest in Bionic Sight. In addition to the initial investment, AGTC will contribute to ongoing research and development support costs through additional payments or other in-kind contributions (AGTC Ongoing R&D Support). The AGTC Ongoing R&D Support payments and in-kind contributions will be made over time, up to the date that Bionic Sight has received both IND clearance from the FDA and receipt of written approval from an internal review board to conduct clinical trials from at least one clinical site for that product candidate (the “IND Trigger”.)

If the IND Trigger is attained, AGTC will receive additional equity, based on the valuation in place at the beginning of the agreement, for the AGTC Ongoing R&D Support payments and in-kind contributions, and will be obligated to purchase additional equity in Bionic Sight for $4.0 million, at a pre-determined valuation. Due to the uncertainty of achieving the IND Trigger, the Company is expensing the AGTC Ongoing R&D Support payments and in-kind contributions made under the collaboration agreement. Such amounts are included as a component of research and development expenses in the Company’s financial statements.

The Company recorded its initial $2.0 million investment in Bionic Sight using the equity method of accounting for investments, which is recorded as its own line item on the Company’s balance sheet. During fiscal 2018, the Company recorded a reduction of its investment in Bionic Sight of $19,913 and an investment loss on the statement of operations to reflect its equity interest in the net loss of this affiliate. As of June 30, 2018, the amount of the Company’s underlying equity in net assets of Bionic Sight is not representative of the amount at which the investment is carried due to retained losses experienced by Bionic Sight prior to the Company’s investment.

The ongoing research and development costs and contributions will be recorded as a periodic cost until such time when or if the IND Trigger is achieved.

The collaboration agreement grants to AGTC, subject to achievement by Bionic Sight of certain development milestones, an option to exclusively negotiate for a limited period of time to acquire (i) a majority equity interest in Bionic Sight, (ii) the Bionic Sight assets to which the collaboration agreement relates, or (iii) an exclusive license with respect to the product to which the collaboration agreement relates.

The Company uses stock options and awards of restricted stock to provide long-term incentives for its employees, non-employee directors and certain consultants. The Company has two equity compensation plans under which awards are currently authorized for issuance, the 2013 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 2013 Equity and Incentive Plan. No awards have been issued to date under the 2013 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and all of the 128,571 shares previously authorized under this plan

remain available for issuance. As of June 30, 2018, the total number of shares available for issuance under the 2013 Equity and Incentive Plan was 1,105,262.

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, as the plan administrator, has the authority to select the individuals to whom share-based awards are granted and to determine the terms of each award, including (i) the number of shares of common stock subject to a stock option or restricted share award; (ii) the date on which the stock option becomes exercisable; (iii) the option exercise price, which, in the case of incentive stock options, must be at least 100% (110% in the case of incentive stock options granted to a stockholder owning in excess of 10% of the Company’s stock) of the fair market value of the common stock as of the date of grant; (iv) the vesting term; and (v) the duration of the option (which, in the case of incentive stock options, may not exceed ten years). Employee options typically vest over a three- or four-year period.

	Years ended June 30,
	2018					2017					2016
(In thousands, except per share amounts)	Shares			Weighted Average Exercise Price		Shares			Weighted Average Exercise Price		Shares			Weighted Average Exercise Price
Outstanding, beginning of year		2,716		$	12.95		2,037		$	13.71		1,484		$	11.83
Granted		914			4.72		842			10.92		675			17.08
Exercised		(18	)		0.35		(31	)		0.91		(59	)		4.77
Forfeited		(415	)		9.86		(101	)		13.97		(57	)		13.90
Expired		(90	)		15.92		(31	)		16.17		(6	)		15.50
Outstanding, end of year		3,107		$	10.93		2,716		$	12.95		2,037		$	13.71
Exercisable, end of year		1,900					1,431					872
Weighted average fair value of options granted during the year	$	3.37				$	7.54				$	11.83

