Use these links to rapidly review the document
Table of Contents
Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549




FORM 10-K10‑K


ý



ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 20132015


o



TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number 000-32179001-35092




EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

DELAWARE

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

02-047822902‑0478229

(IRS Employer

Identification No.)


441 Charmany Drive, Madison, WI

(Address of principal executive offices)



53719

(Zip Code)

Registrant'sRegistrant’s telephone number, including area code:(608) 284-5700284‑5700

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

Common Stock, $.01 Par Value (including

attached Preferred Stock Purchase Rights)

The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC

(The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC)

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

None

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

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 o  No ý

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 report(s), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý  No o

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-TS‑T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý  No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-KS‑K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant'sregistrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K10‑K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.o10‑K. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-acceleratednon‑ accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large“large accelerated filer," "accelerated” “accelerated filer," and "smaller“smaller reporting company"company” in Rule 12b-212b‑2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer ý

Accelerated filer o

Non-acceleratedNon‑accelerated filer o

(Do not check if a

smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company o

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-212b‑2 of the Act). Yes o  No ý

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-votingnon‑voting common equity held by non-affiliatesnon‑affiliates of the Registrant, as of the last business day of the Registrant'sRegistrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was approximately $972,055,226$2,610,196,915 (based on the closing price of the Registrant'sRegistrant’s Common Stock on June 28, 201330, 2015 of $13.91$29.74 per share).

The number of shares outstanding of the Registrant'sRegistrant’s $.01 par value Common Stock as of February 26, 201422, 2016 was 71,201,095.97,449,890.

DOCUMENT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The registrant intends to file a definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.2015. Portions of such proxy statement are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.10‑K.

 



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
10‑K

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013
2015

TABLE TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page No.

Part I

 

Page No.

Item 1.

Business

1

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

12

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

21

Item 2.

Properties

21

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

21

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures

21

Part III

 


Item 1.

Business

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

14 

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

31 

Item 2.

Properties

31 

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

31 

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures

31 

Part II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant'sRegistrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

22
31 

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data

22
32 

Item 7.

Management'sManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

24
33 

Item 7A.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

34
45 

Item 8.

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

35
46 

Item 9.

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

70
83 

Item 9A.

Controls and Procedures

70
83 

Item 9B.

Other Information

70
83 

Part III

 


Item 10.

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

71
84 

Item 11.

Executive Compensation

71
84 

Item 12.

Security and Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

71
84 

Item 13.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

71
84 

Item 14.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

71
84 

Part IV

 


Item 15.

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

71
84 

SIGNATURES

SIGNATURES

72
85 

i


2



PART I

This Annual Report on Form 10-K10‑K contains forward-lookingforward‑looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that are intended to be covered by the "safe harbor"“safe harbor” created by those sections. Forward-lookingForward‑looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies and expectations, can generally be identified by the use of forward-lookingforward‑looking terms such as "believe," "expect," "may," "will," "should," "could," "seek," "intend," "plan," "estimate," "anticipate"“believe,” “expect,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “seek,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “anticipate” or other comparable terms. Forward-lookingAll statements other than statements of historical facts included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may address the following subjects10‑K regarding our strategies, prospects, financial condition, operations, costs, plans and objectives are forward-looking statements. Examples of forward-looking statements include, among others:others, statements we make regarding the sufficiency of our capital resources, expected future operating losses, timing andresults, anticipated results of our sales and marketing efforts, expectations concerning payor reimbursement and the FDA's reviewanticipated results of our pivotal clinical trialproduct development efforts.  Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance. Instead, they are based only on our current beliefs, expectations and assumptions regarding the future of our related FDA submissions, our ability to secure favorable reimbursement rates from Medicarebusiness, future plans and strategies, projections, anticipated events and trends, the economy and other third-party payors, our abilityfuture conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to establish a lab facilitythe future, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and secure the required certifications forchanges in circumstances that facility, timingare difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our launchcontrol. Our actual results and financial condition may differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Therefore, you should not rely on any of a commercial product, estimated markets for our products and expected revenues, expected research and development expenses, expected general and administrative expenses and our expectations concerning our business strategy. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties whichthese forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, the following: our ability to successfully and profitably market our products and services; the acceptance of our products and services by patients and healthcare providers; the willingness of health insurance companies and other payors to reimburse us for our performance of the Cologuard test; the amount and nature of competition from other cancer screening products and services;  the effects of any healthcare reforms or changes in healthcare pricing, coverage and reimbursement; recommendations, guidelines and quality metrics issued by various organizations such as a result of various factors including thosethe U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, the American Cancer Society and the National Committee for Quality Assurance regarding cancer screening or our products and services; our ability to successfully develop new products; our success establishing and maintaining collaborative and licensing arrangements; our ability to maintain regulatory approvals and comply with applicable regulations; and the other risks and uncertainties described in the Risk Factors and in Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations sections of this report.Annual Report on Form 10‑K and our subsequently filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. We urge you to consider those risks and uncertainties in evaluating our forward-looking statements. We caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any such forward -looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. Except as otherwise required by the federal securities laws, we disclaim anyundertake no obligation or undertaking to publicly release any updates or revisions toupdate any forward-looking statement, contained herein (or elsewhere)whether written or oral, that may be made from time to reflect any change in our expectations with regard theretotime, whether as a result of new information, future developments or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.otherwise. 

3


Item 1.  Business
Busines
s

Exact Sciences Corporation ("we," "us," "our"(together with its subsidiaries, “Exact,” “we,” “us,” “our” or the "Company"“Company”) is a molecular diagnostics company currently focused on the early detection and prevention of colorectalsome of the deadliest forms of cancer. We have developed an accurate, non-invasive, patient friendly screening test to meet our primary goal of becoming the market leader for a diagnostic screening productcalled Cologuard®, for the early detection of colorectal cancer and pre-cancer, and are currently working on the development of tests for lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer.

Our strategic roadmap to achieve this goal includes the following key components:

        Our Cologuard® test is a non-invasive stool-based DNA (sDNA) screening test designed to detect DNA markers, which in published studies have been shown to be associated with colorectal cancer. In addition to DNA markers, our test includes a protein marker to detect blood in the stool, utilizing an antibody-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

BackgroundCologuard Test

 

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and the leading cause of cancer deaths among non-smokers. Each year there are:


 

·

137,000 new cases in the U.S.

·

50,000 deaths in the U.S.

·

1,200,000 new cases worldwide

·

600,000 deaths worldwide

Colorectal cancer treatment represents a significant and growing healthcare cost. Annually, $14 billion is spent in the U.S. on colorectal cancer treatment.treatment and the projected annual treatment costs are expected to be $20 billion in 2020. The incidence of colorectal cancer in Medicare patients is expected to rapidly rise from 106,000 cases in 2010 to more than 180,000 cases in 2030.

 

It is widely accepted that colorectal cancer is among the most preventable, yet least prevented cancers. Colorectal cancer can take up to 10-15 years to progress from a pre-cancerous lesion to metastatic cancer and death. Patients who are diagnosed early in the progression of the disease disease—with pre-cancerous lesions or polyps, or early-stage cancer cancer—are more likely to have a complete recovery and to be treated less expensively. Accordingly, the American Cancer Society (ACS)(“ACS”) recommends that all people age 50 and older undergo regular colorectal cancer screening. Of the more than 80 million people in the U.S. for whom routine colorectal cancer screening is recommended, nearly 47 percent have not been screened according to current guidelines. Poor compliance with screening guidelines has meant that nearly two-thirds of colorectal cancer diagnoses are made in the disease'sdisease’s late stages. The five-year survival rates for stages 3 and 4 are 67 percent and 12 percent, respectively.

We believe the large underserved population of unscreened and inadequately screened patients represents a significant opportunity for a patient friendlypatient-friendly screening test. A powerful preventive tool that detects pre-cancerous polyps

Our Cologuard test is a non-invasive stool-based DNA (“sDNA”) screening test designed to detect DNA markers, which in published studies have been shown to be associated with colorectal cancer. In addition to DNA markers, our test includes a protein marker to detect blood in the stool, utilizing an antibody-based fecal immunochemical test (“FIT”).

On August 11, 2014 the U.S. Food and early stageDrug Administration (“FDA”) approved Cologuard for use as the first and only sDNA non-invasive colorectal cancer could significantly reducescreening test. Our submission to the FDA for Cologuard included the results of our pivotal DeeP-C clinical trial that had over 10,000 patients enrolled at 90 enrollment sites in the U.S. and Canada. The results of our DeeP-C clinical trial for Cologuard were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2014. The peer-reviewed study, “Multi-target Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening,” highlighted the performance of Cologuard in the trial population:

·

Cancer Sensitivity: 92%

·

High-Grade Dysplasia Sensitivity: 69%

·

Specificity: 87%

The competitive advantages of sDNA screening provide a significant market opportunity. Assuming a 30-percent test adoption rate in the screening population and a three-year screening interval, we estimate the potential U.S. market for sDNA screening to be more than $4 billion, annually.

4


Our Cologuard Commercialization Strategy

Our commercialization strategy includes three main elements with a focus on physicians, patients, and payors.

Physicians and Patients

We are engaging physicians with several strategies. We have a 260 person sales team, including approximately 210 in a direct field sales force, actively engaging with physicians and their staffs to emphasize the need for colorectal cancer deathsscreening, educate them on the value of Cologuard, and enroll them in our physician ordering system to enable them to prescribe the health care costs associated with the disease. Pre-cancerous polypstest. We are present in approximately 6 percent of average risk people 50 years of agefocused on specific physicians based on specialty and older who undergo routinepropensity to prescribe colorectal cancer screening.screening tests. We are also focused on physician groups and larger regional and national health systems. We are engaged in a co-promotion agreement with Ironwood Pharmaceuticals under which its 160 clinical sales specialists promote Cologuard across the United States. Further, to build awareness, we have launched a medical education program that includes on-line training and peer-to-peer presentations.

Securing inclusion in guidelines is a key part of our physician engagement strategy since many physicians rely on such guidelines when making screening recommendations. Professional colorectal cancer screening guidelines in the U.S., including those of the ACS, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Gastroenterological Association, recommend regular screening by a variety of methods. Historically, these recommendations consisted of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) as well as combinations of some of these methods. On March 5,Since 2008, joint colorectal cancer screening guidelines endorsed by the ACS and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer have included sDNA screening technology in the updated national colorectal cancer screening guidelines as a screening option for the detection of colorectal cancer in average risk, asymptomatic individuals age 50 and older. The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer is a consortium of several organizations that includes representatives of the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Physicians/Society of Internal Medicine.

        Our Cologuard test is designed to detect pre-cancerous lesions or polyps, and each of In October 2014 the four stages ofACS updated its colorectal cancer screening guidelines to specifically include Cologuard as a recommended sDNA screening test.

In October 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (“USPSTF”) issued a draft recommendation statement for colorectal cancer screening, which recommends an "A" grade for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 50 and continuing until age 75. The draft recommends certain screening tests and includes Cologuard as an alternative screening test, along with CT colonography.  This approach, if adopted in the final recommendation statement, would represent a change from the 2008 USPSTF recommendations, which assigned specific grades for different tests, including an "I" rating for stool-based DNA.  The USPSTF is expected to be a powerful, preventive tool. By detecting pre-cancers and cancers early with our test, affected patients can be referred to colonoscopy,issue final recommendations during which the polyps or lesions can be removed. The sDNA screening model hassecond half of 2016. Inclusion within the potential to significantly reduce colorectal cancer deaths. The earlier pre-cancer or cancer is detected, the greater the reduction in mortality.

        Our Cologuard test includes proprietary and patented methods that isolate and analyze the human DNA that are shed into stool every day from the exfoliation of cells that line the colon. When colorectal cancer or pre-cancer is present, a minute portion of the total isolated human DNA will often represent DNA shed from cancerous or pre-cancerous lesions. Once the human DNA in the sample is isolated, sDNA detection looks for specific mutations and other abnormalities in that DNA known to


be associated with colorectal cancer. Our test also detects blood in stool, utilizing an antibody-based FIT test. A positive result does not necessarily mean that a patient has colorectal cancer. A positive result means that one or more of the genetic markers associated with colorectal cancer has been identified or that hemoglobin has been detected. Under these circumstances, the clinical protocol would be for the patient to obtain a colonoscopy for confirmation and potentially have any polyps or lesions removed if confirmed.

        We believe that sDNA screening in the general population offers an opportunity to increase screening rates, decrease deaths and lower health care costs from colorectal cancer. According to a 2012 study, when patients were given the option to be screened by either colonoscopy or with a non-invasive FOBT rather than only being advised to get a colonoscopy, the percentage of patients screened within one year increased from 38% to 69%.

        We believe that our Cologuard test has the following advantages over other screening options.

        With repeat screening at regular intervals we believe our Cologuard test has the ability to achieve high cumulative sensitivity for pre-cancer detection. Given the importance of early detection of pre-cancer in the fight against colorectal cancer, we believe that an affordable, sensitive, non-invasive test has the potential to significantly reduce colorectal cancer deaths and the costs associated with the disease.

        The competitive advantages of sDNA screening provide a significant market opportunity. Assuming a 30 percent test adoption rate and a three-year screening interval, we estimate the potential U.S. market for sDNA screening to be more than $2 billion and we estimate the potential global market opportunity to be greater than $3 billion.

        Our current focus is on seeking FDA approval for our Cologuard test. We believe obtaining FDA approvalUSPSTF recommendation statement is important for a number of reasons. For example, the Affordable Care Act requires that health insurers cover preventive services graded “A” or “B” by USPSTF without imposing any patient cost-sharing. Also, quality measures, such as the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (“HEDIS”) measures issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (“NCQA”) generally follow the USPSTF recommendation statement. Accordingly, physicians are incentivized, through various quality measurement programs that rely on HEDIS, to building broad demand and successfully commercializing our sDNAprescribe colorectal cancer screening technology. Wetests that are alsoincluded in the processUSPSTF recommendation statement.

A critical part of developingthe value proposition of Cologuard is our strategycompliance program, which involves active engagement with patients and physicians. This activity is focused on enabling patients to complete Cologuard tests that have been ordered for them by their physicians and supporting physicians in their efforts to have their patients screened.

After the ultimate commercializationlaunch of Cologuard, we initiated a significant public relations effort to engage patients. We have conducted targeted direct-to-patient advertising campaigns through social media, print and other channels. During 2016 we began to test television advertising in select markets.

Payors

The cornerstone of our Cologuard test.

        In November 2012 we completed enrollment for our pivotal FDA clinical trial with over 10,000 patients enrolled at 90 enrollment sites in the U.S. and Canada. All patients provided a sample to be tested with our Cologuard test, and received a FIT test and a colonoscopy.

        The FDA, as well as physicians and others assessing the effectiveness and value of our Cologuard test, will likely consider, among other things, our Cologuard test's sensitivity and specificity in identifying colorectal cancer and pre-cancerous polyps. "Sensitivity" (also called the true positive rate) measures the percentage of colorectal cancer or pre-cancerous polyps that our Cologuard test correctly identifies. "Specificity" (also called the true negative rate) measures the percentage of people who our Cologuard test correctly identifies as not having colorectal cancer or pre-cancerous polyps.

        Preliminary top-line data from the clinical trial showed that our Cologuard test demonstrated 92 percent sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer and 42 percent sensitivity for the detection of pre-cancerous polyps, including 66 percent sensitivity for pre-cancerous polyps equal to or greater than 2 centimeters. The test achieved a specificity of 87 percent during the clinical trial.


        The clinical trial achieved all of its endpoints. The co-primary endpoints for the study were the sensitivity and specificity of the Cologuard screening test for colorectal adenocarcinoma. The clinical trial included two sets of co-secondary endpoints. The first included sensitivity and specificity of the test for advanced adenomas. The second included superiority of Cologuard to FIT for cancer and advanced adenoma sensitivity.

        Each patient result from the Cologuard testpayor-engagement strategy was compared to the patient's colonoscopy result and the histopathologic diagnosis of any lesions that were discovered during colonoscopy and biopsied. The study population included 65 cancer patients and 752 patients with pre-cancerous polyps.

        We submitted the results of our clinical trial to the FDA through a three part submission of a manufacturing module, analytical module, and clinical module. The manufacturing module was submitted to the FDA in December 2012, the analytical module was submitted to the FDA in February 2013, and the clinical module was submitted to the FDA in June 2013. Our submission is currently under review by the FDA.

        The FDA's Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee is tentatively scheduled to review the premarket approval application (PMA) for our Cologuard stool-DNA-based, non-invasive colorectal cancer screening test on March 27, 2014. The date and details of the meeting are subject to confirmation by the FDA in a Federal Register notice.

        We believe that obtaining a favorable nationalsecuring coverage decision and a favorable reimbursement rate from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)(“CMS”). Medicare covers 46% of patients in the screening population for ourCologuard. On October 9, 2014, CMS issued a final National Coverage Determination (“NCD”) for Cologuard test will be a necessary element in achieving material commercial success. With the goal of expediting receipt of a favorable coverage decision, we are working with CMS to coordinate the CMS coverage review with the FDA pre-market approval throughfollowing a parallel review process. This program provides a pathway to a potential CMA national coverage determination shortly after anprocess with FDA.  Cologuard was the first screening test approved by FDA approval decision, should it occur. With over 50% of our target patient population beingand covered by CMS through that process. As outlined in the NCD, Medicare receiptPart B covers Cologuard once every three years for beneficiaries who meet all of the

5


following criteria:

·

Age 50 to 85 years,

·

Asymptomatic (no signs or symptoms of colorectal disease including but not limited to lower gastrointestinal pain, blood in stool, positive guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test), and

·

At average risk for developing colorectal cancer (no personal history of adenomatous polyps, colorectal cancer, or inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s Disease and ulcerative colitis; no family history of colorectal cancers or adenomatous polyps, familial adenomatous polyposis, or hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer).

In the 2016 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, CMS established reimbursement for Cologuard at $508.87.  This represented an increase from the 2015 reimbursement rate of $492.72. Cologuard has been assigned a positive coverage decisionnew American Medical Association CPT code (81528), and CMS has issued a determination that, effective January 1, 2016, code 81528 is reimbursed on the same basis as the G0464 code, which it replaced.  Payments from CMS are subject to sequestration. Under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”), the basis for Cologuard’s CMS reimbursement rate is expected to change, beginning in January 2017 unless the PAMA implementation date is delayed.  CMS issued proposed regulations for the implementation of PAMA on September 25, 2015, but these regulations had not been finalized as of February 24, 2015. Under PAMA and the currently proposed regulations, the CMS reimbursement rate for Cologuard is expected to be calculated based on the volume-weighted median of private payor rates. For the initial rates calculated under PAMA, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2017, the calculation would help speed adoptionbe based on the volume-weighted median of our test after commercial launch. A favorable CMS outcome will also be critical to securing positive coverage decisions from major national and regional managed care organizations, insurance carriers, and self-insured employer groups.private payor rates during the period July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.  

 We also

While we consider the current level of Medicare reimbursement for Cologuard to be adequate, we believe that it will beis necessary to secure favorable coverage and reimbursement from commercial payors in order for Cologuard to achieve its full commercial success.potential.  Some third-party commercial payors including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of California and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts have agreed to cover Cologuard as an in-network service, and we are working with many other insurers to add coverage for Cologuard. We believe that third-party payors'commercial payors’ reimbursement of our Cologuard test will depend on a number of factors, including payors'payors’ determination that it is: sensitive and specific for colorectal cancer; not experimental or investigational; approved or recommended by major guidelines organizations; reliable, safe and effective; medically necessary; appropriate for the specific patient; and cost-effective.

        There We are two elementspursuing a variety of strategies to increase commercial payor coverage for Cologuard including providing cost effectiveness data to payors to make the case for Cologuard reimbursement.  We are focusing our targeting strategy for the early adoption of Cologuard. First, we are focusedefforts on large national and regional insurers, insurers in states that require health insurers to cover colorectal cancer screening and health plans that have affiliated health systems. In certain situations where we believe payors are already legally required to cover Cologuard, we have sued to enforce those coverage obligations. We may consider similar litigation in the future. 

We believe quality metrics will shape payors’ coverage decisions, as well as physcians’ cancer screening procedures.  In recent years the healthcare systems and groups. These networks employ a high percentage of the physiciansindustry in the United States has experienced a trend toward cost containment and they typically have strong screening programs. Second, we planvalue-based purchasing of healthcare services. Some government and private payors are adopting pay-for-performance programs that differentiate payments for healthcare services based on the achievement of documented quality metrics, cost efficiencies or patient outcomes. Payors may look to focus on primary care physicians whoquality measures such as the NCQA, HEDIS and the CMS Star ratings to assess quality of care.  These programs are intended to provide incentives to service providers to deliver the same or better results while consuming fewer resources. We believe inclusion of Cologuard in the HEDIS measures and the Star ratings will influence payors’ willingness to reimburse our Cologuard test and physicians’ willingness to prescribe a high volume of FOBT and FIT tests since this physician group has displayed a partiality for stool based screenings methods.Cologuard.  Recommendations issued by the USPSTF, as well as other healthcare guidelines, may affect how quality programs rate various preventative services. 

Our Clinical Lab Facility

As part of our commercialization strategy, we plan to establishestablished a state of the art, highly automated lab facility that will beis certified pursuant to applicable Federalfederal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulations(“CLIA”) requirements to process Cologuard tests and provide patient results. We expectOur commercial lab operation is housed in a significant percentage of Cologuard test volume to be processed at our lab facility. We have leased a 29,00032,000 square foot facility in Madison, WisconsinWisconsin. At our lab, we currently have the capacity to houseprocess approximately one million tests per year, and have the opportunity available to us to build out additional lab space, if needed.  