	June 30,
(Number of options in thousands; remaining lives in years)	2018				2017
			Weighted				Weighted
			Average				Average
	Number of		Contractual Life		Number of		Contractual Life
Exercise Price	Options		Remaining		Options		Remaining
$0.35 to $4.90		1,118		5.18		475		5.57
$4.95 to $10.55		404		8.06		467		9.48
$12.00 to $15.90		658		5.56		744		8.11
$16.00 to $19.87		764		6.09		864		7.83
$20.00 to $24.62		163		6.38		166		7.57
		3,107				2,716

As of June 30, 2018, the aggregate intrinsic value of all outstanding stock options was $0.6 million and for exercisable stock options was $0.6 million. The intrinsic value per option at June 30, 2018 is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying option and the closing price of the Company’s common stock of $3.70 on that date, and applies only to those awards having an exercise price currently below this closing price. The total fair value of options that vested during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017, and 2016 was $5.1 million, $6.0 million, and $4.5 million, respectively.

Unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested employee stock options amounted to $6.6 million as of June 30, 2018. Such compensation expense is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.14 years.

In accounting for stock options to non-employees, the fair value of services related to the options granted are generally recorded as an expense as these services are provided to the Company over the relating service periods. The Company re-measures any non-vested, non-employee options to fair value at the end of each reporting period using the Black-Scholes pricing model.

Share-based compensation expense related to stock options awarded to employees, non-employee directors and consultants amounted to $5.0. million, $5.6 million and $4.9 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Share-based compensation expense related to restricted shares of common stock awarded to employees and consultants amounted to $145,600, $5,000 and $167,000 for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Total share-based expense associated with stock options and restricted shares of common stock was allocated as follows:

The fair value of each option granted is estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes stock option pricing model. The following assumptions were made in estimating fair value:

The dividend yield is based upon the assumption that the Company will not declare a dividend over the life of the options. Since adopting ASC 718, the Company has been unable to use historical employee exercise and option expiration data to estimate the expected term assumption for the Black-Scholes grant-date valuation. The Company therefore has utilized the “simplified” method, as prescribed by the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, Share-Based Payment, to estimate on a formula basis the expected term of our stock options considered to have “plain vanilla” characteristics. The risk-free interest rate is based on

the U.S. Treasury yield curve on the date of valuation. As a relatively new public company, the Company does not have sufficient history to estimate the volatility of its common stock price or the expected life of the options. The Company calculates expected volatility based on reported data for similar publicly traded companies for which historical information is available and will continue to do so until the historical volatility of its common stock is sufficient to measure expected volatility for future option grants. The group of similar publicly traded companies was determined based upon companies considered to be direct competition or having been presented by independent parties as a “comparable” company based upon market sector. In determining this group, the Company has excluded “large-cap” entities. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of the grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Share-based compensation expense recognized in the statements of operations for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016 and 2015 does not reflect tax related effects on stock-based compensation given the Company’s historical and anticipated operating losses and offsetting changes in its valuation allowance that fully reserves against potential deferred tax assets.

The Company’s corporate headquarters are located in Alachua, Florida. In January 2016, the Company moved into a new combined-use facility consisting of approximately 21,000 square feet of laboratory and office space. The initial lease term for this facility is 10 years and the Company has options to extend the term of the lease for three additional five-year periods. The Company’s prior leased facilities encompassed approximately 7,000 square feet of office and laboratory space. The operating leases associated with the prior facilities expired in December 2015.

In August 2015, the Company entered into a two-year lease to occupy approximately 3,000 square feet of office and laboratory space in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In July 2017, the Company entered into a new lease to increase our office and laboratory space in Cambridge by approximately 5,000 square feet to a total of approximately 8,000 square feet and extend the term of the lease for an additional seven years, with an option to further extend the lease for one additional three-year term. This additional facility primarily focuses on business development, pharmacology, clinical operations and basic research and development.

For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017, and 2016, rent expense under these operating leases amounted to $909,000, $845,000 and $587,000, respectively. Future annual minimum lease payments (in thousands) under these non-cancelable operating leases are as follows:

Under various agreements, the Company will be required to pay royalties and milestone payments upon the successful development and commercialization of products. The Company has entered into funding agreements with various not-for-profit organizations. The Company may become obligated to pay royalties on net product sales of any collaboration product that it successfully develops and subsequently commercializes or, if it out-licenses rights to a collaboration product, a specified percentage of certain payments it receives from its licensee. The Company is not obligated to make such payments unless and until annual sales of a collaboration product exceed a designated threshold. The Company’s obligation to make such payments would end upon its payment of a specified amount.

The Company is also party to various agreements entered into in the ordinary course of its business, principally relating to licensed technology. The Company had seven license agreements with six different entities, including four with the University of Florida Research Foundation. The Company is responsible for all costs related to preparation, filing, issuance, prosecution and maintenance of the underlying patents covered in the license agreements. The Company is required to pay minimum annual royalty and license maintenance for all licenses until such time when the license is terminated by either expiration of underlying patents or voluntary termination by either party per the agreement.

These license agreements also require future payments related to milestones or royalties on future sales of specified products. Payments under these agreements generally become due and payable only upon achievement of certain developmental, regulatory or commercial milestones. Amounts related to contingent milestone payments are not considered contractual obligations as they are contingent on the successful achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones. There is uncertainty regarding the various activities and outcomes needed to reach these milestones, and they may not be achieved. The Company may terminate its license agreements with zero to ninety days written notice depending upon the terms of each specific agreement.

The Company enters into standard indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, generally the Company’s business partners or customers, in connection with any U.S. patent or any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s products. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company has never incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. From time to time, the Company may be involved in claims and legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. Management has no reason to believe that the outcome of any such legal actions would have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Company recorded the following current and deferred income tax expense or (benefit). For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the federal and state income tax provision (benefit) summarized as follows:

Deferred taxes are recognized for temporary differences between the basis of assets and liabilities for financial statement and income tax purposes. The significant components of the Company’s deferred tax assets (liabilities) are comprised of the following:

	June 30,
In thousands	2018			2017
Deferred tax assets:
Net operating loss carryforwards	$	13,910		$	9,124
Tax credit carryforwards		23,567			19,195
Accruals and other		4,625			11,987
Depreciation and amortization		112			-
Gross deferred tax assets		42,214			40,306
Deferred tax asset valuation allowance		(42,214	)		(40,303	)
Total deferred tax assets, net of valuation allowance		-			3
Deferred tax liabilities:
Depreciation and amortization		-			(3	)
Total deferred tax liabilities		-			(3	)
Net deferred tax asset (liability)	$	—		$	—

As of June 30, 2018, the Company had federal and state net operating losses of approximately $24.8 million and $50.2 million, respectively, that may be applied against future taxable income and expire in various years ranging from 2022 to 2038 and federal net operating losses of $28.3 million that do not expire under the Tax Act. As of June 30, 2018, the Company also had research and development tax credits of approximately $23.6 million that may provide future tax benefits and expire from 2027 to 2047.

The Company has evaluated the positive and negative evidence bearing upon the realizability of its deferred tax assets. Based on its history of operating losses, the Company has concluded that as of June 30, 2018, it is more likely than not that the benefit of its deferred tax assets will not be realized. Therefore, any tax benefits to be realized in future years as a result of the utilization of the Company’s net operating loss carry forwards as of June 30, 2018, computed based on statutory federal and state rates, are completely offset by valuation allowances established because realization of the deferred tax benefits are not considered more likely than not as of that date. The valuation allowance increased by approximately $1.9 million during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, due primarily to the net increase in federal tax credits and net operating losses.

On December 22, 2017, the President of the United States signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (the “Tax Act”). The Act includes a number of changes in existing tax law impacting businesses including, among other things, a permanent reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, effective January 1, 2018. The Company’s deferred tax assets and valuation reserve decreased by $7.6 million from the impact of the corporate tax rate change from the Tax Reform Act.