6


Product Pipeline

We also are focused on developing our commercial lab operationspipeline for future products and constructionservices. We are continuing to collaborate with MAYO Foundation for Medical Education and Research (“MAYO”) on future tests, including those for the detection of lung, pancreatic, and esophageal cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that lung cancer will be diagnosed in 221,200 Americans and cause 158,040 deaths in the United States this year and that, world-wide, lung cancer will be diagnosed in 1,825,000 people and cause 1,590,000 deaths. Currently, more than half of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage, after symptoms appear, when the five-year survival rate is in the low single digits. If detected at an early stage, lung cancer's five-year survival rate can be as high as 80 percent. Our current focus for lung cancer is to develop a test to detect cancer in lung nodules which is a shift from the product development efforts that were underway with MD Anderson. Therefore,  we have mutually agreed to terminate our agreement with MD Anderson effective February 2016.

Gastrointestinal cancers account for 145,000 or 25% of all U.S. cancer deaths annually and represent a significant market opportunity for future products. In February 2015, we amended and restated our license agreement with MAYO to extend our working relationship for an additional five years, and in January 2016, we further amended our license agreement to broaden our collaboration efforts to develop screening, surveillance and diagnostic tests and tools to cover all types of cancers, pre-cancers, diseases and conditions, not just those affecting gastrointestinal organs.

We also plan to continue to explore opportunities for improving Cologuard, including improvements that could lower our cost of sales.    

Competition 

The market for colorectal cancer and pre-cancer screening is large, consisting of more than 80 million Americans age 50 and above, and has attracted numerous competitors, some of which possess significantly greater financial and other resources and development capabilities than we do. Our Cologuard test faces competition from procedure‑based detection technologies such as flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy and “virtual” colonoscopy, a radiological imaging approach that visualizes the inside of the labbowel by CT scan (spiral computerized axial tomography), as well as traditional screening tests such as FOBT and FIT and newer screening technologies such as the PillCam® COLON cleared by FDA in February 2014. Our competitors may also be developing additional methods of detecting colorectal cancer and pre-cancer that facilityhave not yet been announced.

In addition, a number of companies and institutions are working to develop new blood and serum‑based tests for the detection of colorectal cancer or pre-cancer, including tests based on the detection of proteins, nucleic acids or the presence of fragments of mutated genes in the blood that are produced by colorectal cancer or pre-cancer. We are aware of at least five other companies—Epigenomics AG, Applied Proteomics, Inc., Gene News, EDP Biotech Corporation and Quest Diagnostics—that are developing blood-based tests for the detection of colorectal cancer. Epigenomics AG completed a large multi-center study designed to demonstrate the performance of its blood-based screening test for colorectal cancer and submitted the results to the FDA in June 2014. On January 8, 2016, Epigenomics AG announced   that the FDA had informed it that the clinical data that it had submitted regarding its blood-based screening test is substantially complete.sufficient for the FDA to make a final decision on premarket approval and that the FDA’s review process will be completed in the near future. On January 10, 2016, Illumina, Inc. announced the formation of GRAIL, a new company formed to develop a blood-based, pan-cancer screening test that would seek to measure circulating nucleic acids in blood using next-generation sequencing (“NGS”) technology.  We believe other companies are also working on so-called “liquid biopsy” tests using NGS technology, and these tests could represent significant competition for Cologuard and other tests we may develop.

Competition7


 The competitive landscape is favorable

We may be unable to sDNA screening.compete effectively against our competitors either because their products and services are superior or because they may have more expertise, experience, financial resources or stronger business relationships. These competitors may have broader product lines and greater name recognition than we do. We have limited experience developing tests for detecting non-colorectal cancers and cannot guarantee that our research and development activities will be successful in developing any marketable testing products or services. Furthermore, even if we do develop new marketable products or services, our current and future competitors may develop products and services that are more commercially attractive than ours and they may obtain FDA approval, and thus bring those products and services to market, sooner than we are able to.

We believe that Cologuard, as the first and only sDNA-based non-invasive colorectal cancer screening test on the market today, compares favorably to competitor products and services for the detection of colorectal cancer and pre-cancer.  All of theother colorectal cancer detection methods in use today are constrained by some combination of poor sensitivity, poor compliance and


cost. Colonoscopy isThe leading method, colonoscopy involves advance dietary restrictions and bowel cleansing and can be uncomfortable, time-consumingtime‑consuming, hazardous, and expensive. Colonoscopy requires sedation, lost time from work, and someone to drive the patient home from the procedure.  A 2010 study shows that seven out of 10 people age 50 and older who were told they should get a colonoscopy did not do so primarily due to fears. Fecal blood testing, including FIT testing suffers from poor sensitivity, including for FIT testing, 66with only a 73.8 percent detection ratesrate for cancer and 2723.8 percent detection ratesrate for pre-cancers. Blood-basedpre‑cancers. Blood‑based DNA testingtests currently available are also is disadvantaged by its low sensitivity. Data from a validation study of one blood-basedblood‑based test was released in late 2011 and published in GUTthe journal  Gut in February 2012. It demonstrated2012, demonstrating 48 percent sensitivity across all stages of cancer, with little sensitivity for pre-cancerpre‑cancer above the background false positive rate.

 

How We Recognize Revenue

A large portion of our revenue is recognized upon cash receipt. For Medicare and certain other third-party payors where we have an agreed upon reimbursement rate or we are able to estimate the amount that will ultimately be received at the time delivery is complete, we recognize the related revenue on an accrual basis. Until we have contracts with or can estimate the amount that will ultimately be received from a larger number of companies are working to develop new blood and serum-based tests for the detection of colorectal cancer including tests based on the detection of proteins or nucleic acids produced by colorectal cancer in the blood. In particular,payors, we are aware of three companies—Epigenomics AG, Gene News and Quest Diagnostics—that are developing blood-based tests for the detection of colorectal cancer. It is our understanding that Epigenomics AG, has completedwill recognize a large multi-center study designed to demonstrate the performanceportion of its blood-based screening test for colorectal cancer and submitted those results to the FDA inour revenue upon cash receipt. In the first quarterperiod in which revenue is accrued for a particular payor, there generally is a one-time increase in revenue.  Additionally, as we commercialize new products, we will need to be able to make an estimate of 2013. Itthe amount that will ultimately be received for each payor for each new product offering prior to being able to recognize the related revenue on an accrual basis. Because the timing and amount of cash payments received from payors is alsodifficult to predict, our understanding that Epigenomics AG has an FDA advisory committee meeting scheduled for March 26, 2014 to review their product.

revenue may fluctuate significantly in any given quarter. In addition, sDNA testing faces competitioneven if we begin to accrue larger amounts of revenue related to Cologuard, when we introduce new products, we do not expect we will be able to recognize revenue from procedure-based detection technologies such as flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy and "virtual" colonoscopy, a radiological imaging approach that visualizes the insidenew products on an accrual basis for some period of the bowel by CT scan (spiral computerized axial tomography), as well as existing and possibly improved traditional screening tests such as FOBT and FIT.time. This may result in continued fluctuations in our revenue.

Research and development costs account for a substantial portion of our operating expenses. Our research and development expenses were $27.7$33.9 million, $42.1$28.7 million and $22.0$27.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, 2012respectively. Research and 2011, respectively.development expenses are expected to increase in the future as we work on developing additional products related to cancer screening and improving Cologuard. 

Certain of our activities are subject to regulatory oversight by the FDA under provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and regulations thereunder, including regulations governing the development, marketing, labeling, promotion, manufacturing and export of diagnostic products. Failure to comply with applicable requirements can lead to

8


sanctions, including withdrawal of products from the market, recalls, refusal to authorize government contracts, product seizures, civil money penalties, injunctions and criminal prosecution.

        We believe obtainingFDA granted premarket approval (“PMA”) for Cologuard in August 2014.  That PMA approval places substantial restrictions on how Cologuard is marketed and sold, specifically, by prescription only. Additionally, the regulations governing our approval require controls on Cologuard, including but not limited to manufacturing facility registration, Cologuard listing with the FDA, complying with labeling requirements, maintenance of a satisfactory quality management system and meeting  post-market surveillance requirements. In addition, as a condition of our FDA approval, we are required to conduct a post-approval study. There can be no assurance that the results of this study will be satisfactory and will not cause the FDA to modify or withdraw our approval for our Cologuard test is criticalCologuard.

We may develop new diagnostic products and services that are likely to building broad demand and successful commercialization for our sDNA colorectal cancer screening technologies.be regulated by the FDA as medical devices.  We are currentlymay also develop diagnostic products or services that, under today’s laws, would not likely be regulated by the FDA, but would instead be regulated as laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”) under CLIA.  However, as noted below, the regulation of LDTs may be in flux as the FDA has recently indicated it intends to exercise more oversight of LDTs.

FDA-Regulated Medical Devices

Unless otherwise exempted, medical devices must receive from the FDA either “510(k) clearance” or PMA before marketing them in the United States.  Both the 510(k) clearance and PMA processes may be costly and time consuming, but the PMA approval process is typically more costly, lengthy and uncertain.

The FDA determines whether a medical device will require either 510(k) clearance or the PMA process based on statutory criteria that include the risk associated with the device and whether the device is similar to an existing, legally marketed product.  If the FDA decides one of seekingour future products may undergo the 510(k) clearance process, we would typically be required to submit a premarket approval (PMA)notification.  In the pre-market notification, we would need to demonstrate that our proposed device is “substantially equivalent” in intended use, safety and effectiveness to certain existing, legally marketed devices.  If we were to obtain 510(k) clearance for our Cologuard test. a product and then make changes to that product, we would need to seek a new 510(k) clearance.

The PMA process, which would be necessary if we could not clear a product through the 510(k) process, involves submitting extensive data to the FDA. ThisThese data allowsallow the FDA to determine if the device is safe and effective for its intended use. The PMA process willmay include the convening of expert panels and inspection of our manufacturing facilities, and also include providing additional data and updates to the FDA, and new or supplemented PMA submissions if the product is modified during the process.

Even if granted, a 510(k) clearance or PMA approval may place substantial restrictions on how a device is marketed or sold, and the FDA will continue to place considerable restrictions onregulations governing any approved products require controls, including but not limited to registering manufacturing facilities, listing the products with the FDA, complying with labeling requirements, maintaining an adequate quality management system, and meeting reportingpost-market surveillance requirements. The studies required in connection with our seeking FDA approvaleither a 510(k) clearance or PMA for any of our technologies have been andnew diagnostics products will be costly and time-intensive.time intensive. There can be no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve any 510(k) premarket notification or any PMA request submitted by us in a timely manner or at all.

Laboratory Developed Tests

We may also develop diagnostic candidates that, under today’s regulations, would likely be regulated as LDTs under CLIA. LDTs are clinical laboratory tests that are developed and validated by a laboratory for its own use.  Historically, LDTs have been regulated under CLIA while the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion and not required approvals or clearances for most LDTs performed by CLIA-certified laboratories. The FDA has traditionally chosen not to exercise its authority to regulate LDTs because it regulates the primary components in most LDTs and because it believed that laboratories certified as high complexity under CLIA, such as ours, have demonstrated expertise and ability in test procedures and analysis.



Table of Contents

In October 2014, the FDA published two draft guidance documents describing the proposed risk-based framework under which the FDA might regulate LDTs. The FDA’s draft framework proposed, among other things, premarket review for higher-risk LDTs, such as those that have the same intended use as FDA-approved or cleared diagnostics currently on the market. In November 2015, the FDA issued a report citing evidence for the need for additional regulation of LDTs and stated the FDA is continuing to work to finalize premarket review requirements for LDTs.  The FDA’s guidance documents, if and when finalized, may materially impact our development of LDTs.

Laboratory Certification, Accreditation and Licensing

We are also subject to U.S. and state laws and regulations regarding the operation of clinical laboratories. Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)CLIA requirements and laws of certain other states impose certification requirements for clinical laboratories, and establish standards for quality assurance and quality control, among other things. Clinical laboratories are subject to inspection by regulators, and to sanctions for failing to comply with applicable requirements. Sanctions available under CLIA include prohibiting a laboratory from running tests, requiring a laboratory to implement a corrective plan, and imposing civil monetary penalties. If we fail to meet any applicable requirements of CLIA or state law, that failure could adversely affect any future CMS consideration of our technologies, prevent their approval entirely, and/or interrupt the commercial sale of any products and services and otherwise cause us to incur significant expense.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, established for the first time comprehensive protection for the privacy and security of health information. The HIPAA standards apply to three types of organizations, or "Covered Entities"“Covered Entities”: health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and healthcare providers that conduct certain healthcare transactions electronically. Covered Entities and their business associates must have in place administrative, physical, and technical standards to guard against the misuse of individually identifiable health information. If we are able to commercialize our Cologuard test, we would expect toWe perform activities that may implicate HIPAA, such as providing clinical laboratory testing services orand entering into specific kinds of relationships with a Covered Entity or aEntities and business associateassociates of a Covered Entity.Entities.

Our activities must also comply with other applicable privacy laws. For example, there are also state and international privacy laws that impose restrictions on the access, use, and disclosure of health information. All of these laws may impact our business. Our failure to comply with these privacy laws or significant changes in the laws restricting our ability to obtain stool samples and associated patient information could significantly impact our business and our future business plans.

Antifraud Laws/Overpayments.    If our Cologuard test is successfully accepted by federal and state healthcare programs, we will beWe  are subject to numerous federal and state antifraud and abuse laws.laws, including the Federal False Claims Act. Many of these antifraud laws are broad in scope, and neither the courts nor government agencies have extensively interpreted these laws. Prohibitions under some of these laws include:

·

the submission of false claims or false information to government programs;

·

the retention of any overpayments by governmental payors;

·

deceptive or fraudulent conduct;

·

excessive or unnecessary services or services at excessive prices; and

·

prohibitions in defrauding private sector health insurers.

We could beare subject to substantial penalties for violations of theseanti-fraud and abuse laws, including denial of payment and refunds, suspension of payments from Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs and exclusion from participation in the federal and state healthcare programs, as well as civil monetary and criminal penalties and imprisonment. Numerous federal and state agencies enforce the antifraud and abuse laws. In addition, private insurers may also bring private actions. In some circumstances, private whistleblowers are authorized to bring fraud suits on behalf of the government against providers and are entitled to receive a portion of any final recovery.

10


Table of Contents

February 11, 2016, CMS published a final rule clarifying the obligation to report and return federal healthcare program overpayments.  Overpayments may occur from time to time in the healthcare industry without any fraudulent intent. For example, overpayments may result from mistakes in reimbursement claim forms or from improper processing by governmental payors.  We maintain protocols intended to identify any overpayments. From time to time we may identify overpayments and be required to refund those amounts to government payors.

To avoid liability, we must carefully and accurately code claims for reimbursement, proactively monitor the accuracy and appropriateness of Medicare claims and payments received, diligently investigate any credible information indicating that we may have received an overpayment, and promptly return any overpayments.

Federal and State "Self-Referral"“Self‑Referral” and "Anti-kickback"“Anti-Kickback” Restrictions

If we or our operations are found to be in violation of applicable laws and regulations prohibiting improper referrals for healthcare services or products, we may be subject to penalties, including civil


and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in U.S. federal or state health carehealthcare programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

        Anti-KickbackAnti‑Kickback Statute.  The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs.programs, unless an exception applies. The term "remuneration"“remuneration” is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payment, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Sanctions for violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may include imprisonment and other criminal penalties, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. Many states have also adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and do not contain identical safe harbors.

        Self-ReferralSelf‑Referral law.  The federal "self-referral"“self‑referral” law, commonly referred to as the "Stark"“Stark” law, provides that physicians who, personally or through a family member, have ownership interests in or compensation arrangements with a laboratory are prohibited from making a referral to that laboratory for laboratory tests reimbursable by Medicare, and also prohibits laboratories from submitting a claim for Medicare payments for laboratory tests referred by physicians who, personally or through a family member, have ownership interests in or compensation arrangements with the testing laboratory. The Stark law contains a number of specific exceptions which, if met, permit physicians who have ownership or compensation arrangements with a testing laboratory to make referrals to that laboratory and permit the laboratory to submit claims for Medicare payments for laboratory tests performed pursuant to such referrals. We are subject to comparable state laws, some of which apply to all payors regardless of source of payment, and do not contain identical exceptions to the Stark law.

Any action against us for violation of these or similar foreign laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management'smanagement’s attention from the operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state privacy, security and fraud laws may prove costly.

In 2010, Congress enacted a statute commonly known as the Sunshine Act, which aims to promote transparency. The Sunshine Act requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children'sChildren’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, to report annually to CMS any payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, with limited exceptions.unless an exception applies. Manufacturers must also disclose to CMS any physician ownership or investment interests. On February 8, 2013, CMS issued a final rule implementing the Sunshine Act. Entities covered by the Sunshine Act must begin reporting by March 31, 2014, andOur failure to comply with the reporting requirementrequirements of this law may subject us to substantial penalties.

Occupational Safety and Health.  In addition to their comprehensive regulation of health and safety in the workplace in general, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"(“OSHA”) has established extensive requirements aimed specifically at laboratories and other healthcare-relatedhealthcare‑related facilities. In addition, because our operations

11


Table of Contents

require employees to use certain hazardous chemicals, we also must comply with regulations on hazard communication and hazardous chemicals in laboratories. These regulations require us, among other things, to develop written programs and plans, which must


address methods for preventing and mitigating employee exposure, the use of personal protective equipment, and training.

Specimen Transportation.  Our anticipated commercialization plansactivities for our Cologuard test will subject us to regulations of the Department of Transportation, the United States Postal Service and the CDC that apply to the surface and air transportation of clinical laboratory specimens.

        Our intellectual property portfolio positions us to be a leader in the development and marketing of tests for the detection of colorectal cancer from stool samples. We have intellectual property rights pertaining to sample type, sample preparation, sample preservation, biomarkers, and related methods and formulations.

Our success depends to a significant degree upon our ability to protect our technologies through patent coverage. As of December 31, 2013,2015, we owned 1026 issued patents and 2822 pending patent applications in the United States, and 6251 issued patents and 2635 pending patent applications in foreign jurisdictions. In addition, as part of our 2009 strategic transaction with Genzyme Corporation, we received an exclusiveexclusively license back from Genzyme, Corporation in the fields of colorectal cancer screening and stool-basedstool‑based detection of any disease or condition, to the 2627 patents issued and 72 pending patent applications in the U.S., and 2936 patents issued and 121 pending patent applications in foreign jurisdictions sold to Genzyme.

Each of our patents generally has a term of 20 years from its respective priority filing date. Consequently,Among our earliestissued patents, the first patents are set to expire in 2016.2016 and the last patents expire in 2033.

We license on a non-exclusive basis, certain technologies that are, or may be, incorporated into our technology under several license agreements. Generally, the license agreements require us to pay royalties based on certain net revenues received, using the technologies, and may require minimum royalty amounts, ormilestone payments and maintenance fees.

        On January 27, 2009, we entered into a Collaboration, License and Purchase Agreement (the "CLP Agreement") with Genzyme Corporation ("Genzyme"). Pursuant to the CLP Agreement, we (i) assigned to Genzyme all of our intellectual property applicable to the fields of prenatal and reproductive health (the "Transferred Intellectual Property"), (ii) granted Genzyme an irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive, worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-free license to use and sublicense all of our remaining intellectual property (the "Retained Intellectual Property") in the fields of prenatal and reproductive health (the "Genzyme Core Field"), and (iii) granted Genzyme an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-free license to use and sublicense the Retained Intellectual Property in all fields other than the Genzyme Core Field and other than colorectal cancer detection and stool-based disease detection (the "Company Field"). Following the transaction, we retained rights in our intellectual property to pursue only the fields of colorectal cancer detection and stool-based detection of any disease or condition. Although the licenses granted under the CLP Agreement are perpetual and irrevocable, the Retained Intellectual Property includes patents, the last of which expires in 2028. The CLP Agreement contains customary termination provisions which permit termination in the event of material uncured breaches.

     ��  In connection with the CLP Agreement and certain related transactions, Genzyme agreed to pay us an aggregate of $18.5 million, of which $16.65 million was paid at closing and $1.85 million (the "Holdback Amount") was subject to a holdback by Genzyme to satisfy certain of our potential indemnification obligations. Genzyme also agreed to pay us double digit royalties on income received by Genzyme as a result of any licenses or sublicenses to third parties of the Transferred Intellectual


Property or the Retained Intellectual Property in any field other than the Genzyme Core Field or the Company Field. Under the CLP Agreement, we are required to deliver to Genzyme certain intellectual property improvements, if improvements are made during the initial five years following the date of the CLP Agreement.

        In addition, we entered into a Common Stock Subscription Agreement with Genzyme on January 27, 2009, which provided for the private issuance and sale to Genzyme of 3,000,000 shares of our common stock, $0.01 par value per share, at a per share price of $2.00, for an aggregate purchase price of $6.0 million. The price paid by Genzyme for our shares represented a premium of $0.51 per share above the closing price of our common stock on that date of $1.49 per share, or an aggregate premium of $1.53 million.

On June 11, 2009, we entered into a patent licensing agreement with MAYO Foundation for Medical Education and Research ("MAYO"(“MAYO”).Our license agreement with MAYO was most recently amended and restated in February 2015 and further amended in January 2016. Under the license agreement, MAYO granted us an exclusive, worldwide license within the field of stool or blood based cancer diagnostics and screening (excluding a specified proteomic target) with regard to certain MAYO patents and patent applications, as well as a non-exclusive,non‑exclusive, worldwide license within such field with regard to certain MAYO know-how. know‑how. The scope of the license initially covered diagnostics and screenings for stool or blood based cancer, but was later amended to cover gastrointestinal cancers, pre-cancers, diseases and conditions.  Under the January 2016 amendment to the license agreement, the scope has been expanded to cover any screening, surveillance or diagnostic tests or tools for use in connection with any type of cancers, pre-cancers, diseases or conditions. 