The differences between the effective income tax rate reflected in the benefit (provision) for income taxes and the amounts, which would be determined by applying a blended statutory federal income tax rate of 28% at June 30, 2018 and 34% at June 30, 2017 and 2016 is summarized as follows:

	Years ended June 30,
	2018			2017			2016
Federal income tax benefit at statutory rate		28	%		34	%		(34	)%
State income tax, net of federal benefit		3	%		4	%		(4	)%
Permanent differences- incentive stock compensation		(2	)%		40	%		35	%
Permanent differences- research expenses		(7	)%		80	%		115	%
Research and development tax credits		24	%		(240	)%		(327	)%
Tax Act- refundable AMT credit		4	%		0	%		0	%
Other		(2	)%		392	%		174	%
Change in unrecognized tax benefit		(3	)%		34	%		0	%
Remeasurement of net deferred tax assets		(36	)%		0	%		0	%
Change in valuation allowance, including remeasurement		(9	)%		(259	)%		41	%
Effective income tax rate		0	%		85	%		0	%

Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the Company’s net operating loss and tax credit carry forwards are subject to review and possible adjustment by the Internal Revenue Service and state tax authorities. Net operating loss and tax credit carry forwards may become subject to an annual limitation in the event of certain cumulative changes in the ownership interest of significant shareholders over a three-year period in excess of 50 percent, as defined under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code, respectively, as well as similar state provisions. This could limit the amount of tax attributes that can be utilized annually to offset future taxable income or tax liabilities. The amount of the annual limitation is determined based on the value of the Company immediately prior to the ownership change. Since its inception, the Company has completed several financings and sales of common stock which have resulted in a change in control as defined by Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code. Subsequent ownership changes may further affect the limitation in future years. A full valuation allowance has been provided against the Company’s net operating loss carryforwards and, if an adjustment were to be required, this adjustment would be offset by an adjustment to the deferred tax asset established for the net operating loss carryforwards and the valuation allowance.

For fiscal years through June 30, 2018, the Company generated research credits but has not conducted a study to document the qualified activities. This study may result in an adjustment to the Company’s research and development tax credit carry forwards; however, until a study is completed and any adjustment is known, no amounts are being presented as an uncertain tax position at June 30, 2018 or 2017. A full valuation allowance has been provided against the Company’s research and development tax credits and, if an adjustment were to be required, this adjustment would be offset by an adjustment to the deferred tax asset established for the tax credit carry forwards and the valuation allowance.

The Company files income tax returns in the United States and in multiple states. The federal and state returns are generally subject to tax examinations for the tax years ended June 30, 2014 through June 30, 2018. To the extent the Company has tax attribute carry forwards, the tax years in which the attribute was generated may still be adjusted upon examination by the Internal Revenue Service, or state authorities, to the extent such attributes are utilized in a future period. On December 28, 2015, the United States Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, notified the Company of an income tax audit for the tax period ending June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2017, the IRS audit was closed and the Company incurred no penalties or payment liabilities for its income tax positions.

The Company recognizes a tax benefit from an uncertain tax position when it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained upon examination. For the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company increased the uncertain tax position reserve by $1,009,000 which includes interest and penalties. A reserve of $950,000 was recorded for the year ended June 30, 2017. No

similar reserve was recorded for the years ended June 30, 2016. The entire amount of the reserve would reduce the annual effective tax rate if recognized. The Company does not anticipate that the amount of unrecognized tax benefits as of June 30, 2018 will significantly change within the next twelve months. The Company’s practice is to recognize interest and/or penalties related to uncertain income tax positions in income tax expense. The Company had $348,000 of interest and/or penalties accrued on the Company’s balance sheets at June 30, 2018. The Company had no interest and/or penalties accrued on the Company’s balance sheet at June 30, 2017. The Company recognized $348,000 of interest and/or penalties in the statement of operations for the year ended June 30, 2018 related to uncertain tax positions. The Company did not recognize any interest and/or penalties in the statement of operations for the years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 related to uncertain tax positions. The liability for uncertain tax positions as of June 30, 2018 is included in other long-term liabilities on the balance sheet. A reconciliation of the unrecognized tax benefits is summarized below (in thousands):

The Company sponsors an employee 401(k) salary deferral plan (“401(k) Plan”) that covers substantially all of its employees and is administered through its staff leasing company. Under the 401(k) Plan, employees may elect to defer up to 25% of their compensation per year (subject to a maximum limit prescribed by federal tax law) and the Company matches a portion of such employee contributions up to a maximum of 4% of the eligible salary. The Company’s matching contributions to the 401(k) Plan amounted to $302,000, $235,000 and $162,000 for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

In connection with its entry into the Collaboration Agreement with Biogen described in Note 7 of these financial statements, the Company also entered into an equity agreement with Biogen on July 1, 2015. Under the terms of this equity agreement, Biogen purchased 1,453,957 shares of the Company’s common stock, at a price of $20.63 per share, for an aggregate cash purchase price of $30.0 million. These cash proceeds were received from Biogen in August 2015. The shares issued to Biogen constitute restricted securities that may not be resold by Biogen other than in a transaction registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or pursuant to an exemption from such registration requirement.

As of June 30, 2018, there were 150,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value common stock and 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock that were authorized to be issued. As of that date, a total of 18,137,412 and 18,126,425 shares of common stock were issued and outstanding, respectively, while none of the preferred shares were issued and outstanding.

The following shares of common stock were reserved for future issuance as of June 30, 2018:

Summarized quarterly information for the two fiscal years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, is as follows:

In August 2018, the Company achieved the second milestone under the XLRP program, earning a $10.0 million milestone payment from Biogen related to dosing of the fourth patient in the XLRP Phase 1/2 clinical trial. The company owes sublicensing fees of approximately 23% or $2.3 million, to certain collaborators associated with this milestone payment.

On December 20, 2017, the Company notified RSM US LLP ("RSM") that RSM was dismissed as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm. RSM's dismissal became effective on December 19, 2017. The decision to change accounting firms was approved by the Audit Committee and by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Audit Committee”).

RSM’s reports on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2016 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles. During the Company’s two most recent fiscal years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 and during the period from July 1, 2017 through December 20, 2017, the Company did not have any disagreement with RSM on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures, which disagreements, if not resolved to RSM's satisfaction, would have caused RSM to make reference to the subject matter of disagreement in their reports on the Company's consolidated financial statements. In addition, during such periods, there were no “reportable events” as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K, except as set forth in this paragraph. As disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, as amended, and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, as amended, the Company identified material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting related to the design and operation of our closing and financial reporting processes. Specifically, the material weaknesses were due to the fact that the Company did not have the appropriate resources with the appropriate level of experience and technical expertise to oversee the Company’s closing and financial reporting processes.

The Company provided RSM with a copy of the disclosures included in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 21, 2017 (the “Current Report”). The Company requested that RSM furnish a letter addressed to the SEC stating whether or not it agrees with the statements made in the Current Report. A copy of RSM’s letter dated December 21, 2017 was attached as Exhibit 16.1 to the Current Report.

On December 19, 2017, the Company engaged Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”) as the Company’s new independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. The engagement of EY was approved by the Audit Committee.

During the years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 and the subsequent interim period through December 19, 2017, neither the Company nor anyone acting on its behalf consulted with EY regarding either: (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided to the Company that EY concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a disagreement (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions to Item 304 of Regulation S-K) or a reportable event (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to us, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures, we recognize that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, as ours are designed to do, and we necessarily were required to apply our judgment in evaluating whether the benefits of the controls and procedures that we adopt outweigh their costs.

As required by Rule 13a-15(b) under the Exchange Act, an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of June 30, 2017 was conducted under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. As disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Company had ineffective internal control over financial reporting relating to the design and operation of our closing and financial reporting processes that constituted material weaknesses. This weakness could have resulted in material misstatements to our annual and interim consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or detected.