The licensed MAYO patents and patent applications contain both method and composition-of-mattercomposition‑of‑matter claims that relate to sample processing, analytical testing and data analysis associated with nucleic screening for cancers and other diseases. The jurisdictions covered by these patents and patent applications include the U.S., Canada, the European Union and Japan. In addition to granting us a license to the covered MAYO intellectual property, MAYO agreed to make available personnel to provide us product development and research and development assistance.

 Under the license agreement, we assumed the obligation and expense of prosecuting and maintaining the licensed MAYO patents and are obligated to make commercially reasonable efforts to bring to market products using the licensed MAYO intellectual property.

MAYO has agreed to make available personnel through January 2020 to provide us product development and research and development assistance.

Pursuant to the licenseour agreement with MAYO, we granted MAYO two common stock purchase warrants with an exercise price of $1.90 per share covering 1,000,000 and 250,000 shares of common stock. We agreedare required to pay MAYO a low single digit royalty on our net sales of products using the licensed MAYO intellectual property. We are also required to payproperty, with minimum annual royalty fees of $10,000 on June 12, 2012 and $25,000 on June 12, 2013 and each year thereafter through 2029.2033, the year the last patent expires. The MAYO license agreement required various other payments, including an upfront payment of $80,000, which we paid in the third quarter of 2009, and a milestone payment of $250,000 on the commencement of patient enrollment in FDA trials for our Cologuard pre-cancer and cancer screening test, which we paid in June 2011. We will be required to pay MAYO $500,000 upon FDA approval of our Cologuard test.

        In May 2012 we expanded our relationship with MAYO through anJanuary 2016 amendment to the MAYO license agreement.agreement established various low single digit royalty rates on net sales of current and future products and clarified how net sales will be

12


Table of Contents

calculated.  As part of the amendment, MAYO expanded the license to include all gastrointestinal cancersroyalty rate on our net sales of Cologuard increased and, diseases, and new cancer screening applications of stool- and blood-based testing. As consideration forif in the expanded license, we granted MAYO 97,466 shares of our common stock, one quarter of which vested immediately, with the remainder to vest in three equal annual installments. We sought rightsfuture, improvements are made to the MAYO intellectual property forCologuard product, the specific purposeroyalty rate may further increase. However, the amendment provides that the Cologuard royalty will remain a low single digit percentage of developing future non-invasive, stool-based DNA screening tests for gastrointestinal diseases other than colorectal cancer. In addition, we agreednet sales. 

We are also required to issue MAYO shares of our common stock with a value of $200,000 upon commercial launch of our second and third products that use the licensed MAYO intellectual property. Additionally, we agreed in the amendmentproperty, as well as to pay MAYO, for each of our products that use licensed MAYO intellectual property, $200,000 cash upon such product reaching $5 million in cumulative net sales, $750,000 cash upon such product reaching $20 million in cumulative net sales, and $2 million cash upon such product reaching $50 million in cumulative net sales.


As part of the February 2015 amendment and restatement of the license agreement, we agreed to pay MAYO an additional $5,000,000, payable in five annual installments, through 2019.

The license agreement will remain in effect, unless earlier terminated by the parties in accordance with the agreement, until the last of the licensed patents expires in 2033 (or later, if certain licensed patent applications are issued). However, if we are still using the licensed MAYO know-howknow‑how or certain MAYO-providedMAYO‑provided biological specimens or their derivatives on such expiration date, the term shall continue until the earlier of the date we stop using such know-howknow‑how and materials and the date that is five years after the last licensed patents expires. The license agreement contains customary termination provisions and permits MAYO to terminate the license agreement if the Company sueswe sue MAYO or its affiliates, other than any such suit claiming an uncured material breach by MAYO of the license agreement.

In October 2009, we entered into a technology license agreement with Hologic, Inc. ("Hologic"(“Hologic”). Under the license agreement, Hologic granted us an exclusive, worldwide license within the field of human stool based colorectal cancer and pre-cancerpre‑cancer detection or identification with regard to certain Hologic patents, patent applications and improvements, including Hologic'sHologic’s Invader detection chemistry (the "Covered“Covered Hologic IP"IP”). The licensed patents and patent applications contain both method and composition-of-mattercomposition‑of‑matter claims. The jurisdictions covered by these patents and patent applications include the U.S., Canada, the European Union, Australia and Japan. The license agreement also provided us with non-exclusive,non‑exclusive, worldwide licenses to the Covered Hologic IP within the field of clinical diagnostic purposes relating to colorectal cancer (including cancer diagnosis, treatment, monitoring or staging) and the field of detection or identification of colorectal cancer and pre-cancerspre‑cancers through means other than human stool samples. In December 2012 we entered into an amendment to this license agreement with Hologic pursuant to which Hologic granted us a non-exclusivenon‑exclusive worldwide license to the Covered Hologic IP within the field of any disease or condition within, related to or affecting the gastrointestinal tract and/or appended mucosal surfaces.

        We paid Hologic $50,000 upon executing the license agreement in 2009 and $100,000 when we began enrollment in our FDA trial in June 2011. We are required to pay Hologic a low single digit royalty on our net sales of products using the Covered Hologic IP, and to make a $100,000 milestone payment upon FDA approval of our Cologuard test.IP.

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with the agreement, the license agreement will remain in effect until the last of the licensed patents expires in 2016 (or later, if certain licensed patent applications are issued).2029. The agreement contains customary termination provisions which, among other things, permits termination in the event of material uncured breaches. Under the 2009 Hologic license agreement, we agreed to meet certain commercialization milestones, of which the only remaining milestone is to commercialize a product using the Covered Hologic IP by April 14, 2014. Failure to meet this milestone, after certain cure periods, may result in the termination of the licenses.

In July 2010, we entered into a technology license and royalty agreement with MDx Health S.A. (formerly Oncomethylome Sciences, S.A.) ("(“MDx Health"Health”). Under the license agreement, MDx Health granted us an exclusive, worldwide license to sell products, and a U.S. license to sell services, in the field of in vitro diagnostic testing of fecal samples for detection of colorectal cancer and colorectal pre-cancerpre‑cancer to certain patents and patent applications related to DNA methylation biomarkers. The licensed patents and patent applications contain both method and composition-of-mattercomposition‑of‑matter claims. The jurisdictions covered by these patents and patent applications include the U.S., Canada, the European Union, China and Japan. Under the agreement, we are obligated to make commercially reasonable efforts to bring to market products using the licensed MDx Health patents. We paid MDx Health $100,000 upon executing the agreement in July 2010 and we are required to pay MDx Health a minimum royalty fee of $100,000 on each anniversary of the agreement for the life of the contract. We are also required to payIn July 2015, we paid MDx Health $100,000 upon the first commercial sale of a licensed product


after the receipt of FDA approval, $150,000 after we have reached net sales of $10 million of a licensed product after receipt of FDA approval,approval. We are also required to pay MDx Health $750,000 after we have reachedreach cumulative net sales of $50 million, and $1 million after we have reachedreach net sales of $50 million in a single calendar year. We are also required to pay MDx Health a low single digit

13


Table of Contents

royalty on our net sales of licensed products and services using the licensed patents.services. Unless earlier terminated by the parties in accordance with the agreement, the license agreement will remain in effect until the last of the licensed patents expires in 2028. The agreement contains customary termination provisions which, among other things, permit termination in the event of material uncured breaches.

Pipeline ProductsInternational Expansion

        We have identified a new opportunityOur initial efforts for our sDNA colorectal cancer screening technology focusedinternational expansion are focusing on select countries in Europe, the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient population. The IBD screening population includes patients with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitisMiddle East and primary sclerosing cholangitis.

        For IBD patients, inflammation obscures optical detectionAsia for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy. Therefore, we believe therethe launch of Cologuard. There is a significant opportunityunmet need in these markets as it relates to colorectal cancer screening. We received a CE mark for Cologuard in December 2014,  which is a patient friendly sDNA screening testmandatory conformity mark for these patients. Approximately 50% ofcertain products sold within the patient population is not screened according to current guidelines for IBD. As part ofEuropean Economic Area.  We anticipate that our collaboration, the Mayo Clinic has conducted preliminary pre-clinical studies on this patient group using our sDNA screening technology which have shown promising results.continued international efforts during 2016 will be limited and focused.

        We initiated an IBD clinical trial in the first quarter 2013 that will focus on this specific patient group, and plan on enrolling around 300 IBD patients into the trial. We estimate the potential U.S. market for an IBD screening test to be approximately $250 million.Employees

        Also, we are working with the Mayo Clinic on developing tests to detect other gastro-intestinal cancers, specifically esophageal and pancreatic cancer.

As of December 31, 2013,2015, we had one hundred and two full-time677 full‑time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

See the Company'sour consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K10‑K and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements for information concerning revenues, profits and losses and total assets.statements.

We were incorporated in the State of Delaware on February 10, 1995. Our executive officescorporate headquarters are located at 441 Charmany Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53719. Our telephone number is 608-284-5700.608‑284‑5700. Our Internet website address iswww.exactsciences.com. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K,10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q,10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K,8‑K, including exhibits, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available free of charge through the investor relations page of our internet website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our Internet website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not intended to be incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


10‑K.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

We operate in a rapidly changing environment that involves a number of risks, some of which are beyond our control. This discussion highlights some of the risks whichthat may affect future operating results. These are the risks and uncertainties we believe are most important for you to consider. We cannot be certain that we will successfully address these risks. If we are unable to address these risks, our business may not grow, our stock price may suffer and we may be unable to stay in business. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, which we currently deem immaterial or which are similar to those faced by other companies in our industry or business in general, may also impair our business operations.

We may never successfully commercialize any of our technologies or become profitable.

We have incurred losses since we were formed and have had only modest product and royalty fee revenues to date.recently begun generating  revenue from Cologuard, our only product. From our date of inception on February 10, 1995 through December 31, 2013,2015, we have accumulated a total deficit of approximately $320.8$578.6 million. We expect that our losses will continue for at least the next several years and that we will be required to invest significant additional funds toward development and commercialization of our colorectal cancer screening technology.technology and other products and services. If our revenue does not grow significantly, we will not be profitable. We cannot be certain that the revenue from the sale of any products or services based on our technologies will be sufficient to make us profitable.

        Our future revenues will depend on our ability to successfully commercialize an FDA-approved product for sDNA colorectal cancer screening. Our ability to successfully commercialize our technologies may be affected by the following factors:

the scope14


Table of and progress made in our research and development activities;

threats posed by competing technologies;

acceptance, endorsement and formal policy approval of favorable reimbursement for our test by Medicare and other third-party payors; and

our ability to market our test through primary care physician awareness and consumer education and outreach.
Contents

        There are many factors outside our control that may impact our ability to successfully commercialize a colorectal cancer screening test and we may not succeed in doing so.

We may need additional capital to execute our business plan, and we may be unable to raise additional capital on acceptable terms.plan.

Although we believe that we have sufficient capital to fund our operations for at least the next twelve months, we may not have sufficientrequire additional capital to fully fund the commercial developmentour current strategic plan, which includes successfully commercializing Cologuard and developing a pipeline of our Cologuard test and related FDA submission and commercialization efforts. If we are unable to obtain neededfuture products.  Additional financing on acceptable terms, we may not be ableavailable in amounts or on terms satisfactory to implementus or at all.  General market conditions, the market price of our business plan, which could have a material adverse effect oncommon stock, our business, financial condition, uncertainty about the future commercial success of Cologuard or the development commercial success of future products, regulatory developments, the status and resultsscope of operations.our intellectual property, any ongoing litigation and other factors may significantly affect our success in raising additional capital.  If we raise additional funds through the sale of equity, convertible debt or other equity-linked securities, our stockholders'stockholders’ ownership will be diluted. We may issue securities that have rights, preferences and privileges senior to our common stock. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, or licensing arrangements or other structured financing transactions, we may relinquish rights to certain of our technologies or products, grant security interests in our assets or grant licenses to third parties on terms that are unfavorable to us. Even if we successfully raise sufficient funds to continue our operations to fund development, FDA submission and commercialization of our Cologuard test, we cannot provide assurance that our business will ever generate sufficient cash flow from operations to become profitable.


Our success depends heavily on our Cologuard colorectal cancer screening test.

        OurFor the foreseeable future, our ability to generate product salesrevenues will depend entirely on the commercial success of our Cologuard test. We will need to obtain FDA approval before we can commercialize this product.

The commercial success of our Cologuard test and our ability to generate product salesrevenues will depend on several factors, including the following:

·

acceptance in the medical community; 

·

inclusion of Cologuard in healthcare guidelines, such as those developed by ACS and USPSTF; 

·

inclusion of Cologuard in quality measures including Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (“HEDIS”’) and the CMS Star ratings;

·

recommendations and studies regarding colorectal cancer screening that may be published by government agencies, professional organizations, academic or medical journals  other key opinion leaders;

·

patient acceptance of and demand for the Cologuard test; 

·

successful sales, marketing and educational programs; 

·

the number of patients tested for colorectal cancer as well as the number of patients who use Cologuard for that purpose; 

·

sufficient coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors; 

·

the amount and nature of competition from other colorectal cancer or pre-cancer screening products and procedures; 

·

maintaining FDA marketing approval of Cologuard in the United States and the receipt and maintenance of marketing approval from foreign regulatory authorities; 

·

obtaining regulatory approvals and appropriate payor coverage to successfully market Cologuard in foreign markets including Europe, East Asia and Australia;

·

maintaining and defending patent protection for the intellectual property relevant to Cologuard; and 

·

our ability to establish and maintain commercial manufacturing, distribution, sales force and CLIA laboratory testing capabilities.

If we are unable to receive FDA approval and develop substantial sales of our Cologuard test or if we are significantly delayed or limited in doing so, our business prospects would be adversely affected.

There canOur quarterly operating results could be no assurance that we will obtain FDA approval for our Cologuard test.

        We believe obtaining FDA approval for our Cologuard test is criticalsubject to building broad demand and successful commercialization for our sDNA colorectal cancer screening technologies. We are currently insignificant fluctuation, which could increase the process of seeking a premarket approval (PMA) for our Cologuard test. The PMA process involves providing extensive data to the FDA to allow the FDA to find that the device is safe and effective for its intended use, which may also include providing additional data and updates to the FDA, the convening of expert panels, inspection of manufacturing facilities, and new or supplemented PMAs if the product is modified during the process. Even if granted, a PMA approval may place substantial restrictions on how a device is marketed or sold, and the FDA will continue to place considerable restrictions on products, including but not limited to registering manufacturing facilities, listing the products with the FDA, complying with labeling requirements, and meeting reporting requirements. The studies required in connection with our seeking FDA approvalvolatility of our technologies have beenstock price and will be costlycause losses to our stockholders.

Our revenues and time-intensive. There can be no assurance thatresults of operations may fluctuate significantly, depending on a variety of factors, including the FDA will ultimately approve any PMA submitted by us in a timely manner or at all, and if it does not, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our Cologuard test.following:

·

our success in marketing and selling, and changes in demand for, our Cologuard test, and the level of reimbursement and collection obtained for Cologuard;

·

seasonal variations affecting physician recommendations for colorectal cancer screenings and patient compliance with physician recommendations;

15


Table of Contents

·

our success in collecting payments from third-party payors, customers and collaborative partners, variation in the timing of these payments and recognition of these payments as revenues;

·

the pricing of our Cologuard test, including potential changes in CMS or other reimbursement rates;

·

fluctuations in the amount and timing of our selling and marketing costs and our ability to manage costs and expenses and effectively implement our business;

·

our research and development activities, including our ability to develop new and improved tests and the timing of expensive clinical trials; and

Other companies or institutions may develop and market novel or improved methods for detecting colorectal cancer or pre-cancer, which may make our technologies less competitive or obsolete.

The market for colorectal cancer and pre-cancer screening is large, consisting of more than 80 million Americans age 50 and above. As a result, this market has attracted competitors, some of which possess significantly greater financial and other resources and development capabilities than we do. Some companies and institutions are developing serum-based tests and screening tests based on the detection of proteins, nucleic acids or the presence of fragments of mutated genes in the blood that are produced by colorectal cancer.cancer or pre-cancer. We are aware of three companies—at least five companies — Epigenomics AG, Applied Proteomics, Inc., Gene News, EDP Biotech Corporation and Quest Diagnostics—Diagnostics — that are developing a blood-based testtests for the detection of colorectal cancer. It is our understanding that Epigenomics AG has completed a large multi-center study designed to demonstrate the performance of its blood-based screening test for colorectal cancer and submitted the results of that


study to the FDA in the first quarter of 2013. It is also our understanding thatJune 2014. On January 8, 2016, Epigenomics AG has anannounced that the FDA advisory committee meeting scheduledhad informed it that the clinical data that it had submitted regarding its blood-based screening test is sufficient for March 26, 2014the FDA to make a final decision on premarket approval and that the FDA’s review their product.process will be completed in the near future.On January 10, 2016, Illumina, Inc. announced the formation of GRAIL, a new company formed to develop a blood-based, pan-cancer screening test that would seek to measure circulating nucleic acids in blood using next-generation sequencing (“NGS”) technology.  We believe other companies are also faceworking on so-called “liquid biopsy” tests using NGS technology, and these tests could represent significant competition for Cologuard and other tests we may develop. Our Cologuard test also faces competition from procedure-based detection technologies such as flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy and "virtual"“virtual” colonoscopy (a radiological imaging approach whichthat visualizes the inside of the bowel by use of spiral computerized axial tomography known as a CT scan) as well as existing and possibly improved traditional screening tests such as FOBT and FIT.FIT and newer screening technologies such as the PillCam COLON cleared by FDA in February 2014. Our competitors may also be working on additional methods of detecting colorectal cancer and pre-cancer that have not yet been announced.

Beyond our Cologuard test, as we seek to develop other tools to detect cancer and pre-cancer, we expect to compete with a broad range of organizations in the U.S. and other countries that are engaged in the development, production and commercialization of cancer diagnostic tools.  These competitors include:

·

biotechnology, diagnostic and other life science companies;

·

academic and scientific institutions;

·

governmental agencies; and

·

public and private research organizations.

We may be unable to compete effectively against theseour competitors either because their test isproducts and services are superior or because they may have more expertise, experience, financial resources or stronger business relationships. Our competitors may have broader product lines and greater name recognition than we do. We have limited experience developing tests for the detection of non-colorectal cancers and we cannot guarantee that our research and development activities will be successful in developing any marketable testing products or services. Further, even if we do develop new marketable products or services, our current and future competitors may develop products and services that are more commercially attractive than ours and they may obtain FDA approval or clearance, and bring those products and services to market, sooner than we are able to.

We face uncertainty related to healthcare reform, pricing, coverage and reimbursement, which could reduce our revenue.

Recent healthcare reform laws, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”), are significantly affecting the U.S. healthcare and medical services industry.  Existing legislation, and possible future legal and regulatory changes, could substantially change the structure

16


Table of Contents

and finances of the health insurance system and the methodology for reimbursing medical services, drugs and devices, including our current and future products and services.  Any change in reimbursement policy could result in a change in patient co-payments, which could adversely affect patient willingness and ability to use our Cologuard test and any other product or service we may develop.  Healthcare reforms, which may intend to reduce healthcare costs, may have the effect of discouraging third-party payors from covering certain kinds of medical products and services, particularly newly developed technologies, such as our Cologuard test.

Even without further legislative reform, there can be no assurance that CMS will maintain its current coverage and reimbursement rate for our Cologuard test.  If the CMS reimbursement rate for Cologuard is reduced, our revenues could be adversely affected.  There can be no assurance that CMS and commercial payors who initially decide to cover Cologuard will continue to cover Cologuard. Groups with varying interests may lobby CMS to reduce or terminate reimbursement for Cologuard.  For example, a hedge fund submitted a request that CMS reconsider its reimbursement rate for Cologuard, which was presented at a CMS public meeting on July 16, 2015.  Although in November 2015, CMS issued a determination maintaining substantially the same reimbursement rate for Cologuard, we can provide no assurance that CMS will maintain its coverage or reimbursement rate in the future or that other groups will not successfully persuade CMS to reduce or terminate its coverage and reimbursement for Cologuard.

Under PAMA, the basis for Cologuard’s CMS reimbursement rate is expected to change, beginning in January, 2017, unless the implementation date is delayed.  CMS issued proposed regulations for the implementation of PAMA on September 25, 2015, but these regulations had not been finalized as of February 24, 2016.  Under PAMA and the currently proposed regulations, the CMS reimbursement rate for Cologuard is expected to be calculated based on the volume-weighted median of private payor rates. For the initial rates calculated under PAMA, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2017, the calculation is expected to be based on the volume-weighted median of private payor rates during the period July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. Because it is unclear how or when the regulations will be finalized and PAMA will be implemented, it is hard to anticipate how PAMA will affect future CMS reimbursement for Cologuard. However, it is possible that the final PAMA regulations, or future CMS guidance or interpretations, could materially and adversely affect CMS reimbursement for Cologuard. 

PAMA, as well as other possible legal and regulatory changes, present significant uncertainty for future CMS reimbursement rates for Cologuard. Because Medicare currently covers 46% of patients in the screening population for Cologuard, any reduction in the CMS reimbursement rates for Cologuard would negatively affect our revenues and otherour business prospects.

If third-party payors, including managed care organizations, do not approve reimbursement for our Cologuard test at adequate reimbursement rates, we may be unable to successfully commercialize our Cologuard test which, we expect, would limit or slow our revenue generation and likely have a material adverse effect on our business.

Successful commercialization of our Cologuard test depends, in large part, on the availability of adequate reimbursement from government insurance plans, managed care organizations and private insurance plans. In particular,Although we believe that obtainingreceived a positive national coverage decision and what we believe is a favorable initial reimbursement rate from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)CMS for our Cologuard test, will be a necessary element in achieving material commercial success. These third-partyit is also critical that other third party payors approve and maintain reimbursement for our Cologuard test at adequate reimbursement rates. Third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new healthcare products approved for marketing by the FDA. As a result, there is significant uncertainty surrounding whether the use of tests that incorporate new technology, such as our Cologuard test, will be eligible for coverage by third-party payors or, if eligible for coverage, what the reimbursement rates will be for those products.be. Reimbursement of stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening by a third-party payor may depend on a number of factors, including a payor'spayor’s determination that tests using our technologies are: sensitive for colorectal cancer;cancer and pre-cancer; not experimental or investigational; approved by the major guidelines organizations; reliable, safe and effective; medically necessary; appropriate for the specific patient; and cost-effective.

If we are unable to obtain positive policy decisions from third-party payors, including Medicare and managed care organizations, approving reimbursement for our Cologuard test at adequate levels, theits commercial success of this product wouldwill be compromised and our revenues would be significantly limited. We may also experience material delays in obtaining such reimbursement decisions and payment for our Cologuard test which are beyond our control. We are pursuing a variety of strategies to increase commercial payor coverage of Cologuard. In certain situations where we believe payors are obligated to cover Cologuard under Medicare laws and state laws that mandate coverage for certain colorectal cancer screening tests, we have sued to enforce coverage obligations. We may pursue similar litigation in the future. Such litigation may be costly,

17


Table of Contents

may divert management attention from other responsibilities, may cause payors, including those not directly involved in the litigation, to resist contracting with us, and may ultimately prove unsuccessful.

Moreover, coverage policiesdeterminations and reimbursement rates are subject to change, and we cannot guarantee that even if we initially achieve adequate coverage and reimbursement rates, that they will be applicable to our productsCologuard test in the future. As noted above, under PAMA, our Medicare reimbursement rate will be subject to adjustment based on our volume-weighted median commercial reimbursement rate.

If our clinical studies do not provesatisfy providers, payors, patients and others as to the reliability, effectiveness and superiority of our Cologuard test, we may experience reluctance or refusal on the part of physicians to order, and third-party payors to pay for, this product.our test.

        IfAlthough we have received FDA approval for our Cologuard test, if the results of our research and clinical studies and our sales and marketing activities relating to communication of these results, do not convince thought-leading gastroenterologists, guidelines organizations, primary care physicians and other healthcare providers, third-party payors and patients that our Cologuard test is reliable, effective and superior to existingalternative screening methods, including Hemoccult II, Hemoccult Sensa and immunochemical FOBT, we may experience reluctance or refusal on the part of physicians to order, and third-party payors to pay for, our Cologuard test, which could prevent us from successfully commercializing it.

We have finite selling and marketing resources and only limited sales, marketing, customer support, manufacturing, distribution and commercial laboratory experience, which may restrict our success in commercializing Cologuard and other products we may develop.

To grow our business as planned, we must expand our sales, marketing and customer support capabilities, which will involve developing and administering our commercial infrastructure and/or collaborative commercial arrangements and partnerships. We must also maintain satisfactory arrangements for the manufacture and distribution of our Cologuard test. Also, in connection with the launch of Cologuard in late 2014, we began operating a CLIA certified lab facility to process Cologuard tests and provide patient results. We have limited experience managing a sales force, customer support operation and operating a manufacturing operation and clinical lab facility and we may encounter difficulties retaining and managing the specialized workforce these activities require. We may seek to partner with others to assist us with any or all of these functions. However, we may be unable to find appropriate third parties with whom to enter into these arrangements. Furthermore, if we do enter into these arrangements, these third parties may not perform as expected.

If we are unable to deploy and maintain effective sales and marketing capabilities, we will have difficulty achieving market awareness and selling our products and services.

To achieve commercial success for our Cologuard test and our future products and services, we must continue to develop and grow our sales and marketing organization. We currently have a 260 person sales team, including approximately 210 in a direct field sales force. Our direct field sales force calls directly on healthcare providers throughout the United States to initiate sales of our Cologuard test. Our sales organization must explain to healthcare providers the reliability, effectiveness and benefits of Cologuard as compared to alternative screening methods. We may not be able to successfully manage our dispersed sales force. We have also entered into marketing arrangements with independent sales organizations, but we cannot be assured that they will be effective. Because of the competition for their services, we may be unable to partner with or retain additional qualified sales representatives, either as our employees or independent contractors or through independent sales organizations. Further, we may not be able to enter into agreements with sales representatives on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

Establishing and maintaining sales and marketing capabilities will be expensive and time-consuming. Our expenses associated with maintaining our sales force may be disproportional compared to the revenues we may be able to generate on sales of the Cologuard test.

18


Table of Contents

The success of our Cologuard test depends on the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community.

Our Cologuard test may not gain market acceptance by physicians, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our Cologuard test will depend on a number of factors, including:

·

its demonstrated sensitivity and specificity for detecting colorectal cancer and pre-cancer;

·

its price;

·

the availability and attractiveness of alternative screening methods; 

·

the willingness of physicians to prescribe Cologuard;

·

the interval at which patients are screened using Cologuard; and 

·

sufficient third-party coverage or reimbursement.

Despite the availability of current colorectal cancer screening methods as well as the recommendations of the ACS that all Americans age 50 and above be screened for colorectal cancer, approximately 47 percent of these individuals are not screened according to current guidelines. Use of a stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening test will require people to collect a stool sample, which some people may be reluctant to do. If our Cologuard test does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate substantial revenues and we may not become profitable.

Our assumptions regarding the market opportunity for Cologuard may not prove true. We estimate the potential market opportunity for Cologuard assuming, among other things, a 30-percent test adoption rate in the screening population and a three-year screening interval. Although ACS guidelines recommend a three-year screening interval and CMS has determined that Medicare will cover the test at this interval, physicians, healthcare payors, the FDA and other regulators and opinion leaders could recommend a different testing schedule. Further, patients may not comply with the recommended testing interval.

Recommendations, guidelines and quality metrics issued by various organizations, including the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, the American Cancer Society and the National Committee for Quality Assurance, may significantly affect payors’ willingness to cover, and physicians’ willingness to prescribe, our products.

Securing influential recommendations, inclusion in healthcare guidelines and inclusion in quality measures are keys to our physician and payor engagement strategies.  These guidelines, recommendations and quality metrics may shape payors’ coverage decisions and physicians’ cancer screening procedures.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (“USPSTF”), a panel of primary care physicians and epidemiologists funded by the US. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, makes influential recommendations on clinical preventative services without considering cost-effectiveness. On October 5, 2015, the USPSTF issued a draft recommendation statement on colorectal cancer screening assigning an “A” grade to colorectal cancer screening for individuals starting at age 50 and continuing until age 75.  Unlike prior USPSTF recommendations, the draft statement does not assign individual letter grades to individual screening tests.  The draft statement designated certain screening modalities as “recommended” and others (including multi-target stool DNA testing, which is Cologuard) as “alternative tests.”  The draft statement indicated that the alternative tests “may be useful in select clinical circumstances” but are supported by “less mature evidence.”  We expect that a final version of the USPSTF colorectal cancer screening recommendations will be published in the second half of 2016. 

If the final USPSTF colorectal cancer screening recommendations continue to designate Cologuard as an “alternative” test, or otherwise fail to designate Cologuard as either a “recommended” test or as having an “A” or “B” grade, market acceptance of Cologuard could be adversely affected, potentially materially so.  For example, without a clear USPSTF “recommendation” or “A” or “B” grade, private health insurance plans may take the position that they are not required to cover Cologuard under the screening mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which will require most private insurance plans to cover screening tests that receive an “A” or “B” grade from USPSTF without charging the patient any co-pay or deductible) and may decline to provide coverage.  

In addition, the healthcare industry in the United States has experienced a trend toward cost containment and value-based purchasing of healthcare services. Some government and private payors are adopting pay-for-performance programs that differentiate payments for healthcare services based on the achievement of documented quality metrics, cost efficiencies or patient outcomes. Payors may look to quality measures such as the National Committee for Quality

19


Table of Contents

Assurance (“NCQA”), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (“HEDIS”) and the CMS Star ratings to assess quality of care. These measures are intended to provide incentives to service providers to deliver the same or better results while consuming fewer resources. If Cologuard is not included in HEDIS or other quality metrics, payors may be less inclined to reimburse our Cologuard test at adequate levels, which could adversely impact our business. Additionally, if Cologuard is not included in HEDIS or other quality metrics, physicians may not earn quality credit for prescribing Cologuard and therefore may be less inclined to do so.

We expect to make significant investments to research and develop new cancer diagnostic tools, which may not be successful.

In addition to commercializing our Cologuard test, we are focused on developing our pipeline for future products, including screening and diagnostic tests for lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer. Our efforts to develop new cancer diagnostic tools or other products or services may not be successful, may cause us to incur significant expense and may distract our management from successfully commercializing Cologuard.

Developing new cancer diagnostic tools is a speculative and risky endeavor.  Candidate products that may initially show promise may fail to achieve the desired results in larger clinical studies or may not achieve acceptable levels of clinical accuracy.  We may need to explore a number of different marker combinations, alter our candidate products and repeat clinical studies before we identify a potentially successful candidate.  Clinical testing is expensive, takes many years to complete and can have uncertain outcome.  Clinical failure can occur at any stage of the testing.  If, after clinical trials, a candidate product or service appears successful, we may, depending on the nature of the product or service, still need to obtain FDA and other regulatory clearances or approvals before we can market it.  The FDA’s clearance or approval pathways are likely to involve significant time, as well as additional research, development and clinical study expenditures.  There can be no guarantee that the FDA would clear or approve any future product we may develop.  Even if the FDA clears or approves a new product we develop, we would need to commit substantial resources to sell and market the product before it could be profitable and the product may never be commercially viable. 

If we determine that any of our current or future development programs is unlikely to succeed, we may abandon it without any return on our investment into the program.  Given our current levels of cash and resources, and our planned expenditures to support Cologuard commercialization, we expect that we will need to raise significant additional capital to bring any new products to market, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all.    

We may not be able to successfully establish and maintain collaborative and licensing arrangements, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our Cologuard test and any other products and services.

The development and commercialization of our Cologuard test and any other products and services rely, directly or indirectly, upon strategic collaborations and licensing agreements with third parties. We currently have collaborative and licensing arrangements with MAYO Foundation for Medical Education and Research.  In addition, we have licensing agreements with Hologic and MDx Health. Such arrangements provide us with intellectual property crucial to our product development, including technology that we have incorporated into our Cologuard test. Our dependence on licensing, collaboration and other similar agreements with third parties may subject us to a number of risks. There can be no assurance that any current contractual arrangements between us and third parties or between our strategic partners and other third parties will be continued and will not be breached or terminated early. Nor can there be any assurance that we will be able to enter into the relationships necessary to successfully commercialize our Cologuard test or any other product or service we may develop. Any failure to obtain or retain the rights to necessary technologies could require us to re-configure our products and services, which could negatively impact their commercial sale or increase the associated costs, either of which could materially harm our business and adversely affect our future revenues.

As we seek to commercialize and market our Cologuard test and develop new products and services, we expect to continue and expand our reliance on collaborative and licensing arrangements. Establishing new strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements is difficult and time-consuming. Discussions with potential collaborators or licensors may not lead to the establishment of collaborations on favorable terms, if at all. To the extent we agree to work exclusively with one collaborator in a given area, our opportunities to collaborate with other entities could be limited. Potential collaborators or licensors may reject collaborations with us based upon their assessment of our financial, regulatory or intellectual property position. Even if we successfully establish new collaborations, these relationships may never result in the successful commercialization of our Cologuard test or any other product or service.

20


Table of Contents

Even though our Cologuard test has received regulatory clearance in the United States, if we do not receive regulatory clearance for Cologuard in other jurisdictions, our prospects may be materially and negatively affected.

Governments in countries outside the United States also regulate diagnostic tests marketed in such countries, and obtaining their approvals can be lengthy, expensive and highly uncertain. The approval process varies from country to country and the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. In certain jurisdictions, we are required to finalize operational, reimbursement, price approval and funding processes prior to marketing our Cologuard test. We may not receive regulatory approval for our Cologuard test any of these countries on a timely basis, if ever. Even if approval is granted in any such country, the approval may require limitations on the uses or availability of our Cologuard test. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for our Cologuard test in territories outside the United States could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects.

If we fail to meet any applicable requirements of CLIA or similar state laws, that failure could adversely affect any future payor consideration of our technologies, prevent their approval entirely, and/or interrupt the commercial sale of any products and services and otherwise cause us to incur significant expense.

We are subject to federal and state laws and regulations regarding the operation of clinical laboratories. Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (“CLIA”) requirements and laws of certain states impose certification requirements for clinical laboratories, and establish standards for quality assurance and quality control, among other things. Clinical laboratories are subject to inspection by regulators, and to sanctions for failing to comply with applicable requirements. Sanctions available under CLIA include prohibiting a laboratory from running tests, requiring a laboratory to implement a corrective plan, and imposing civil monetary penalties. If we fail to meet any applicable requirements of CLIA or state law, that failure could adversely affect any future payor consideration of our technologies, prevent their approval entirely, and/or interrupt the commercial sale of any products and services and otherwise cause us to incur significant expense.

We must maintain FDA approval for Cologuard and of our Madison, Wisconsin, facilities; failure to maintain compliance with FDA requirements may prevent or delay the marketing or manufacture of our Cologuard test.

As a condition of the FDA approval of our Cologuard test, we are required to conduct a post-approval study. We anticipate that the post-approval study will require significant funding and resources to reach its conclusion. There is a risk that the FDA may modify or withdraw the approval of Cologuard if the results of this post-approval study are not satisfactory or are inconsistent with previous studies. We expect to rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators to conduct the post-approval study. We have reduced control over the activities of these third parties and the initiation and completion of the post-approval study may be prevented, delayed or halted for reasons outside our control.

Additionally, our Madison, Wisconsin facilities are periodically subject to inspection by the FDA and other governmental agencies to ensure they meet production and quality standards. Operations at these facilities could be interrupted or halted if the FDA deems such inspections are unsatisfactory. Failure to comply with FDA or other regulatory requirements could result in fines, unanticipated compliance expenditures, recall or seizures of our products, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, termination of ongoing research, disqualification of data for submission to regulatory authorities, enforcement actions, injunctions and criminal prosecution.

Our inability to obtain without delay any necessary regulatory clearances or approvals for new diagnostic products or services, or improvements to our current offerings, could materially encumber future product commercialization. 

We may develop new diagnostic test candidates that are likely to be regulated by the FDA as medical devices.  Unless otherwise exempted, medical devices must receive from the FDA either “510(k) clearance” or pre-market approval (“PMA”) before marketing them in the United States.  The FDA determines whether a medical device will require either 510(k) clearance or the PMA process based on statutory criteria that include the risk associated with the device and whether the device is similar to an existing, legally marketed product.  The process to obtain either 510(k) clearance or PMA will likely be costly, time-consuming and uncertain.  However, we believe the PMA process is generally more challenging. Even if we design a product that we expect to be eligible for the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA may require that the product undergo the PMA process.  There can be no assurance that the FDA will ever permit us to market any new product or service that we develop. Even if regulatory approval is granted, such approval

21


Table of Contents

may include significant limitations on indicated uses, which could materially and adversely affect the prospects of any new product or service.

FDA regulatory approval or clearance is not just required for new products and services we develop, but would also be required for certain enhancements we may seek to make to our Cologuard test. 

Delays in receipt of, or failure to obtain, clearances or approvals could materially delay or prevent us from commercializing our products and services or result in substantial additional costs which could decrease our profitability. In addition, even if we receive FDA clearance or approval for a new or enhanced product or service, the FDA may withdraw or materially modify its clearance or approval.

In the future, we plan to develop diagnostic products or services that could be regulated as laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”). If the FDA proceeds with its plans to actively regulate LDTs, we may need to obtain additional FDA or other regulatory approvals, which may delay, encumber or block us from commercializing these diagnostic tests.

We may also develop diagnostic test candidates that, under today’s regulations, would be regulated as LDTs under CLIA. LDTs are clinical laboratory tests that are developed and validated by a laboratory for its own use.  Historically, LDTs have been regulated under CLIA while the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion and not required approvals or clearances for most LDTs performed by CLIA-certified laboratories. The FDA has traditionally chosen not to exercise its authority to regulate LDTs because it regulates the primary components in most LDTs and because it believes that laboratories certified as high complexity under CLIA, such as ours, have demonstrated expertise and ability in test procedures and analysis.

In October 2014, the FDA published two draft guidance documents describing the proposed risk-based framework under which they might regulate LDTs. The FDA’s draft framework proposed, among other things, premarket review for higher-risk LDTs, such as those that have the same intended use as FDA-approved or cleared diagnostics currently on the market. In November 2015, the FDA issued a report citing evidence for the need for additional regulation of LDTs and stated the FDA is continuing to work to finalize premarket review requirements for LDTs.  The FDA’s guidance documents, if and when finalized, may materially impact our development of LDTs and may require us to change our business model in order to maintain compliance with these regulations. New laws and regulations may significantly slow the time it takes us to bring LDTs to market, may materially increase the costs of developing, and decrease the profitability of providing, LDTs, and may prevent us from commercializing certain diagnostic test candidates.

We currently perform our Cologuard test predominantly in one laboratory facility. If this or any future facility or our equipment were damaged or destroyed, or if we experience a significant disruption in our operations for any reason, our ability to continue to operate our business could be materially harmed.

We currently perform our Cologuard test predominantly in a single laboratory facility in Madison, Wisconsin. Our headquarters and manufacturing facilities are also located in Madison, Wisconsin. If these, or any future facilities, were to be damaged, destroyed or otherwise unable to operate, whether due to fire, floods, storms, tornadoes, other inclement weather events or natural disasters, employee malfeasance, terrorist acts, power outages, or otherwise, our business could be severely disrupted. If our Madison, Wisconsin, laboratory is disrupted, we may not be able to perform our Cologuard test or generate test reports as promptly as patients and healthcare providers require or expect, or possibly not at all. If we are unable to perform our Cologuard test or generate test reports within a timeframe that meets patient and healthcare provider expectations, our business, financial results and reputation could be materially harmed.

We currently maintain insurance against damage to our property and equipment and against business interruption and research and development restoration expenses, subject to deductibles and other limitations. If we have underestimated our insurance needs with respect to an interruption, or if an interruption is not subject to coverage under our insurance policies, we may not be able to cover our losses.

We rely upon certain single-source suppliers and loss or interruption of supply from single-source suppliers could have a disruptive effect on our business.

We purchase certain supplies from third-party suppliers and manufacturers. In some cases, due to the unique attributes of products that are incorporated into our Cologuard test, we maintain a single-source supplier relationship. These third parties are independent entities subject to their own unique operational and financial risks that are outside

22


Table of Contents

our control. These third parties may not perform their obligations in a timely and cost-effective manner and they may be unwilling to increase production capacity commensurate with demand for our Cologuard test or future products. The loss of a single-source supplier, the failure to perform by a single-source supplier, the deterioration of our relationship with a single-source supplier or any unilateral modification to the contractual terms under which we are supplied materials by a single-source supplier could have a disruptive effect on our business, and could adversely affect our results of operations.

Failure in our information technology, storage systems or our clinical laboratory equipment could significantly disrupt our operations and our research and development efforts, which could adversely impact our revenues, as well as our research, development and commercialization efforts.

Our ability to execute our business strategy depends, in part, on the continued and uninterrupted performance of our information technology, or IT, systems, which support our operations, including at our clinical laboratory, and our research and development efforts. We are substantially dependent on our IT systems to receive and process Cologuard test orders, securely store patient health records and deliver the results of our Cologuard tests. The integrity and protection of our own data, and that of our customers and employees, is critical to our business. The regulatory environment governing information, security and privacy laws is increasingly demanding and continues to evolve IT systems are vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including telecommunications or network failures, malicious human acts and natural disasters. Moreover, despite network security and back-up measures, some of our servers are potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses and similar disruptive problems. Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our IT systems, sustained or repeated system failures that interrupt our ability to generate and maintain data, and in particular to operate our clinical laboratory, could adversely affect our ability to operate our business. Any interruption in the operation of IT systems could have an adverse effect on our operations. Furthermore, any breach in our IT systems could lead to the unauthorized access, disclosure and use of non-public information. Any such access, disclosure, or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, and damage to our reputation.

We rely on courier delivery services to transport Cologuard collection kits to patients and samples back to laboratory facilities for analysis. If these delivery services are disrupted or become prohibitively expensive, customer satisfaction and our business could be negatively impacted. 

We ship Cologuard collection kits to patients, and patients ship samples to our Madison, Wisconsin, laboratory facility or other clinical laboratories for analysis, by air and ground express courier delivery service. Disruptions in delivery service, whether due to bad weather, natural disaster, terrorist acts or threats, or for other reasons, can adversely affect customer satisfaction, specimen quality and our ability to provide our services on a timely basis.  If the courier delivery services that transport Cologuard collection kits institute significant price increases, our profitability would be negatively affected and we may need to identify alternative delivery methods, if possible, modify our service model, or attempt to raise our pricing, which may not be possible with regard to Medicare claims or commercially practicable with regard to commercial claims.