As of the end of the period covered by this report, our management evaluated, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the remediation efforts related to the material weaknesses previously noted along with the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of the end of June 30, 2018, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of disclosure controls and procedures are met.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate “internal control over financial reporting,” as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act. We maintain internal control over financial reporting designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Internal control over financial reporting includes maintaining records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect our transactions; providing reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary for preparation of our financial statements; providing reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of our assets are made in accordance with management’s authorization; and providing reasonable assurance that unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements would be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Therefore, internal control over financial reporting determined to be effective provides only reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2018. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013). Based on this assessment, management has concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of June 30, 2018. Accordingly, our management has concluded that the financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K present fairly, in all material respects, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We are not required to comply with the auditor attestation requirement of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act while we qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act. Subject to certain limitations, we expect to remain an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act for up to five years from April 1, 2014, the date of our initial public offering.

Management previously identified and disclosed a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting at June 30, 2017 which related to the design and operation of our closing and financial reporting processes. Specifically, management concluded that this material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting was due to the fact that we did not have the appropriate resources with the appropriate level of experience and technical expertise to oversee our closing and financial reporting processes.

As of June 30, 2018, management sufficiently completed its remediation of these material weaknesses by taking the following actions:

We have completed the documentation and review of the corrective actions described above and our management has concluded that the design and operation of our closing and financial reporting processes is effective and therefore that this previously identified material weakness has been fully remediated as of June 30, 2018.

Except for those remedial actions described above, there was no change in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by Rule 13a-15(d) and 15d-15(d) of the Exchange Act that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

The information regarding directors, executive officers and corporate governance included in our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A no later than 120 days after the end of our fiscal year in connection with our fiscal 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Proxy Statement”) is incorporated herein by reference.

We are required under Item 405 of Regulation S-K to provide information concerning delinquent filers of reports under Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This information will be set forth under the caption “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in our Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.

The information regarding executive compensation included in the Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

The information regarding security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management and related stockholder matters included in the Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

We have two equity compensation plans under which awards are currently authorized for issuance, our 2013 Equity and Incentive Plan and our 2013 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. In connection with the consummation of our initial public offering in April 2014, our board of directors terminated any new offerings under our 2001 Stock Option Plan and our 2011 Stock Incentive Plan. Each of our 2013 Equity and Incentive Plan, our 2013 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, our 2001 Stock Option Plan and our 2011 Stock Incentive Plan was approved by our stockholders prior to our initial public offering in 2014. The following table provides information regarding securities authorized for issuance as of June 30, 2018 under our equity compensation plans.

Number of securities to be

Number of securities

issued upon exercise of

remaining available for

outstanding options,

future issuance under equity

warrants and rights, and

Weighted-average exercise

compensation plans

vesting of outstanding

price of outstanding options,

(excluding securities reflected

Plan category

restricted stock units

warrants and rights

in column (a))

(a)

(b)

(c)

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

3,106,710

10.93

1,233,833

(1)

Equity compensation plans not approved by

security holders

—

Total

3,106,710

10.93

1,233,833

The information regarding certain relationships and related transactions, and director independence included in the Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

The information regarding principal accounting fees and services included in the Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

			Additions
			Charge		To (from)
	Beginning		(Benefit) to		Other				End of
In thousands	of Period		Expenses		Accounts		Deductions		Period
Deferred Tax Valuation Allowance
Year 2018	$	40,303	$	1,911	$	—	$	—	$	42,214
Year 2017	$	37,412	$	2,891	$	—	$	—	$	40,303
Year 2016	$	36,845	$	567	$	—	$	—	$	37,412

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

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

Title of class		Name of exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $.001 par value		Nasdaq Global Market

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☒

Non-accelerated filer	☐ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company	☒

		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	25
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	59
Item 2.	Properties	59
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	59
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	59

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	60
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	61
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	62
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	75
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	76
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	106
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	106
Item 9B.	Other Information	108

PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	108
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	108
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	108
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	109
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	109

PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	109
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	113

SIGNATURES		115

	2018				2017
	High		Low		High		Low
First fiscal quarter	$	5.30	$	3.50	$	17.00	$	8.50
Second fiscal quarter	$	4.25	$	3.25	$	10.85	$	6.35
Third fiscal quarter	$	5.51	$	3.55	$	10.15	$	6.08
Fourth fiscal quarter	$	5.75	$	3.60	$	7.05	$	4.70

Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased^(a)		Average Price Paid per Share^(a)	Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plan		Approximate Dollar Value of Shares That May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plan
April 1, 2018 through April 30, 2018	685	$	4.00	—	$	—
May 1, 2018 through May 31, 2018	4,110	$	5.49	—	$	—
June 1, 2018 through June 31, 2018	606	$	4.55	—	$	—
Total	5,401	$	5.20	—

	Page(s)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		77
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		78

Financial Statements
Balance Sheets at June 30, 2018 and 2017		79
Statements of Operations for the years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016		80
Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016		81
Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016		82
Notes to Financial Statements		83-105

Schedule II—Valuation and Qualifying Accounts		114

	June 30, 2018
						Net of
			Accumulated			Accumulated
In thousands	Cost		Amortization			Amortization
Patents	$	2,193	$	(1,357	)	$	836
Licenses		289		(182	)		107
Other		54		(29	)		25
Intangible assets, net	$	2,536	$	(1,568	)	$	968

Year Ending June 30,	Amount
2019	$	161
2020		163
2021		165
2022		149
2023		72
Thereafter		258
	$	968

	Years Ended June 30,
Assumption	2018			2017			2016
Dividend yield		0.00	%		0.00	%		0.00	%
Expected term	6.00 to 6.50 years			6.00 to 6.25 years			6.00 to 6.25 years
Risk-free interest rate	1.83% to 2.87%			1.08% to 2.11%			1.41% to 1.86%
Expected volatility		83.53	%		79.18	%		78.85	%

In thousands	June 30, 2018
Stock options issued and outstanding		3,106,710
Authorized for future grant under the 2013 Employee Stock Purchase Plan		128,571
Authorized for future grant under the 2013 Equity and Incentive Plan		1,105,262
		4,340,543

	Year 2018 by Quarter:
In thousands, except per share data	First			Second			Third			Fourth
Revenue	$	10,315		$	4,852		$	3,603		$	5,416
Loss from operations	$	(1,667	)	$	(6,242	)	$	(7,696	)	$	(6,779	)
Net loss	$	(1,397	)	$	(5,190	)	$	(8,101	)	$	(6,612	)
Net loss per common share, basic	$	(0.08	)	$	(0.29	)	$	(0.45	)	$	(0.36	)
Net loss per common share, diluted	$	(0.08	)	$	(0.29	)	$	(0.45	)	$	(0.36	)

	Year 2017 by Quarter:
In thousands, except per share data	First		Second		Third			Fourth
Revenue	$	11,806	$	10,933	$	8,388		$	8,345
Income (loss) from operations	$	3,625	$	2,379	$	(600	)	$	(2,597	)
Net income (loss)	$	3,025	$	1,779	$	(1,200	)	$	(3,197	)
Net earnings (loss) per common share, basic	$	0.17	$	0.10	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.18	)
Net earnings (loss) per common share, diluted	$	0.16	$	0.10	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.18	)

Exhibit number				Description

3.1				Fifth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 1, 2014)

3.2				Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 1, 2014)

4.1				Specimen certificate evidencing shares of common stock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.1				Lease Agreement made as of April 10, 2015, by and between Alachua Foundation Park Holding Company, LLC and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-36370))

10.2*				Employment Agreement dated as of May 27, 2015 between Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation and Mark S. Shearman (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-36370))

10.3*				Employment Agreement dated as of January 29, 2015 between Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation and Stephen W. Potter (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (File No. 001-36370))

10.4*				Employment Agreement dated as of September 26, 2014 between Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation and Susan B. Washer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, event date September 26, 2014, filed on October 2, 2014 (File No. 001-36370))

10.5†**				Collaboration and License Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015 by and between Biogen MA Inc., and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation

10.6				Common Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015 by and between Biogen MA Inc., and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-36370))

10.7†**				Manufacturing License and Technology Transfer Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015 by and between Biogen MA Inc., and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation

10.8†				Second Amendment to Non-exclusive License Agreement, made and effective as of June 29, 2015, by and between The UAB Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-36370))

10.9†				Omnibus Amendment to Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, made and effective as of July 1, 2015, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc., the University of Florida Board of Trustees, John Hopkins University and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-36370))

10.10†				Omnibus Amendment to Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Know How and Standard Non-Exclusive License Agreement, made and effective as of June 30, 2015, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-36370))

10.11				Lease Agreement made as of September 19, 2011, by and between Thomson-Davis Enterprises, LLC and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.12†				Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, effective as of September 25, 2001, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.13†				Restated Amendment to License Agreement made and, effective as of January 31, 2005, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.14†				First Amendment After Restated Amendment to License Agreement, made and effective as of November 28, 2007, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.15†				Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, effective as of October 7, 2003, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc., Johns Hopkins University and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.16†				First Amendment to Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, made as of November 2004, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc., Johns Hopkins University and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.17†				Second Amendment to Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, made as of February 25, 2009, by and among Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation, the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Johns Hopkins University (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.18†				Non-Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, made as of January 19, 2006, by and between The UAB Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.19†				Standard Non-Exclusive License Agreement, effective as of September 18, 2012, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.20†				Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Know How, effective as of November 5, 2012, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.21				Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement, dated as of November 15, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.22*				Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation 2001 Stock Option Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.23*				Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation 2011 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, and forms of Incentive Stock Option Agreement and Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement thereunder (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.24*				Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation 2013 Equity And Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.25*				Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation 2013 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.16 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.26				Form of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series A-1 Preferred Stock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.17 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.27				Form of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series B-1 Preferred Stock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.18 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.28				Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series A-1 Preferred Stock of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation issued to Silicon Valley Bank and effective on September 23, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.19 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))


10.29				Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series A-1 Preferred Stock of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation issued to Silicon Valley Bank and effective on June 30, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.20 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.30				Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series A-1 Preferred Stock of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation issued to Square 1 Bank on July 6, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.31				Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series B-1 Preferred Stock of Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation issued to Square 1 Bank on August 31, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.32				Form of Indemnification Agreement for Directors Associated with an Investment Fund (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.33				Form of Indemnification Agreement for Directors Not Associated with an Investment Fund (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.34†				Second Amendment After Restated Amendment to License Agreement, made and effective as of January 10, 2014, by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.35†				Fourth Amendment to Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, made as of December 17, 2013 by and between the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc., Johns Hopkins University and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-193309))

10.36†				First Amendment to Non-Exclusive License, made as of March 28, 2014, by and between the UAB Research Foundation, Inc. and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-197385))

10.37*				Employment Letter Agreement dated as of July 26, 2017 between Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation and William A. Sullivan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 2, 2017)

10.38*				Separation Agreement dated as of July 27, 2017 between Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation and Larry Bullock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 2, 2017)

14.1				Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation Code of Ethics (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 14.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 3, 2018)

16.1				Letter to Securities and Exchange Commission from RSM US LLP, dated December 21, 2017 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 16.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 21, 2017)

23.1**				Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

23.2**				Consent of RSM US LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

31.1**				Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

31.2**				Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.1**				Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

101.INS**				XBRL Instance Document

10.SCH**				XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL**				XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF**				XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document

101.LAB**				XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE**				XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

APPLIED GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

By:		/s/ Susan B. Washer
		Susan B. Washer
		President and Chief Executive Officer
Date:		September 10, 2018

Signature	Title	Date

/s/ Susan B. Washer Susan B. Washer	Chief Executive Officer, President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)	September 10, 2018

/s/William A. Sullivan William A. Sullivan	Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)	September 10, 2018

/s/ Scott Koenig Scott Koenig	Director	September 10, 2018

		September 10, 2018

/s/ Ed Hurwitz Ed Hurwitz	Director	September 10, 2018

/s/ Ivana Magovcevic-Liebisch Ivana Magovcevic-Liebisch	Director	September 10, 2018

/s/ Anne VanLent	Director	September 10, 2018
Anne VanLent
/s/ James Rosen James Rosen	Director	September 10, 2018