Due to billing complexities in the diagnostic and laboratory service industry, we may not be able to collect fees for the Cologuard tests we perform.

Billing for diagnostic and laboratory services is a complex process. Laboratories bill many different payors including doctors, patients, hundreds of insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid and employer groups, all of which have different billing requirements.  We are continuing to work with third-party payors to cover and reimburse Cologuard tests.  If we are unsuccessful, we may not receive payment for Cologuard tests we perform for patients on a timely basis, if at all, and we may not be able to provide services for patients with certain healthcare plans.  We may have to litigate to enforce coverage obligations under Medicare laws and state laws that mandate coverage for certain colorectal cancer screening tests or to enforce contractual coverage obligations.  Such litigation may be costly, may divert management attention from other responsibilities, may cause payors, including those not directly involved in the litigation, to resist contracting with us, and may ultimately prove unsuccessful. We may face write-offs of doubtful accounts, disputes with payors and long collection cycles. We may face patient dissatisfaction, complaints or lawsuits to the extent Cologuard tests are not covered, or fully covered, by insurers and patients become responsible for all or part of the price of the test.  As a result, patient demand for Cologuard could be adversely affected.  To the extent patients

23


Table of Contents

express dissatisfaction with our billing practices to their physicians, those physicians may be less likely to prescribe Cologuard for other patients, and our business would be adversely affected.

Even if payors do agree to cover Cologuard, our billing and collections process may be complicated by the following and other factors, which may be beyond our control:

·

disputes among payors as to which payor is responsible for payment;

·

disparity in coverage among various payors or among various healthcare plans offered by a single payor;

·

differing information and billing requirements among payors; and

·

failure by patients or physicians to provide complete and correct billing information.

The uncertainty of receiving payment for our Cologuard test and complex laboratory billing processes could negatively affect our business and our operating results. 

We may be subject to substantial costs and liability, or be prevented from using technologies incorporated in our Cologuard test, as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent or other intellectual property rights.

Third parties may assert infringement or other intellectual property claims against our licensors, our licensees, our suppliers, our strategic partners or us. We pursue a patent strategy that we believe provides us with a competitive advantage in the non-invasive early detection of colorectal cancer and pre-cancer and is designed to maximize our patent protection against third parties in the United States and, potentially, in certain foreign countries. We have filed patent applications that we believe cover the methods we have designed and use in our Cologuard test to detect colorectal cancer and pre-cancer. In order to protect or enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights, we may have to initiate actions against third parties. Any actions regarding patents could be costly and time-consuming and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business. Additionally, such actions could result in challenges to the validity or applicability of our patents. Because the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office maintains patent applications in secrecy until a patent application publishes or the patent is issued, we have no way of knowing if others may have filed patent applications covering technologies used by us or our partners. Additionally, there may be third-party patents, patent applications and other intellectual property relevant to our technologies that may block or compete with our technologies. From time to time we have received correspondence from third parties alleging to hold intellectual property rights that could block our commercialization of products. While none of these inquiries to date have had any material effect on us, and while we do not believe that any pending correspondence would have such an effect, we may receive inquiries in the future that could have a material effect on our business. Even if third-party claims are without merit, defending a lawsuit may result in substantial expense to us and may divert the attention of management and key personnel. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that we would prevail in any such suits or that the damages or other remedies, if any, awarded against us would not be substantial. Claims of intellectual property infringement may require that we, or our strategic partners, enter into royalty or license agreements with third parties that may only be available on unacceptable terms, if at all. These claims may also result in injunctions against the further development and commercial sale of services or products containing our technologies, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Also, patents and patent applications owned by us may become the subject of interference proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial cost to us as well as a possible adverse decision as to the priority of invention of the patent or patent application involved. An adverse decision in an interference proceeding may result in the loss of rights under a patent or patent application subject to such a proceeding.

If we are unable to protect our intellectual property effectively, we may be unable to prevent third parties from using our intellectual property, which would impair any competitive advantage we may otherwise have. 

We rely on patent protection as well as a combination of trademark, copyright and trade secret protection and other contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we fail to protect our intellectual

24


Table of Contents

property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us and we may incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property.

We cannot assure you that any of our currently pending or future patent applications will result in issued patents, and we cannot predict how long it will take for any such patents to be issued. Further, we cannot assure you that other parties will not challenge any patents issued to us or that courts or regulatory agencies will hold our patents to be valid or enforceable. We have been in the past, and may be in the future, the subject of opposition proceedings relating to our patents. We cannot guarantee you that we will be successful in defending challenges made against our patents and patent applications. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents could result in co-ownership of such patents with the third party or the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents. Furthermore, in the life sciences field, courts frequently render opinions that may affect the patentability of certain inventions or discoveries, including opinions that may affect the patentability of isolated DNA and/or methods for analyzing or comparing DNA. Such decisions may adversely impact our ability to obtain new patents and facilitate third-party challenges to our existing patents.

Our business is subject to various complex laws and regulations. We could be subject to significant fines and penalties if we or our partners fail to comply with these regulations.

As a provider of clinical diagnostic products and services, we and our partners are subject to extensive and frequently changing foreign and U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations governing various aspects of our business. In particular, the clinical laboratory industry is subject to significant governmental certification and licensing regulations, as well as foreign and U.S. federal and state laws regarding:

·

test ordering and billing practices; 

·

marketing, sales and pricing practices; 

·

health information privacy and security, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and comparable state laws; 

·

insurance; 

·

anti-markup legislation; and 

·

consumer protection.

We are also required to comply with FDA regulations, including with respect to our labeling and promotion activities. In addition, advertising of our tests is subject to regulation by the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC. Violation of any FDA requirement could result in enforcement actions, such as seizures, injunctions, civil penalties and criminal prosecutions, and violation of any FTC requirement could result in injunctions and other associated remedies, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Most states also have similar regulatory and enforcement authority for devices. Additionally, most foreign countries have authorities comparable to the FDA and processes for obtaining marketing approvals. Obtaining and maintaining these approvals, and complying with all laws and regulations, may subject us to similar risks and delays as those we could experience under FDA and FTC regulation. We incur various costs in complying and overseeing compliance with these laws and regulations.

Healthcare policy has been a subject of extensive discussion in the executive and legislative branches of the federal and many state governments and healthcare laws and regulations are subject to change. Development of the existing commercialization strategy for our Cologuard test has been based on existing healthcare policies. We cannot predict what additional changes, if any, will be proposed or adopted or the effect that such proposals or adoption may have on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we or our partners, including independent sales representatives, fail to comply with these laws and regulations, we could incur significant fines and penalties and our reputation and prospects could suffer.  Additionally, our partners could be forced to cease offering our products and services in certain jurisdictions, which could materially disrupt our business.

Some of our activities may subject us to risks under federal and state laws prohibiting ‘kickbacks’ and false or fraudulent claims.

In addition to FDA marketing restrictions, several other types of state and federal healthcare fraud and abuse laws have been applied in recent years to restrict certain marketing practices in the healthcare product and service industry

25


Table of Contents

and to regulate billing practices and financial relationships with physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers. These laws include a federal law commonly known as the Medicare/Medicaid anti-kickback law, and several similar state laws, which prohibit payments intended to induce physicians or others either to refer patients or to acquire or arrange for or recommend the acquisition of healthcare products or services. While the federal law applies only to referrals, products or services for which payment may be made by a federal healthcare program, state laws often apply regardless of whether federal funds may be involved. These laws constrain the sales, marketing and other promotional activities of manufacturers of medical devices and providers of laboratory services by limiting the kinds of financial arrangements, including sales programs that may be used with hospitals, physicians, laboratories and other potential purchasers or prescribers of medical devices and laboratory services. Other federal and state laws generally prohibit individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent, or are for items or services that were not provided as claimed. Additionally, to avoid liability under federal false claims laws, we must carefully and accurately code claims for reimbursement, proactively monitor the accuracy and appropriateness of Medicare claims and payments received, diligently investigate any credible information indicating that we may have received an overpayment, and promptly return any overpayments. Currently, a significant percentage of our revenues are generated by payments from Medicare. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain false claims laws prescribe civil and criminal penalties (including fines) for noncompliance that can be substantial. While we continually strive to comply with these complex requirements, interpretations of the applicability of these laws to marketing and billing practices are constantly evolving and even an unsuccessful challenge could cause adverse publicity and be costly to respond to, and thus could harm our business and prospects. Our failure to comply with applicable laws could result in various adverse consequences which could have a material adverse effect upon our business, including the exclusion of our products and services from government programs and the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions.

Compliance with the HIPAA security, privacy and breach notification regulations may increase our costs.

The HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification regulations, including the expanded requirements under HITECH, establish comprehensive federal standards with respect to the uses and disclosures of protected health insurance (“PHI”) by health plans, healthcare providers and healthcare clearinghouses, in addition to setting standards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and security of PHI. The regulations establish a complex regulatory framework on a variety of subjects, including:

·

the circumstances under which uses and disclosures of PHI are permitted or required without a specific authorization by the patient, including but not limited to treatment purposes, activities to obtain payments for our services, and our healthcare operations activities;

·

a patient’s rights to access, amend and receive an accounting of certain disclosures of PHI;

·

requirements to notify individuals if there is a breach of their PHI;

·

the contents of notices of privacy practices for PHI;

·

administrative, technical and physical safeguards required of entities that use or receive PHI; and

·

the protection of computing systems maintaining electronic PHI.

We have implemented practices to meet the requirements of the HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification regulations, as required by law. We are required to comply with federal privacy, security and breach notification regulations as well as varying state privacy, security and breach notification laws and regulations, which may be more stringent than federal HIPAA requirements. In addition, for healthcare data transfers from other countries relating to citizens of those countries, we must comply with the laws of those countries. The federal privacy regulations restrict our ability to use or disclose patient identifiable data, without patient authorization, for purposes other than payment, treatment, healthcare operations and certain other specified disclosures such as public health and governmental oversight of the healthcare industry.

HIPAA provides for significant fines and other penalties for wrongful use or disclosure of PHI, including potential civil and criminal fines and penalties. Computer networks are always vulnerable to breach and unauthorized persons may in the future be able to exploit weaknesses in the security systems of our computer networks and gain access to PHI. Additionally, we share PHI with third-party contractors who are contractually obligated to safeguard and maintain the confidentiality of PHI. Unauthorized persons may be able to gain access to PHI stored in such third-party contractors’ computer networks. Any wrongful use or disclosure of PHI by us or our third-party contractors, including disclosure due to data theft or unauthorized access to our or our third-party contractors’ computer networks, could subject us to fines or penalties that could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Although the HIPAA statute and regulations

26


Table of Contents

do not expressly provide for a private right of damages, we could also incur damages under state laws to private parties for the wrongful use or disclosure of confidential health information or other private personal information.

The success of our business is substantially dependent upon the efforts of our senior management team.

Our success depends largely on the skills, experience and performance of key members of our senior management team including Kevin Conroy, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Maneesh Arora, our Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. Graham Lidgard, our Senior Vice President and Chief Science Officer, and John Bakewell, our Chief Financial Officer. These executives are critical to directing and managing our growth and development in the future. Our success is substantially dependent upon our senior management’s ability to lead our company, implement successful corporate strategies and initiatives, develop key relationships, including relationships with collaborators and business partners, and successfully commercialize products and services in the United States and abroad. While our management team has significant experience in securing FDA approvals for diagnostic products, we have considerably less experience in commercializing a product or service. The efforts of our management team will be critical to us as we develop our technologies and seek to commercialize our Cologuard test and other FDA approved products and services.

Our success depends on our ability to retain our managerial personnel and to attract additional personnel.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to attract and retain managerial personnel. If we were to lose any of our senior management team, we may experience difficulties in competing effectively, developing our technologies and implementing our business strategies. Competition for desirable personnel is intense, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to attract and retain the necessary staff. The failure to maintain management or to attract sales personnel as we commercialize our Cologuard test could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our management has broad discretion over the use of our available cash and marketable securities and might not spend available cash and marketable securities in ways that increase the value of your investment.

As of December 31, 2015, we had $306.9 million in combined cash and marketable securities.  Our management currently expects to deploy these resources primarily to expand our Cologuard commercialization activities, to fund our product development efforts and for general corporate and working capital purposes. However, our management has broad discretion to pursue other objectives.  You will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application and prioritization of our resources.  Our management might not apply our cash and marketable securities in ways that increase on, or permit any return of, your investment.

Our business and reputation will suffer if we are unable to establish and comply with, stringent quality standards to assure that the highest level of quality is observed in the performance our Cologuard test.

Inherent risks are involved in providing and marketing cancer diagnostic tests, such as our Cologuard test, and related services. Patients and healthcare providers rely on us to provide accurate clinical and diagnostic information that may be used to make critical healthcare decisions.  As such, users of our Cologuard test may have a greater sensitivity to errors than users of some other types of products and services.

We must maintain top service standards and FDA-mandated and other quality controls. Performance defects, incomplete or improper process controls, excessively slow turnaround times, unanticipated uses of Cologuard or mishandling of stool samples or Cologuard test results (whether by us, patients, healthcare providers, courier delivery services or others) can lead to adverse outcomes for patients and interruptions to our services.  These events could lead to voluntary or legally mandated safety alerts relating to Cologuard or our laboratory facility and could result in the removal of Cologuard from the market or the suspension of our laboratory’s operations.  Insufficient quality controls and any resulting negative outcomes, could result in significant costs and litigation, as well as negative publicity that could reduce demand for Cologuard and payors’ willingness to cover our Cologuard test.  Even if we maintain adequate controls and procedures, damaging and costly errors may occur.

27


Table of Contents

Product and professional liability suits against us could result in expensive and time-consuming litigation, payment of substantial damages and increases in our insurance rates.

The sale and use of our Cologuard test could lead to product or professional liability claims based on, among other things, allegations that one of our products contained a design or manufacturing defect or our laboratory was negligent in processing test results, which resulted in the failure to detect the disease for which it was designed or an unnecessary procedure which caused harm. A product or professional liability claim could result in substantial damages, be costly and time consuming to defend, and cause material harm to our business, reputation or financial condition. We cannot assure you that our liability insurance would protect our assets from the financial impact of defending a liability claim. Any claim brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our liability insurance rates or prevent us from securing insurance coverage in the future.

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct any future studies of our technologies that may be required by the FDA or other US or foreign regulatory bodies, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct the clinical or other studies that will be required to obtain FDA approvalor other regulatory approvals for our Cologuard test or otherfuture products we may develop.


develop or the approval of foreign regulatory bodies that may be required for such future products as well as our Cologuard test. Accordingly, we expect to rely on third parties such as contract research organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators to conduct any such studies. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities will reduce our control over these activities. These third-party contractors may not complete activities on schedule or conduct studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our study design. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control will not relieve us of our requirement to prepare, and ensure our compliance with, various procedures required under good clinical practices, even though third-party contract research organizations may prepare and comply with their own, comparable procedures. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if the third parties need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our studies may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain a required regulatory approval forapproval.

Our inability to manage growth could harm our Cologuard test.business.

We may not be able to successfully establish and maintain collaborative and licensing arrangements, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our Cologuard test.

        The development andIn connection with launching the commercialization of our Cologuard test, relies upon strategic collaborations and licensing agreements with third parties. We currently have a collaborative arrangement with the Mayo Clinic. In addition, we have licensing agreements with Hologicadded, and MDx Health (formerly Oncomethylome Sciences, S.A.). Such arrangements provide us with intellectual property crucialexpect to continue to add, additional personnel in the areas of sales and marketing, laboratory operations, billing and collections, quality assurance and compliance. Our number of full time employees has increased from 102, as of December 31, 2013, to 677, as of December 31, 2015. Further, as we build our productcommercialization efforts and expand research and development including technologyactivities for new products, the scope and complexity of our operations is increasing significantly. As a result of our growth, our operating expenses and capital requirements have also increased, and we expect that we have incorporated intothey will continue to increase, significantly. Our ability to manage our Cologuard test. Our dependence on licensing, collaboration and other similar agreements with third parties may subjectgrowth effectively requires us to a number of risks. There can be no assurance that any current contractual arrangements between usforecast expenses accurately and third parties or betweento expend funds to improve our strategic partnersoperational, financial and other third parties will be continued, not breached or not terminated early or that we will be able to enter into the future relationships necessary to successfully commercialize our Cologuard test. Any failure to obtain or retain the rights to necessary technologies could require us to re-configure our Cologuard test, which could negatively impact its commercial sale or increase the associated costs, either of which could materially harm our businessmanagement controls, reporting systems and adversely affect our future revenues.

procedures. As we seek to commercialize and marketmove forward in commercializing our Cologuard test, we will also need to effectively manage our manufacturing, laboratory operations and sales and marketing needs, which represent new areas of oversight for us. If we are unable to manage our anticipated growth effectively, our business could be harmed.

Our growing international operations could subject us to risks and expenses that could adversely impact the business and results of operations.

We expect to continue and expand our reliance on collaborative and licensing arrangements. Establishing new strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements is difficult and time-consuming. Discussions with potential collaborators or licensors may not lead toincrease the establishment of collaborations on favorable terms, if at all. To the extent we agree to work exclusively with one collaborator in a given area, our opportunities to collaborate with other entities could be limited. Potential collaborators or licensors may reject collaborations with us based upon their assessment of our financial, regulatory or intellectual property position. Even if we successfully establish new collaborations, these relationships may never result in the successful development or commercialization of our Cologuard test.

We have limited selling and marketing resources and lack manufacturing, distribution and commercial laboratory experience, which may restrict our success in commercializing products containing our colorectal cancer screening technology.

        To grow our business as planned, we must expand our sales, marketing and customer support capabilities. We must also establish satisfactory arrangements for the manufacture and distributionavailability of our Cologuard test in non-U.S. markets and to expand our operations in foreign countries. Our international expansion exposes us to risks from the failure to comply with foreign laws and regulations that differ from those under which will involvewe operate in the development of our commercial infrastructure and/or collaborative commercial arrangementsU.S., as well as U.S. rules and partnerships.regulations that govern foreign activities such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In addition, as part of our commercialization strategy, we are planning to establish a CLIA certified lab facility to process Cologuard tests and provide patient results. Developing these functions will be time consuming and expensive. We have limited experience in these areas and we may encounter difficulties retaining and managing the


specialized workforce these activities will require. We may seek to partner with others to assist us with any or all of these functions. However, we may be unable to find appropriate third partiesadversely affected by other risks associated with whom to enter into these arrangements. Furthermore, if we do enter into these arrangements, these third parties may not perform as expected.

The success of our Cologuard test depends on the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and othersoperating in the medical community.

        Our Cologuard test may not gain market acceptance by physicians, healthcare payors and othersforeign countries. Economic uncertainty in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our Cologuard test will depend on a number of factors, including:

        Even if our Cologuard test is superior to other colorectal cancer screening options, adequate third-party reimbursement is obtained and medical practitioners choose to order our Cologuard test, only a small number of people may decide to be screened for colorectal cancer. Despite the availability of current colorectal cancer screening methods as well as the recommendationssome of the ACS that all Americans age 50 and above be screened for colorectal cancer, approximately 47 percent of these individuals are not screened according to current guidelines. Use of a stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening will require people to collect a stool sample,geographic regions in which some people may be reluctant to do. If our products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate material product revenues and we may not become profitable.

If we fail to meet any applicable requirements of CLIA or state law, that failure could adversely affect any future CMS consideration of our technologies, prevent their approval entirely, and/or interrupt the commercial sale of any products and otherwise cause us to incur significant expense.

        We are also subject to U.S. and state laws and regulations regarding the operation of clinical laboratories. Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) requirements and laws of certain other states impose certification requirements for clinical laboratories, and establish standards for quality assurance and quality control, among other things. Clinical laboratories are subject to inspection by regulators, and to sanctions for failing to comply with applicable requirements. Sanctions available under CLIA include prohibiting a laboratory from running tests, requiring a laboratory to implement a corrective plan, and imposing civil monetary penalties. If we fail to meet any applicable requirements of CLIA or state law, that failure could adversely affect any future CMS consideration of our technologies, prevent their approval entirely, and/or interrupt the commercial sale of any products and otherwise cause us to incur significant expense.

We may be subject to substantial costs and liability, or be prevented from using technologies incorporated in our Cologuard test, as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent rights.

        Third parties may assert infringement or other intellectual property claims against our licensors, our licensees, our suppliers, our strategic partners or us. We pursue a patent strategy that we believe provides us with a competitive advantage in the non-invasive early detection of colorectal cancer and is designed to maximize our patent protection against third parties in the U.S. and, potentially, in certain foreign countries. We have filed patent applications that we believe cover the methods we have


designed to help detect colorectal cancer and other cancers. In order to protect or enforce our patent rights, we may have to initiate actions against third parties. Any actions regarding patents could be costly and time-consuming and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business. Additionally, such actionsoperate, including developing regions, could result in challenges to the validity or applicabilitydisruption of commerce and negatively impact cash flows from our patents. Because the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office maintains patent applicationsoperations in secrecy until a patent application publishes or the patent is issued, we have no waythose areas.

28


Table of knowing if others may have filed patent applications covering technologies used by us orContents

Risks inherent in our partners. Additionally, there may be third-party patents, patent applicationsinternational operations include:

·

numerous and varied non-U.S. regulatory requirements, including with respect to healthcare, that are subject to change and that could limit our ability to offer or market our Cologuard test or other products and services we may develop on acceptable terms, if at all; 

·

numerous and varied U.S. regulatory requirements, including import- and export-related laws and regulations and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; 

·

changes by foreign governments and other foreign healthcare payors in reimbursement rates for our Cologuard test or other products and services we may develop; 

·

differing local preferences and expectations for healthcare services; 

·

differing private and public health insurance systems, including differing approaches to coverage determinations and reimbursement amounts; 

·

foreign currency exchange controls and tax rates; 

·

foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, including devaluations; 

·

potential changes in regional and local economic conditions, including local inflationary pressures; 

·

political instability and actual or anticipated military or political conflicts; 

·

difficulty in establishing, staffing and managing non-U.S. operations 

·

differing labor regulations; 

·

potential changes in or interpretations of tax laws; 

·

minimal protection of intellectual and other property rights in certain jurisdictions; 

·

varying enforcement of contractual rights in certain jurisdictions; and 

·

restrictive governmental actions such as those on transfer or repatriation of funds and trade protection matters, as well as the potential nationalization or seizure of business enterprises or assets.

These and other intellectual property relevant to our technologies thatfactors may block or compete with our technologies. Even if third-party claims are without merit, defending a lawsuit may result in substantial expense to us and may divert the attention of management and key personnel. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that we would prevail in any such suits or that the damages or other remedies, if any, awarded against us would not be substantial. Claims of intellectual property infringement may require that we, or our strategic partners, enter into royalty or license agreements with third parties that may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. These claims may also result in injunctions against the further development and commercial sale of services or products containing our technologies, which would have a material adverse effect on our business,international operations and, consequently, on our financial condition and results of operations.

        Also, patents and patent applications owned by us may become the subject of interference proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial cost to us as well as a possible adverse decision as to the priority of invention of the patent or patent application involved. An adverse decision in an interference proceeding may result in the loss of rights under a patent or patent application subject to such a proceeding.

If we are unable to protect our intellectual property effectively, we may be unable to prevent third parties from using our intellectual property, which would impair our competitive advantage.

        We rely on patent protection as well as a combination of trademark, copyright and trade secret protection and other contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we fail to protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us and we may incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property. Additionally, the U.S. Congress recently passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, which was signed into law in September 2011. The America Invents Act reforms United States patent law in part by changing the standard for patent approval from a "first to invent" standard to a "first to file" standard and developing a post-grant review system. This new legislation changes United States patent law in a way that may weaken our ability to obtain or maintain patent protection for future inventions in the United States.

        We cannot assure you that any of our currently pending or future patent applications will result in issued patents, and we cannot predict how long it will take for such patents to be issued. Further, we cannot assure you that other parties will not challenge any patents issued to us or that courts or regulatory agencies will hold our patents to be valid or enforceable. We have been in the past, and may be in the future, the subject of opposition proceedings relating to our patents. We cannot guarantee you that we will be successful in defending challenges made against our patents and patent applications. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents could result in co-ownership of such patents with the third party or the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents. Furthermore, in the life sciences field, courts frequently render opinions that may affect the patentability of certain inventions or discoveries, including opinions that may affect the patentability of isolated DNA and/or methods for analyzing or comparing DNA. Such decisions may adversely impact our ability to obtain new patents and facilitate third-party challenges to our existing patents.


If we or our partners fail to comply with regulatory requirements, we may be subject to stringent penalties and our business may be materially adversely affected.

        The marketing and sale of our Cologuard test will be subject to various state, federal and foreign regulations. We cannot assure you that we or our strategic partners will be able to comply with applicable regulations and regulatory guidelines. If we or our partners fail to comply with any such applicable regulations and guidelines, we could incur significant liability and/or our partners could be forced to cease offering our products in certain jurisdictions.

        Healthcare policy has been a subject of extensive discussion in the executive and legislative branches of the federal and many state governments and healthcare laws and regulations are subject to change. Development of the existing commercialization strategy for our Cologuard test has been based on existing healthcare policies. We cannot predict what additional changes, if any, will be proposed or adopted or the effect that such proposals or adoption may have on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Some of our activities may subject us to risks under federal and state laws prohibiting 'kickbacks' and false or fraudulent claims.

        In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal healthcare fraud and abuse laws have been applied in recent years to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry and to regulate billing practices and financial relationships with physicians and hospitals. These laws include a federal law commonly known as the Medicare/Medicaid anti-kickback law, and several similar state laws, which prohibit payments intended to induce physicians or others either to refer patients or to acquire or arrange for or recommend the acquisition of healthcare products or services. While the federal law applies only to referrals, products or services for which payment may be made by a federal healthcare program, state laws often apply regardless of whether federal funds may be involved. These laws constrain the sales, marketing and other promotional activities of manufacturers of medical devices by limiting the kinds of financial arrangements, including sales programs, that may be used with hospitals, physicians, laboratories and other potential purchasers of medical devices. Other federal and state laws generally prohibit individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent, or are for items or services that were not provided as claimed. Anti-kickback and false claims laws prescribe civil and criminal penalties (including fines) for noncompliance that can be substantial. While we continually strive to comply with these complex requirements, interpretations of the applicability of these laws to marketing and billing practices is constantly evolving and even an unsuccessful challenge could cause adverse publicity and be costly to respond to, and thus could harm our business and prospects. Our failure to comply with applicable laws could result in various adverse consequences which could have a material adverse effect upon our business, including the exclusion of our products from government programs and the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions.

The success of our business is substantially dependent upon the efforts of our senior management team.

        Our success depends largely on the skills, experience and performance of key members of our senior management team including Kevin Conroy, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Maneesh Arora, our Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, William Megan, our Senior Vice President and Principal Financial Officer, and Dr. Graham Lidgard, our Senior Vice President and Chief Science Officer. These executives are critical to directing and managing our growth and development in the future. Our success is substantially dependent upon our senior management's ability to lead our company, implement successful corporate strategies and initiatives, develop key relationships, including relationships with collaborators and business partners, and successfully commercialize an FDA approved product. While our management team has significant experience in


securing FDA approvals, we have considerably less experience in commercializing a product. The efforts of our management team will be critical to us as we develop our technologies and work towards the commercialization of an FDA approved product.

Our success depends on our ability to retain our managerial personnel and to attract additional personnel.

        Our success depends in large part on our ability to attract and retain managerial personnel. If we were to lose any of our senior management team, we may experience difficulties in competing effectively, developing our technologies and implementing our business strategies. Competition for desirable personnel is intense, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to attract and retain the necessary staff. The failure to maintain management or to attract sales personnel as we move towards the commercialization of our Cologuard test could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we lose the support of our key scientific collaborators, it may be difficult to establish tests using our technologies as a standard of care for colorectal cancer screening, which may limit our revenue growth and profitability.

        We have established relationships with leading scientists at important research and academic institutions, such as the Mayo Clinic, Case Western Reserve University and Johns Hopkins University, that we believe are key to establishing tests using our technologies as a standard of care for colorectal cancer screening. If our collaborators determine that colorectal cancer screening tests using our technologies are not appropriate options for colorectal cancer screening, or superior to available colorectal cancer screening tests, or that alternative technologies would be more effective in the early detection of colorectal cancer, we would encounter significant difficulty establishing tests using our technologies as a standard of care for colorectal cancer screening, which would limit our revenue growth and profitability.

Product and professional liability suits against us could result in expensive and time-consuming litigation, payment of substantial damages and increases in our insurance rates.

        The sale and use of our Cologuard test could lead to product or professional liability claims based on allegations that one of our products contained a design or manufacturing defect or our laboratory was negligent in processing test results which resulted in the failure to detect the disease for which it was designed. A product or professional liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time consuming to defend, either of which could materially harm our business or financial condition. We cannot assure you that our liability insurance would protect our assets from the financial impact of defending a liability claim. Any claim brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our liability insurance rates or prevent us from securing insurance coverage in the future.

Delaware law, and our charter documents and rights agreement could impede or discourage a takeover or change of control that stockholders may consider favorable.

As a Delaware corporation, we are subject to certain anti-takeover provisions. Under Delaware law, a corporation may not engage in a business combination with any holder of 15% or more of its capital stock unless the holder has held the stock for three years or, among other things, the board of directors has approved the transaction. Accordingly, our board of directors could rely on Delaware law to prevent or delay an acquisition of our company. In addition, certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control or changes in our management. These provisions include the following:


·

Our board of directors is divided into three classes serving staggered three-year terms. 

·

Only our board of directors can fill vacancies on the board. 

·

Our stockholders may not act by written consent. 

·

There are various limitations on persons authorized to call a special meeting of stockholders and advance notice requirements for stockholders to make nominations of candidates for election as directors or to bring matters before an annual meeting of stockholders. 

·

Our board of directors may issue, without stockholder approval, shares of undesignated preferred stock.

These types of provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us, even if the acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders.

In addition, in February 2011, we have adopted a rights agreement that provides that in the event of (i) an acquisition of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock or (ii) an announcement of an intention to make a tender offer or exchange offer for 15% or more of our outstanding common stock, our stockholders, other than the potential acquiror, shall be granted rights enabling them to purchase additional shares of our common stock at a substantial discount to the then prevailing market price. The rights agreement could significantly dilute such acquiror'sacquiror’s ownership position in our shares, thereby making a takeover prohibitively expensive and encouraging such acquiror to negotiate with our board of directors. Therefore, the rights agreement could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us without the approval of our board of directors.

        Delaware law, our charter documents and other agreements could have the effect

29


Table of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium for our common stock or otherwise be considered favorably by our stockholders.Contents

Our inability to manage growth could harm our business.

        As we work toward obtaining FDA approval for our Cologuard test and launching commercialization for this product we expect to require additional personnel in the areas of quality assurance, compliance, regulatory affairs, product development and sales and marketing. As a result, our operating expenses and capital requirements may increase significantly. Our ability to manage our growth effectively requires us to forecast expenses accurately and to expend funds to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. As we move forward in commercializing our Cologuard test, we will also need to effectively manage our manufacturing and sales and marketing needs, which represent new areas of oversight for us. If we are unable to manage our anticipated growth effectively, our business could be harmed.

We may engage in acquisitions that could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our stockholders and reduce our financial resources.

In the future, we may enter into transactions to acquire other businesses, products, services or technologies. Because we have not made any acquisitions to date, our ability to do so successfully is unproven. If we do identify suitable candidates, we may not be able to make such acquisitions on favorable terms or at all. Any acquisitions we make may not strengthen our competitive position, and these transactions may be viewed negatively by customers or investors.investors, healthcare providers, patients and others. We may decide to incur debt in connection with an acquisition or issue our common stock or other securities to the stockholders of the acquired company, which would reduce the percentage ownership of our existing stockholders. We could incur losses resulting from undiscovered liabilities of the acquired business that are not covered by theany indemnification we may obtain from the seller. In addition, we may not be able to successfully integrate the acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business in an effective, timely and non-disruptive manner. Acquisitions may also divert management from day-to-day responsibilities, increase our expenses and reduce our cash available for operations and other uses. We cannot predict


the number, timing or size of future acquisitions or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.

Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

As of December 31, 2015, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) of approximately $565.9 million and $208.9 million, respectively. In general, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs to offset future taxable income. An ownership change is generally defined as a greater than 50% change in equity ownership by value over a specified time period (generally three years). Given the Code’s broad definition, an ownership change could be the unintended consequence of otherwise normal market trading in our stock that is outside our control. An ownership change under Section 382 of the Code could also be triggered by certain strategic transactions. Additionally, tax law limitations may result in our NOLs expiring before we have the ability to use them. For these reasons, even if we attain profitability our ability to utilize our NOLs may be limited, potentially significantly so.

Our stock price mayhas fluctuated widely and is likely to continue to be volatile.

The market price offor our common stock has fluctuated widely. varied between a high of $32.85 and a low of $6.79 in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2015.  Our stock price is likely to continue to be volatile and subject to significant price and volume fluctuations in response to market and other factors, including those listed in this “Item 1A. Risk Factors” section and other, unknown factors.  Our stock price also may be affected by:

·

comments by securities analysts regarding our business or prospects;

·

our issuance of common stock or other securities;

·

our inability to accurately forecast future performance;

·

our inability to meet analysts’ expectations;

·

general fluctuations in the stock market or in the stock prices of companies in the life sciences or healthcare diagnostics industries; and

·

general conditions and publicity regarding the life sciences or healthcare diagnostics industries.

Consequently, the current market price of our common stock may not be indicative of future market prices, and we may be unable to sustain or increase the value of an investment in our common stock. Further, sharp drops in the market price of our common stock, such as we experienced in 2015,may expose us to securities class-action litigation. Such litigation could result in substantial expenses and diversion of management'smanagement’s attention and corporate resources, which would seriously harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Because we are a company with no significant operating revenue, any of the risk factors listed in this "Item 1A. Risk Factors" may be deemed material and may affect our stock price.

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

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently plan to retain any earnings to finance the growth of our business rather than to pay cash dividends. Payments of any cash dividends in the future will depend on our financial condition, results of operations and capital requirements, as well as other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors.

30


Table of Contents

Item 1B.  UnresolvedUnresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2.  Properties
Propertie
s

As of December 31, 2013,2015, we occupied approximately 35,000174,000 square feet of space inat our headquarters locatedsignificant facilities in Madison, Wisconsin under a lease which expiresWisconsin. See Note 8 in October 2014, but can be extendedthe notes to October 2019. In addition, we haveour consolidated financial statements for further discussion surrounding our leased a 29,000 square foot facility in Madison, Wisconsin to housefacilities. 

As of December 31, 2015, our commercial lab operations. This lease expires in November 2019 but can be extended to November 2029.significant facilities are as follows: 

Location

Primary Function

Total Square Feet (approx.)

Leased or Owned

Madison, Wisconsin

Research and development

55,000

Owned

Madison, Wisconsin

Executive offices

34,000

Leased

Madison, Wisconsin

Operations

35,000

Leased

Madison, Wisconsin

Clinical laboratory

50,000

Leased

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings
Proceeding
s

From time to time we are a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently a party to any pending litigation that we believe is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business operations or financial condition.

Item 4.  Mine SafetySafety Disclosures

Not applicable.


PART I

I


PART II

Item 5.  Market for Registrant'sRegistrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our common stock is currently listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol "EXAS."“EXAS.” The following table provides, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share as reported on the NASDAQ Capital Market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 High Low 

    

High

    

Low

 

2013

     

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First quarter

 $11.98 $9.62 

 

$

29.60

 

$

20.35

 

Second quarter

 14.42 6.93 

 

 

32.85

 

 

20.12

 

Third quarter

 14.70 11.47 

 

 

30.00

 

 

17.58

 

Fourth quarter

 12.59 9.53 

 

 

18.74

 

 

6.79

 

2012

 
 
 
 
 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First quarter

 $11.24 $7.90 

 

$

15.60

 

$

11.63

 

Second quarter

 11.15 9.49 

 

 

17.74

 

 

10.69

 

Third quarter

 11.69 9.80 

 

 

23.20

 

 

15.01

 

Fourth quarter

 12.30 8.87 

 

 

29.97

 

 

17.34

 

 

As of February 26, 2014,22, 2016, there were 71,201,09597,449,890 shares of our common stock outstanding held by approximately 10087 holders of record.

We have never paid any cash dividends on our capital stock and do not plan to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

31


Table of Contents

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data
Dat
a

The selected historical financial data set forth below as offor the five years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 and for the years then ended are2015 is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K, which were audited by BDO USA, LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm. The selected historical financial data set forth below as of December 31, 2010 and for the year then ended are derived from financial statements not included elsewhere in this Form 10-K, which were audited by BDO USA, LLP. The selected historical financial data set forth below as of December 31, 2009 and for the year then ended are derived from financial statements not included elsewhere in this Form 10-K, which were audited by Grant Thornton, LLP.statements. The selected historical financial data should be read in conjunction with, and areis qualified by reference to "Management's Discussion and Analysis of


Financial Condition and Results of Operations", our financial statements and notes thereto and the reports of independent registered public accountants included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

 
 Year Ended December 31, 
 
 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 
 
 (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)
 

Statements of Operations Data:

                

Revenue:

                

Product royalty fees

 $ $ $20 $26 $25 

License fees

  4,144  4,144  4,143  5,318  4,733 
            

  4,144  4,144  4,163  5,344  4,758 

Cost of revenue

      24  24  20 
            

Gross profit

  4,144  4,144  4,139  5,320  4,738 

Operating expenses:

  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 

Research and development(1)        

  27,678  42,131  21,968  9,023  4,213 

General and administrative(1)

  13,649  9,900  8,137  6,330  9,549 

Sales and marketing(1)

  9,578  4,755  2,857  1,793  226 

Restructuring

          (3)
            

  50,905  56,786  32,962  17,146  13,985 
            

Loss from operations

  (46,761) (52,642) (28,823) (11,826) (9,247)

Investment income

  
316
  
262
  
169
  
46
  
120
 

Interest expense

  (69) (41) (21) (20) (1)

Other income

        244   
            

Net loss

 $(46,514)$(52,421)$(28,675)$(11,556)$(9,128)
            
            

Net loss per share:

                

Basic and diluted

 $(0.69)$(0.88)$(0.54)$(0.29)$(0.28)
            
            

Weighted average common shares outstanding:

                

Basic and diluted

  67,493  59,481  52,512  40,455  32,791 
            
            

Balance Sheet Data:

                

Cash and cash equivalents

 $12,851 $13,345 $35,781 $78,752 $21,924 

Marketable securities

  120,408  94,776  57,580  16,663  2,404 

Total assets

  146,627  112,119  96,953  96,515  25,770 

Total long term debt

  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000 

Total liabilities

  11,311  13,524  13,458  16,761  19,676 

Stockholders' equity

  135,316  98,595  83,495  79,754  6,094 

(1)
Non-cash stock-based compensation expense included in these amounts are as follows:

 
 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 

Research and development

 $2,817 $2,396 $1,685 $1,087 $319 

General and administrative

  3,054  2,579  1,622  993  2,308 

Sales and marketing

  1,873  518  657  41  4 

Item 7.    Management's“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,

The information contained in this section has been derived from” and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2015

 

2014

 

2013

 

2012

 

2011

 

 

 

(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

 

Statements of Operations Data:

    

 

    

    

 

    

    

 

    

    

 

    

    

 

    

 

Revenue:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory service revenue

 

$

39,437

 

$

1,504

 

$

 

$

 

$

 

Product royalty fees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 —

 

 

20

 

License fees

 

 

 —

 

 

294

 

 

4,144

 

 

4,144

 

 

4,143

 

 

 

 

39,437

 

 

1,798

 

 

4,144

 

 

4,144

 

 

4,163

 

Cost of sales(1)

 

 

24,501

 

 

4,325

 

 

 

 

 —

 

 

24

 

Gross profit

 

 

14,936

 

 

(2,527)

 

 

4,144

 

 

4,144

 

 

4,139

 

Operating expenses:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research and development(1)

 

 

33,914

 

 

28,669

 

 

27,678

 

 

42,131

 

 

21,968

 

General and administrative(1)

 

 

57,950

 

 

30,435

 

 

13,649

 

 

9,900

 

 

8,137

 

Sales and marketing(1)

 

 

82,140

 

 

38,908

 

 

9,578

 

 

4,755

 

 

2,857

 

 

 

 

174,004

 

 

98,012

 

 

50,905

 

 

56,786

 

 

32,962

 

Loss from operations

 

 

(159,068)

 

 

(100,539)

 

 

(46,761)

 

 

(52,642)

 

 

(28,823)

 

Investment income

 

 

1,271

 

 

542

 

 

316

 

 

262

 

 

169

 

Interest expense

 

 

(6)

 

 

(51)

 

 

(69)

 

 

(41)

 

 

(21)

 

Net loss

 

$

(157,803)

 

$

(100,048)

 

$

(46,514)

 

$

(52,421)

 

$

(28,675)

 

Net loss per share:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic and diluted

 

$

(1.71)

 

$

(1.25)

 

$

(0.69)

 

$

(0.88)

 

$

(0.54)

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic and diluted

 

 

92,135

 

 

80,232

 

 

67,493

 

 

59,481

 

 

52,512

 

Balance Sheet Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

41,135

 

$

58,131

 

$

12,851

 

$

13,345

 

$

35,781

 

Marketable securities

 

 

265,744

 

 

224,625

 

 

120,408

 

 

94,776

 

 

57,580

 

Total assets

 

 

364,296

 

 

312,824

 

 

146,627

 

 

112,119

 

 

96,953

 

Long term debt

 

 

4,852

 

 

1,000

 

 

1,000

 

 

1,000

 

 

1,000

 

Other long term liabilities

 

 

4,804

 

 

3,599

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Total liabilities

 

 

37,440

 

 

23,840

 

 

11,311

 

 

13,524

 

 

13,458

 

Stockholders’ equity

 

 

326,856

 

 

288,984

 

 

135,316

 

 

98,595

 

 

83,495

 


(1)

Non‑cash stock‑based compensation expense included in these amounts are as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

    

2012

    

2011

 

Cost of sales

 

$

876

 

$

279

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

Research and development

 

 

3,744

 

 

4,149

 

 

2,817

 

 

2,396

 

 

1,685

 

General and administrative

 

 

9,358

 

 

5,575

 

 

3,054

 

 

2,579

 

 

1,622

 

Sales and marketing

 

 

4,072

 

 

1,517

 

 

1,873

 

 

518

 

 

657

 

32


Table of Contents

Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read togetherin conjunction with ourthe consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Exact Sciences Corporation ("we," "us," "our"(together with its subsidiaries, “Exact,” “we,” “us,” “our” or the "Company"“Company”) is a molecular diagnostics company currently focused on the early detection and prevention of colorectalsome of the deadliest forms of cancer. We have developed an accurate, non-invasive, patient friendly screening test to meet our primary goal of becoming the market leader for a diagnostic screening productcalled Cologuard®, for the early detection of colorectal cancer and pre-cancer, and are currently working on the development of tests for lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer.

        Our strategic roadmap to achieve this goal includes the following key components:

Our Cologuard ® test is a non-invasive, stool-based DNA (sDNA) screening test designed to detect DNA markers, which in published studies have been shown to be associated with colorectal cancer. In addition to DNA markers, our test includes a protein marker to detect blood in the stool utilizing an antibody-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT).Test

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and the leading cause of cancer deaths among nonsmokers.non-smokers. Each year there are:

 

·

137,000 new cases in the U.S.

·

50,000 deaths in the U.S.

·

1,200,000 new cases worldwide

·

600,000 deaths worldwide

Colorectal cancer treatment represents a significant growing healthcare cost. Annually, $14 billion is spent in the U.S. on colorectal cancer treatment and the projected annual treatment costs are expected to be $20 billion in 2020. The incidence of colorectal cancer in Medicare patients is expected to rise from 106,000 cases in 2010 to more than 180,000 cases in 2030.

It is widely accepted that colorectal cancer is among the most preventable, yet least prevented cancers. Colorectal cancer typically takescan take up to 10-15 years to progress from a pre-cancerous lesion to metastatic cancer and death. Patients who are diagnosed early in the progression of the disease—with pre-cancerous lesions or polyps, or early-stage cancer—are more likely to have a complete recovery and to be treated less expensively. Accordingly, the American Cancer Society (ACS)(“ACS”) recommends that all people age 50 and older undergo regular colorectal cancer screening. Of the more than 80 million people in the United StatesU.S. for whom routine colorectal cancer screening is recommended, nearly 47 percent have not been screened according to current guidelines. Poor compliance with screening guidelines has meant that nearly two-thirds of colorectal cancer diagnoses are made in the disease'sdisease’s late stages. The five-year survival rates for stages 3 and 4 are 67 percent and 12 percent, respectively.

We believe the large underserved population of unscreened and inadequately screened patients represents a significant opportunity for a patient friendlypatient-friendly screening test.

Our Cologuard test is a non-invasive stool-based DNA (“sDNA”) screening test like ours. A powerful preventive tool that detects pre-cancerous polypsdesigned to detect DNA markers, which in published studies have been shown to be associated with colorectal cancer. In addition to DNA markers, our test includes a protein marker to detect blood in the stool, utilizing an antibody-based fecal immunochemical test (“FIT”).

On August 11, 2014 the U.S. Food and early stageDrug Administration (“FDA”) approved Cologuard for use as the first and only sDNA non-invasive colorectal cancer could significantly reduce colorectal cancer deathsscreening test. Our submission to the FDA for Cologuard included the results of our pivotal DeeP-C clinical trial that had over 10,000 patients enrolled at 90 enrollment sites in the U.S. and Canada. The results of our DeeP-C clinical trial for Cologuard were published in the health care costs associated withNew England Journal of Medicine in April 2014. The peer-reviewed study, “Multi-target Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening,” highlighted the disease. Pre-cancerous polyps are presentperformance of Cologuard in approximately 6 percent of average risk people 50 years of age and older who undergo routine colorectal cancer screening.the trial population:

 

·

Cancer Sensitivity: 92%

·

High-Grade Dysplasia Sensitivity: 69%

·

Specificity: 87%

The competitive advantages of sDNA-basedsDNA screening provide a significant market opportunity. Assuming a 30-percent test adoption rate in the screening population and a three-year screening interval, we estimate the potential U.S. market for sDNA screening to be more than $2$4 billion, and we estimate the potential global market opportunity to be greater than $3 billion.annually.

33


Table of Contents

Our Cologuard Commercialization Strategy

 

Our currentcommercialization strategy includes three main elements with a focus is on seeking FDA approvalphysicians, patients, and payors.

Physicians and Patients

We are engaging physicians with several strategies. We have a 260 person sales team, including approximately 210 in a direct field sales force, actively engaging with physicians and their staffs to emphasize the need for colorectal cancer screening, educate them on the value of Cologuard, and enroll them in our Cologuardphysician ordering system to enable them to prescribe the test. We believe obtaining FDA approval is importantare focused on specific physicians based on specialty and propensity to building broad demand and successfully commercializing our sDNAprescribe colorectal


cancer screening technology.tests. We are also focused on physician groups and larger regional and national health systems. We are engaged in a co-promotion agreement with Ironwood Pharmaceuticals under which its 160 clinical sales specialists promote Cologuard across the process of developing our strategy for the ultimate commercializationUnited States. Further, to build awareness, we have launched a medical education program that includes on-line training and peer-to-peer presentations.

Securing inclusion in guidelines is a key part of our Cologuard test.

        In November 2012 we completed enrollment for our pivotal FDA clinical trial with over 10,000 patients enrolled at 90 enrollment sitesphysician engagement strategy since many physicians rely on such guidelines when making screening recommendations. Professional colorectal cancer screening guidelines in the U.S., including those of the ACS, the American College of Gastroenterology, and Canada. All patients providedthe American Gastroenterological Association, recommend regular screening by a sample to be tested with our Cologuard test, and received a FIT test and a colonoscopy.

        The FDA, as well as physicians and others assessing the effectiveness and valuevariety of our Cologuard test, will likely consider, among other things, our Cologuard test's sensitivity and specificity in identifyingmethods. Since 2008, joint colorectal cancer screening guidelines endorsed by the ACS and pre-cancerous polyps. "Sensitivity" (also called the true positive rate) measures the percentage ofU.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer have included sDNA screening technology in national colorectal cancer or pre-cancerous polyps that our Cologuard test correctly identifies. "Specificity" (also called the true negative rate) measures the percentage of people who our Cologuard test correctly identifiesscreening guidelines as not having colorectal cancer or pre-cancerous polyps.

        Preliminary, top-line data from the clinical trial showed that our Cologuard test demonstrated 92 percent sensitivitya screening option for the detection of colorectal cancer in average risk, asymptomatic individuals age 50 and 42 percent sensitivityolder. The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer is a consortium of several organizations that includes representatives of the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the detectionAmerican College of pre-cancerous polyps,Physicians/Society of Internal Medicine. In October 2014 the ACS updated its colorectal cancer screening guidelines to specifically include Cologuard as a recommended sDNA screening test.

In October 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (“USPSTF”) issued a draft recommendation statement for colorectal cancer screening, which recommends an "A" grade for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 50 and continuing until age 75. The draft recommends certain screening tests and includes Cologuard as an alternative screening test, along with CT colonography.  This approach, if adopted in the final recommendation statement, would represent a change from the 2008 USPSTF recommendations, which assigned specific grades for different tests, including 66 percent sensitivityan "I" rating for pre-cancerous polyps equalstool-based DNA.  The USPSTF is expected to or greater than 2 centimeters. The test achieved a specificity of 87 percentissue final recommendations during the clinical trial.second half of 2016. Inclusion within the USPSTF recommendation statement is important for a number of reasons. For example, the Affordable Care Act requires that health insurers cover preventive services graded “A” or “B” by USPSTF without imposing any patient cost-sharing. Also, quality measures, such as the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (“HEDIS”) measures issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (“NCQA”) generally follow the USPSTF recommendation statement. Accordingly, physicians are incentivized, through various quality measurement programs that rely on HEDIS, to prescribe colorectal cancer screening tests that are included in the USPSTF recommendation statement.

 

A critical part of the value proposition of Cologuard is our compliance program, which involves active engagement with patients and physicians. This activity is focused on enabling patients to complete Cologuard tests that have been ordered for them by their physicians and supporting physicians in their efforts to have their patients screened.

After the launch of Cologuard, we initiated a significant public relations effort to engage patients. We submitted the resultshave conducted targeted direct-to-patient advertising campaigns through social media, print and other channels. During 2016 we began to test television advertising in select markets.

Payors

The cornerstone of our clinical trial to the FDA through a three part submission of a manufacturing module, analytical module, and clinical module. The manufacturing modulepayor-engagement strategy was submitted to the FDA in December 2012, the analytical module was submitted to the FDA in February 2013, and the clinical module was submitted to the FDA in June 2013. Our submission is currently under review by the FDA.

        The FDA's Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee is tentatively scheduled to review the premarket approval application (PMA) for our Cologuard test on March 27, 2014. The date and details of the meeting are subject to confirmation by the FDA in a Federal Register notice.

        We believe that obtaining a favorable nationalsecuring coverage decision and a favorable reimbursement rate from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)(“CMS”). Medicare covers 46% of patients in the screening population for ourCologuard. On October 9, 2014, CMS issued a final National Coverage Determination (“NCD”) for Cologuard test will be a necessary element in achieving material commercial success. With the goal of expediting receipt of a favorable coverage decision, we are working with CMS to coordinate the CMS coverage review with the FDA pre-market approval throughfollowing a parallel review process. This program provides a pathway to a potential CMS national coverage determination shortly after anprocess with FDA.  Cologuard was the first screening test approved by FDA approval, should it occur. With over 50% of our target patient population beingand covered by CMS through that process. As

34


Table of Contents

outlined in the NCD, Medicare receiptPart B covers Cologuard once every three years for beneficiaries who meet all of the following criteria:

·

Age 50 to 85 years,

·

Asymptomatic (no signs or symptoms of colorectal disease including but not limited to lower gastrointestinal pain, blood in stool, positive guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test), and

·

At average risk for developing colorectal cancer (no personal history of adenomatous polyps, colorectal cancer, or inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s Disease and ulcerative colitis; no family history of colorectal cancers or adenomatous polyps, familial adenomatous polyposis, or hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer).

In the 2016 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, CMS established reimbursement for Cologuard at $508.87. This represented an increase from the 2015 reimbursement rate of $492.72. Cologuard has been assigned a positive coverage decisionnew American Medical Association CPT code (81528), and CMS has issued a determination that, effective January 1, 2016, code 81528 is reimbursed on the same basis as the G0464 code, which it replaced.  Payments from CMS are subject to sequestration. Under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”), the basis for Cologuard’s CMS reimbursement rate is expected to change, beginning in January 2017 unless the PAMA implementation date is delayed. CMS issued proposed regulations for the implementation of PAMA on September 25, 2015, but these regulations had not been finalized as of February 24, 2015. Under PAMA and the currently proposed regulations, the CMS reimbursement rate for Cologuard is expected to be calculated based on the volume-weighted median of private payor rates. For the initial rates calculated under PAMA, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2017, the calculation would help speed adoptionbe based on the volume-weighted median of our test after commercial launch. A favorable CMS outcome will also be critical to securing positive coverage decisions from major national and regional managed care organizations, insurance carriers, and self-insured employer groups.private payor rates during the period July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

 We also

While we consider the current level of Medicare reimbursement for Cologuard to be adequate, we believe that it will beis necessary to secure favorable coverage and reimbursement from commercial payors in order for Cologuard to achieve its full commercial success.potential. Some third-party commercial payors including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of California and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts have agreed to cover Cologuard as an in-network service, and we are working with many other insurers to add coverage for Cologuard. We believe that third-party payors'commercial payors’ reimbursement of our Cologuard test will depend on a number of factors, including payors'payors’ determination that it is: sensitive and specific for colorectal cancer; not experimental or investigational; approved or recommended by major guidelines organizations; reliable, safe and effective; medically necessary; appropriate for the specific patient; and cost-effective.

        There We are two elementspursuing a variety of strategies to increase commercial payor coverage for Cologuard including providing cost effectiveness data to payors to make the case for Cologuard reimbursement.  We are focusing our targeting strategy for the early adoption of Cologuard. First, we are focusedefforts on large national and regional insurers, insurers in states that require health insurers to cover colorectal cancer screening and health plans that have affiliated health systems. In certain situations where we believe payors are already legally required to cover Cologuard, we have sued to enforce those coverage obligations. We may consider similar litigation in the future. 

We believe quality metrics will shape payors’ coverage decisions, as well as physcians’ cancer screening procedures.  In recent years the healthcare systems and groups. These networks employ a high percentage of the physiciansindustry in the United States has experienced a trend toward cost containment and they typicallyvalue-based purchasing of healthcare services. Some government and private payors are adopting pay-for-performance programs that differentiate payments for healthcare services based on the achievement of documented quality metrics, cost efficiencies or patient outcomes. Payors may look to quality measures such as the NCQA, HEDIS and the CMS Star ratings to assess quality of care.  These programs are intended to provide incentives to service providers to deliver the same or better results while consuming fewer resources. We believe inclusion of Cologuard in the HEDIS measures and the Star ratings will influence payors’ willingness to reimburse our Cologuard test and physicians’ willingness to prescribe Cologuard.  Recommendations issued by the USPSTF, as well as other healthcare guidelines, may affect how quality programs rate various preventative services. 

Our Clinical Lab Facility

As part of our commercialization strategy, we established a state of the art, highly automated lab facility that is certified pursuant to federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (“CLIA”) requirements to process Cologuard tests and provide patient results. Our commercial lab operation is housed in a 32,000 square foot facility in Madison, Wisconsin. At our lab, we currently have strongthe capacity to process approximately one million tests per year, and have the opportunity available to us to build out additional lab space, if needed. 

35


Table of Contents

Product Pipeline

We also are focused on developing our pipeline for future products and services. We are continuing to collaborate with MAYO on future tests, including those for the detection of lung, pancreatic, and esophageal cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that lung cancer will be diagnosed in 221,200 Americans and cause 158,040 deaths in the United States this year and that, world-wide, lung cancer will be diagnosed in 1,825,000 people and cause 1,590,000 deaths. Currently, more than half of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage, after symptoms appear, when the five-year survival rate is in the low single digits. If detected at an early stage, lung cancer's five-year survival rate can be as high as 80 percent. Our current focus for lung cancer is to develop a test to detect cancer in lung nodules which is a shift from the product development efforts that were underway with MD Anderson. Therefore, we have mutually agreed to terminate our agreement with MD Anderson effective February 2016.

Gastrointestinal cancers account for 145,000 or 25% of all U.S. cancer deaths annually and represent a significant market opportunity for future products. In February 2015, we amended and restated our license agreement with MAYO to extend our working relationship for an additional five years, and in January 2016, we further amended our license agreement to broaden our collaboration efforts to develop screening, programs. Second, wesurveillance and diagnostic tests and tools to cover all types of cancers, pre-cancers, diseases and conditions, not just those affecting gastrointestinal organs.

We also plan to focus on primary care physicians who prescribe a high volume of FOBT and FIT tests since this physician group has displayed a partiality for stool based screening methods.


        We have generated limited operating revenues since inception and, as of December 31, 2013, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $320.8 million. We expect to continue to incur lossesexplore opportunities for the next several years, and it is possible we may never achieve profitability.

2014 Prioritiesimproving Cologuard, including improvements that could lower our cost of sales. 

 

2016 Priorities

Our top priorities for 2016 include (1) growing revenue for Cologuard, which includes leveraging Cologuard’s growth towards becoming a standard of care, (2) enhancing our infrastructure to support the success of Cologuard (and future products) and (3) improving the quality of Cologuard and reducing its cost.  

We will also focus on developing our pipeline for future products as outlined in the Product Pipeline section above.

Results of Operations

Overview

Our top priorities for 2015 included (1) growing revenue for Cologuard, (2) continuing to provide world class service as order volume grew, and (3) developing our product pipeline for future products. 

We completed approximately 104,000 Cologuard tests during 2015, which generated revenue of $39.4 million. Our commercial launch for Cologuard took place in the fourth quarter of 2014, include securing FDA approvalduring which we completed approximately 4,000 tests generating revenue of $1.5 million. One of the key factors for growing revenue for 2015 was obtaining commercial coverage for Cologuard. As of December 31, 2015, Cologuard was covered in 56% of relevant patients in the screening population for colon cancer.

A key component of providing world class service for 2015 was to achieve and maintain at least a favorable national coverage decision70% compliance rate for patients who were prescribed Cologuard and to whom we shipped a Cologuard test kit. As of December 31, 2015, our patient compliance rate for Cologuard was approximately 71%. The patient compliance rate is derived from CMS for our Cologuard test. If for any reason the FDA does not approve our PMAnumber of valid test results reported divided by the number of collection kits shipped to patients 60 or such approval is substantially delayed, our business and prospects would likely be materially adversely impacted. Likewise it would be a material adverse event for our business if we do not receive a positive national coverage decision and favorable reimbursement rate from CMS or if for any other reason we are unablemore days prior to successfully commercialize our Cologuard test.December 31, 2015.

 Another priority is

In 2015 we continued to secure favorable coverageinvest in research and reimbursement from commercial payors.

        In 2014 we also plan to continue implementing our commercialization plan, including building our manufacturing capacity, obtaining CLIA certificationdevelopment for our processing lab, integrating our IT infrastructure for ordering, processing, and billing, and deploying our sales and marketing teams.

        We also have identified a new opportunity for our sDNA colorectal cancer screening technologypipeline products focused on detection of other GI and lung cancers.

In order to support the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient population. We initiated an IBD clinical triallaunch of Cologuard and to achieve our goals for 2015, our selling general and administrative costs increased by $70.7 million during the year. In addition, our efforts in the first quarter 2013 that will focus on this specific patient group, and plan on enrolling around 300 IBD patients into the trial. Furthermore, we will work on developing enhancements2015 to develop our Cologuard test and identifying and conducting research on other potential pipeline products targeting other cancers, such as esophageal and pancreatic cancer.

Results of Operations

        Our priorities during 2013 were completing the FDA submission of ourimprovements to Cologuard test and working toward launch readiness by building a marketing team and continuing our outreach and education efforts to physicians, third party payors and advocates. This led to a decreaseslight increase in research and development costs during the year of $14.4 million and an increase in marketing costs during the year of $4.8$5.2 million. In addition to accomplishing these goals, weWe ensured that we were well capitalized to meet our 2014future goals by raising $73.3$174.1 million, net of issuance costs, in June 2013 through a public offeringJuly 2015.

36


Table of common stock.Contents

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 20132015 and 20122014

Revenue.Laboratory service revenue.

Our laboratory service revenue is generated by performing diagnostic services using our Cologuard test. Our Cologuard test became available upon FDA approval on August 11, 2014. Total laboratory service revenue was $4.1$39.4 million for the year ended December 31, 20132015 and $4.1$1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. Revenue is composed2014.

License fee revenue. We generated no license fee revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015. Total license fee revenue was $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. License fee revenue consists of the amortization of up-frontup‑front technology license fee payments associated with our collaboration, license and purchase agreement with Genzyme. The previously unamortized Genzyme up-front payment and holdback amounts are beingwere amortized on a straight-line basis over the initial Genzyme collaboration period, which ended in January 2014. Due

Our Cost Structure. Our selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of non-research personnel salaries, office expenses, professional fees, sales and marketing expenses incurred in support of our commercialization efforts and non-cash stock-based compensation.

Cost of sales includes costs related to completioninventory production and usage and the cost of laboratory services to process tests and provide results to physicians. Gross margin as a percentage of laboratory service revenue is also affected by our current revenue recognition policy, which may result in costs being incurred in one period that relate to revenues recognized in a later period.

We expect that gross margin for our laboratory services will continue to fluctuate and be affected by the adoption rates of the collaboration period in January 2014, we do not expectCologuard test, our revenue recognition policy, the levels of reimbursement, and payment patterns or third-party payors and patients.

Cost of sales. Cost of sales increased to recognize any further significant revenues under this agreement.

        Research and development expenses decreased to $27.7$24.5 million for the year ended December 31, 20132015 from $42.1$4.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease2014.  The increase in clinical trial costs, lab expenses, and professional fees duecost of sales is related to the completionincrease in production and testing services of the FDA


clinical trial for our Cologuard test, in April 2013, partially offset by an increase in personnel expenses due to increased headcount to help support our laboratory facility.which obtained FDA approval during the third quarter of 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amounts in millions

    

2015

    

2014

    

Change

 

Indirect production costs

 

$

7.6

 

$

0.5

 

$

7.1

 

Direct production costs

 

 

6.1

 

 

0.9

 

 

5.2

 

Personnel expenses

 

 

5.5

 

 

1.7

 

 

3.8

 

Depreciation expense

 

 

2.7

 

 

0.6

 

 

2.1

 

Facility costs

 

 

1.5

 

 

0.2

 

 

1.3

 

Stock-based compensation

 

 

0.9

 

 

0.3

 

 

0.6

 

Other cost of sales

 

 

0.2

 

 

0.1

 

 

0.1

 

Total cost of sales expense

 

$

24.5

 

$

4.3

 

$

20.2

 

Amounts in millions
 2013 2012 Change 

Personnel expenses

 $9.1 $7.4 $1.7 

Clinical trial expenses

  5.3  19.1  (13.8)

Other reasearch and development

  4.2  2.0  2.2 

Lab expenses

  2.8  4.9  (2.1)

Stock-based compensation

  2.7  2.4  0.3 

Research collaborations

  1.8  1.3  0.5 

Professional fees

  1.4  3.6  (2.2)

License and royalty fees

  0.4  1.4  (1.0)
        

Total research and development expenses

 $27.7 $42.1 $(14.4)
        
        

        General Research and administrativedevelopment expenses increased to $13.6$33.9 million for the year ended December 31, 20132015 from $9.9$28.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012.2014. The increase in overall research

37


Table of Contents

and development expenditures is related to continued focus on pipeline product development and improvements to Cologuard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amounts��in millions

    

2015

    

2014

    

Change

 

Personnel expenses

 

$

9.6

 

$

8.7

 

$

0.9

 

Clinical trial expenses

 

 

5.0

 

 

3.8

 

 

1.2

 

Research collaborations

 

 

4.8

 

 

2.2

 

 

2.6

 

Professional and legal fees

 

 

4.4

 

 

2.3

 

 

2.1

 

Stock-based compensation

 

 

3.7

 

 

4.2

 

 

(0.5)

 

Lab expenses

 

 

3.5

 

 

3.8

 

 

(0.3)

 

Other research and development

 

 

1.6

 

 

3.1

 

 

(1.5)

 

Facility costs

 

 

1.3

 

 

0.6

 

 

0.7

 

Total research and development expenses

 

$

33.9

 

$

28.7

 

$

5.2

 

General and administrative expenses.

General and administrative expenses increased to $58.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 from $30.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily a result ofrelated to increased legal and professional fees in connection with FDA filing efforts, increased personnel costs and other general and administrative expensesexpenditures required to support theour overall growth and the first full year of the Company as we increased headcount and prepared forCologuard commercialization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amounts in millions

    

2015

    

2014

    

Change

 

Personnel expenses

 

$

18.9

 

$

7.8

 

$

11.1

 

Professional and legal fees

 

 

10.8

 

 

5.9

 

 

4.9

 

Stock-based compensation

 

 

9.4

 

 

5.6

 

 

3.8

 

Information technology costs

 

 

9.4

 

 

5.4

 

 

4.0

 

Other general and administrative

 

 

4.3

 

 

3.2

 

 

1.1

 

Depreciation expense

 

 

4.1

 

 

1.6

 

 

2.5

 

Facility costs

 

 

1.1

 

 

0.9

 

 

0.2

 

Total general and administrative expenses

 

$

58.0

 

$

30.4

 

$

27.6

 

Amounts in millions
 2013 2012 Change 

Legal and professional fees

 $4.2 $2.2 $2.0 

Stock-based compensation

  3.0  2.6  0.4 

Personnel expenses

  2.8  2.1  0.7 

Other general and administrative

  2.1  1.9  0.2 

Facility costs

  1.5  1.1  0.4 
        

Total general and administrative expenses

 $13.6 $9.9 $3.7 
        
        

Sales and marketing expenses increased to $9.6$82.1 million for the year ended December 31, 20132015 from $4.8$38.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012.2014. The increase in sales and marketing expense was a result of hiring additional sales and marketing personnel and increased professional fees in connection with the expanded useincreasing our advertising and patient marketing efforts as part of consultants as we increased our efforts to prepare for the commercialization of our Cologuard test. The increase in stock-based compensation and personnel costs is related to the severance costs as a result of the June 7, 2013 resignation of Laura Stoltenberg, the Company's former Chief Commercial Officer.Cologuard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amounts in millions
 2013 2012 Change 

    

2015

    

2014

    

Change

 

Professional fees

 $4.2 $2.4 $1.8 

Personnel expenses

 3.1 1.6 1.5 

 

$

48.1

 

$

14.7

 

$

33.4

 

Marketing and professional fees

 

 

28.7

 

 

22.4

 

 

6.3

 

Stock-based compensation

 1.8 0.5 1.3 

 

 

4.0

 

 

1.5

 

 

2.5

 

Other sales and marketing

 0.5 0.3 0.2 

 

 

1.3

 

 

0.3

 

 

1.0

 

       

Total sales and marketing expenses

 $9.6 $4.8 $4.8 

 

$

82.1

 

$

38.9

 

$

43.2

 

       
       

Investment income increased to $316.0 thousand$1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 20132015 from $262.0 thousand$0.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2012.2014. This increase was primarily due to an overall higher cash and marketable securities balance, due to our issuance of common stock, during the year ended December 31, 20132015 as compared to the same period of 2012.2014.

38


Table of Contents

Interest expense.

Interest expense increaseddecreased to $69.0 thousand$6,000 for the year ended December 31, 20132015 from $41.0 thousand$51,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012.2014. This increasedecrease is primarily due to the reversal of the accrued interest expense previously recorded on the Wisconsin Department of Commerce loan which was forgiven during 2015 due to us meeting certain job creation targets. Additionally, there was less interest expense recognized from afor our capital lease which wasduring the year ended December 31, 2015 when compared to the same period in 2014. These decreases were offset with an increase in interest expense due to the new credit agreement entered into during September 2012.2015 to finance the purchase of a facility located in Madison, WI. 

Total license fee revenue was $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 and $4.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and $4.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Revenue2013. License fee revenue is composed of the amortization of up-frontup‑front technology license fee payments associated with our collaboration, license and purchase agreement with Genzyme. The previously unamortized Genzyme up-frontup‑front payment and holdback amounts are beingwere amortized on a straight-linestraight‑line basis over the initial Genzyme collaboration period, which ended in January 2014.2014 therefore leading to a decline in revenue when compared to the prior year. Due to completion of the collaboration period in January 2014, we will not recognize any further significant revenues under this agreement.

Research and development expenses increased to $42.1$28.7 million for the year ended December 31, 20122014 from $22.0$27.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.2013. This increase was primarily due to increased efforts focused on completing enrollment for ouran increase in stock-based compensation expense and lab expenses offset by a decrease in clinical trial and preparing the FDA submissions for our Cologuard test. We added key personnel to our clinical and research and development teams and the related expenses increased accordingly. Lab expenses consist of purchasing costscosts. The increase in stock-based compensation expense from prior year is primarily related to assay development and lab operations, and there was additional costwarrants to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock that were issued in this area as we finalizedconnection with a consulting agreement in 2009 to provide us specific assistance in attaining FDA approval of Cologuard. The 75,000 warrants vested in the assay design in 2012.third quarter of 2014 upon successful FDA

39

Amounts in millions
 2012 2011 Change 

Clinical trial expenses

 $19.1 $8.1 $11.0 

Personnel expenses

  7.4  5.3  2.1 

Lab expenses

  4.9  2.6  2.3 

Professional fees

  3.6  1.1  2.5 

Stock-based compensation

  2.4  1.7  0.7 

Other reasearch and development

  2.0  1.2  0.8 

License and royalty fees

  1.4  0.8  0.6 

Research collaborations

  1.3  1.2  0.1 
        

Total research and development expenses

 $42.1 $22.0 $20.1 
        
        

General and administrative expenses increased to $9.9$30.4 million for the year ended December 31, 20122014 from $8.1$13.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. This2013. The increase was primarily a result of


increased payroll and related expenses due to newin general and administrative hiresexpenses was primarily the result of increased legal and professional fees, increased operations atpersonnel costs and stock-based compensation expense due to increased headcount, additional information technology costs, and other general and administrative expenses to support our overall growth and the Company.launch of Cologuard in 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amounts in millions

    

2014

    

2013

    

Change

 

Personnel expenses

 

$

7.8

 

$

2.7

 

$

5.1

 

Professional and legal fees

 

 

5.9

 

 

4.5

 

 

1.4

 

Stock-based compensation

 

 

5.6

 

 

3.1

 

 

2.5

 

Information technology costs

 

 

5.4

 

 

0.6

 

 

4.8

 

Other general and administrative

 

 

3.2

 

 

1.9

 

 

1.3

 

Depreciation expense

 

 

1.6

 

 

0.3

 

 

1.3

 

Facility costs

 

 

0.9

 

 

0.5

 

 

0.4

 

Total general and administrative expenses

 

$

30.4

 

$

13.6

 

$

16.8

 

Amounts in millions
 2012 2011 Change 

Stock-based compensation

 $2.6 $1.6 $1.0 

Legal and professional fees

  2.2  2.8  (0.6)

Personnel expenses

  2.1  1.8  0.3 

Other general and administrative

  1.9  1.0  0.9 

Facility costs

  1.1  0.9  0.2 
        

Total general and administrative expenses

 $9.9 $8.1 $1.8 
        
        

Sales and marketing expenses increased to $4.8$38.9 million for the year ended December 31, 20122014 from $2.9$9.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.2013. The increase in sales and marketing expensesexpense was a result of hiring additional sales and marketing personnel and increased expenses incurredincreasing our advertising and patient marketing efforts as part of the commercialization of Cologuard. The increase was partially offset by a result of implementing a go-to-market strategy, branding and other marketing expenses.

Amounts in millions
 2012 2011 Change 

Professional fees

 $2.4 $0.9 $1.5 

Personnel expenses

  1.6  1.1  0.5 

Stock-based compensation

  0.5  0.7  (0.2)

Other sales and marketing

  0.3  0.2  0.1 
        

Total sales and marketing expenses

 $4.8 $2.9 $1.9 
        
        

        Investment income increased to $262.0 thousanddecrease in stock-based compensation for the year ended December 31, 2012 from $169.0 thousand2014 as compared to the same period in 2013 when we incurred one-time severance costs related to an executive departure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amounts in millions

    

2014

    

2013

    

Change

 

Marketing and professional fees

 

$

22.4

 

$

4.1

 

$

18.3

 

Personnel expenses

 

 

14.7

 

 

3.2

 

 

11.5

 

Stock-based compensation

 

 

1.5

 

 

1.9

 

 

(0.4)

 

Other sales and marketing

 

 

0.3

 

 

0.4

 

 

(0.1)

 

Total sales and marketing expenses

 

$

38.9

 

$

9.6

 

$

29.3

 

Investment income. Investment income increased to $542,000 for the year ended December 31, 2011.2014 from $316,000 for the year ended December 31, 2013. This increase was primarily due to an overall higher cash and marketable securities balance, due to our issuances of common stock, during the year ended December 31, 20122014 as compared to the same period of 2011.2013.

Interest expense increaseddecreased to $41.0 thousand$51,000 for the year ended December 31, 20122014 from $21.0 thousand$69,000 for the year ended December 31, 2011.2013. This increase wasdecrease is primarily due to less interest expense recognized from afor our capital lease which was entered intoduring the year ended December 31, 2014 when compared to the same period in 2012.2013.

We have financed our operations since inception primarily through private and public offerings of our common stock and cash received in January 2009 from Genzyme in connection with the Genzyme strategic transaction.stock. As of December 31, 2013,2015, we had approximately $12.9$41.1 million in unrestricted cash and cash equivalents and approximately $120.4$265.7 million in marketable securities.

All of our investments in marketable securities are comprisedconsist of fixed income investments and all are deemed available-for-sale.available‑for‑sale. The objectives of this portfolio are to provide liquidity and safety of principal while striving to achieve the highest rate of return, consistent with these two objectives. Our investment policy limits investments to certain types of instruments issued by institutions with investment grade credit ratings and places restrictions on maturities and concentration by type and issuer.


Net cash used in operating activities was $39.3$134.0 million, $44.2$81.5 million, and $27.5$40.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 2011,2013, respectively. The principal use of cash in operating activities for each of the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013 was to fund our net loss. The decreaseincrease in net cash used in operating activities for the years ended December 31, 20132015 and December 31, 2012,2014, as compared to prior years was primarily due to decreased researchincreased sales and development activities.marketing activities as well as general and administrative activities to support the launch of the Cologuard test. Cash flows from operations can vary significantly due to various factors, including changes in our operations, prepaid expenses, accounts payable and accrued expenses.

Net cash used in investing activities was $35.5$64.8 million, $38.3$117.3 million, and $43.4$35.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012,2015, 2014, and, 2011,2013, respectively. The decrease in cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 20132015 when compared to the same period in 20122014 was the result of increased maturities of marketable securities. Excluding the impact of purchases and maturities of marketable securities, net cash used in investing activities was $9.3$22.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2013,2015, compared to net cash used in investing activities of $0.7$12.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 which2014. The increase was primarily the result of an increase in purchases of property and equipment. Excluding the impact of purchases and maturities of marketable securities, net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 20112013 was primarily the result of purchases of property and equipment of $2.1$8.7 million. Purchases of property and equipment during 2015 and 2014 included facility improvements, investments in our IT infrastructure, and equipment related to laboratory processing.

Net cash provided by financing activities was $74.3$181.8 million, $60.0$244.0 million and $27.9$74.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 2011,2013, respectively. The increasedecrease in cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 20132015 when compared to the same period in 20122014 was primarily the result of an increasea decrease in the proceeds from the sale of common stock from $57.8$238.6 million in 20122014 to $73.3$174.1 million in 2013.2015. Excluding the impact of the sale of common stock, net cash provided by financing activities was $1.0$7.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2013,2015, compared to net cash provided by financing activities of $2.3$5.4 million for the same period in 2012.2014. This decreaseincrease in cash provided by financing activities other than sales of our common stock was primarily due to mortgage proceeds, and an increase in proceeds in connection with our Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which was partially offset by a decrease in proceeds from the exercise of common stock options for the year ended December 31, 2013.2015. The increase in cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 20122014 when compared to the same period in 20112013 was primarily the result of an increase in proceeds from the sale of common stock from $27.2$73.3 million in 20112013 to $57.8$238.6 million in 2012.2014. Excluding the impact of the sale of common stock, net cash provided by financing activities was $2.3$5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012,2014, compared to net cash provided by financing activities of $0.7$1.5 million for the same period in 2011.2013. This increase in cash provided by financing activities other than sales of our common stock was primarily due to proceeds from the New Market Tax Credit financing agreements, an increase in proceeds from the exercise of common stock options and an increase in proceeds in connection with our Employee Stock Purchase Plan for the year ended December 31, 2012.2014.

We expect that cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities on hand at December 31, 2013,2015, will be sufficient to fund our current operations for at least the next twelve months, based on current operating plans. However, since we have no current sources of material ongoing revenue, it is possibleexpect that we maywill need to raise additional capital to fully fund our current strategic plan the primary goalwhich includes successfully commercializing Cologuard and developing a pipeline of which is commercializing our FDA approved non-invasive sDNA colorectal pre-cancer and cancer screening test.future products. If we are unable to obtain sufficient additional funds to enable us to fund our operations through the completion of such plan, our results of operations and financial condition would be materially adversely affected and we may be required to delay the implementation of our plan and otherwise scale back our operations. Even if we successfully raise sufficient funds to complete our plan, we cannot assure that our business will ever generate sufficient cash flow from operations to become profitable.


41


 

Table of Contents

The following table reflects our estimated fixed obligations and commitments as of December 31, 2013.2015. This table does not includeonly includes potential milestone payments due upon FDA approval of future products or future sales-basedsales‑based royalty obligations:obligations and milestones when we determine the likelihood of payment is probable:

 
  
 Payments Due by Period 
Description
 Total Less Than
One Year
 1 - 3 Years 3 - 5 Years More Than
5 Years
 
 
 (in Thousands)
 

Long-term debt obligations(1)

 $1,158 $39 $463 $463 $193 

Obligations under license and collaborative agreements(2)

  3,691  596  552  512  2,031 

Operating lease obligations

  3,812  1,124  1,364  1,324   

Capital lease obligations(1)

  750  381  369     
            

Total

 $9,411 $2,140 $2,748 $2,299 $2,224 
            
            

(1)
Includes expected interest payments related to long-term debt obligations.

(2)
We have entered into license and collaborative agreements with the Mayo Foundation, Genzyme, MDx Health (formerly Oncomethylome Sciences), and Hologic, Inc. See Note 7 in the notes to our consolidated financial statements for further information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Payments Due by Period

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less Than

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Than

 

Description

 

Total

 

One Year

 

1 - 3 Years

 

3 - 5 Years

 

5 Years

 

 

 

(in Thousands)

 

Long-term debt obligations(1)

    

$

5,018

    

$

166

    

$

356

    

$

4,496

    

$

 —

 

Other long-term liabilities(1)

 

 

1,200

 

 

 —

 

 

1,200

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Obligations under license and collaborative agreements(2)

 

 

4,548

 

 

2,006

 

 

512

 

 

512

 

 

1,518

 

Operating lease obligations

 

 

6,038

 

 

2,073

 

 

2,782

 

 

825

 

 

358

 

Total

 

$

16,804

 

$

4,245

 

$

4,850

 

$

5,833

 

$

1,876

 

 

(1)Includes expected interest payments related to long‑term debt obligations.

(2)We have entered into license and collaborative agreements with the Mayo Foundation, MDx Health, and Hologic, Inc. See Note 8 in the notes to our consolidated financial statements for further information.

Commitments under license agreements generally expire concurrent with the expiration of the intellectual property licensed from the third party. Operating leases reflect remaining obligations associated with the leased facilities at our headquarters and lab facility in Madison, WI. Capital leases reflect obligations under a capital equipment leasing arrangement.WI and our office facility in London, United Kingdom.

As of December 31, 2013,2015, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $300.1$565.9 million and $115.4$208.9 million, respectively. The CompanyWe also had federal and state research tax credit carryforwards of approximately $5.6$7.5 million and $18.7$16.0 million, respectively. The net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards will expire at various dates through 2032,2035, if not utilized. The Internal Revenue Code and applicable state laws impose substantial restrictions on a corporation'scorporation’s utilization of net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards if an ownership change is deemed to have occurred.

A valuation allowance is provided for deferred tax assets if it is more likely than not these items will either expire before we are able to realize their benefit, or that future deductibility is uncertain. In general, companies that have a history of operating losses are faced with a difficult burden of proof on their ability to generate sufficient future income in order to realize the benefit of the deferred tax assets. We have recorded a valuation against our deferred tax assets based on our history of losses.losses and current uncertainty as to timing of future taxable income. The deferred tax assets are still available for us to use in the future to offset taxable income, which would result in the recognition of tax benefit and a reduction to our effective tax rate.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

        Management'sManagement’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.States (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to revenue recognition, certain third party royalty


obligations, accrued clinical trial costs,tax positions, and stock-basedstock‑based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors that are believed to be appropriate under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

42


Table of Contents

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 to our financial statements included in this report, we believe that the following accounting policies and judgments are most critical to aid in fully understanding and evaluating our reported financial results.

        License fees.Laboratory service revenue. License feesOur laboratory service revenues are generated by performing diagnostic services using our Cologuard test, and the service is completed upon delivery of a test result to an ordering physician. We recognize revenue in accordance with the provision of ASC 954-605, Health Care Entities - Revenue Recognition. We recognize revenue related to billings for Medicare and other third-party payors on an accrual basis, net of contractual and other adjustments, when amounts that will ultimately be realized can be estimated. Contractual and other adjustments represent the licensingdifference between the list price (the billing rate) and the estimated reimbursement rate for each payor. Upon ultimate collection, the amount received from Medicare and other third-party payors where reimbursement was estimated is compared to previous estimates and, if necessary, the contractual allowance is adjusted accordingly.

The estimates of amounts that will ultimately be realized requires significant judgment by management. Some patients have out-of-pocket costs for amounts not covered by their insurance carrier, and we may bill the patient directly for these amounts in the form of co-payments and co-insurance in accordance with their insurance carrier and health plans. Some payors may not cover Cologuard as ordered by the prescribing physician under their reimbursement policies. We pursue reimbursement from such patients on a case-by-case basis. In the absence of contracted reimbursement coverage or the ability to estimate the amount that will ultimately be realized for our services, revenue is recognized upon cash receipt.

We use judgment in determining if we are able to make an estimate of what will ultimately be realized. We also use judgment in estimating the amounts we expect to collect by payor. Our judgments will continue to evolve in the future as we continue to gain payment experience with third-party payors and patients.

Inventory. Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market value (net realizable value). We determine the cost of inventory using the first-in, first out method (“FIFO”). We estimate the recoverability of inventory by reference to internal estimates of future demands and product life cycles, including expiration. We periodically analyze our inventory levels to identify inventory that may expire prior to expected sale or has a cost basis in excess of its estimated realizable value, and record a charge to cost of sales for such inventory as appropriate. In addition, our products are subject to strict quality control and monitoring which we perform throughout the manufacturing process. If certain batches or units of product rights on initiationno longer meet quality specifications or become obsolete due to expiration, we record a charge to cost of strategic agreementssales to write down such unmarketable inventory to its estimated realizable value.

Direct and indirect manufacturing costs incurred during process validation and for other research and development activities, which are recorded as deferred revenue upon receipt and recognized as revenue on a straight-line basis over the license period.

        In connection with our January 2009 strategic transaction with Genzyme Corporation, Genzyme agreed to pay us a total of $18.5 million, of which $16.65 million was paid on January 27, 2009 and $1.85 million was subject to a holdback by Genzyme to satisfy certain potential indemnification obligations in exchange for the assignment and licensing of certain intellectual property to Genzyme. Our on-going performance obligations to Genzyme under the Collaboration, License and Purchase Agreement (the "CLP Agreement"), as described below, including our obligation to deliver certain intellectual property improvements to Genzyme, if improvements are made during the initial five-year collaboration period, were deemednot permitted to be undelivered elements of the CLP Agreement on the date of closing. Accordingly, we deferred the initial $16.65 million in cash received at closingsold, have been expensed to research and are amortizing that up-front payment on a straight line basis into revenue over the initial five-year collaboration period ending in January 2014. We received the first holdback amount of $962,000, which included accrued interest, due from Genzyme during the first quarter of 2010 and the second holdback amount of $934,250, which included accrued interest, due from Genzyme during the third quarter of 2010. The amounts were deferred and are being amortized on a straight-line basis into revenue over the remaining term of the collaboration at the time of receipt.development.

Stock‑Based Compensation. In addition, Genzyme purchased 3,000,000 shares of our common stock on January 27, 2009, for $2.00 per share, representing a premium of $0.51 per share above the closing price of our common stock on that date of $1.49 per share. The aggregate premium paid by Genzyme over the closing price of our common stock on the date of the transaction of $1.53 million is deemed to be a part of the total consideration for the CLP Agreement. Accordingly, we deferred the aggregate $1.53 million premium and are amortizing that amount on a straight line basis into revenue over the initial five-year collaboration period ending in January 2014.

        In total, we recognized approximately $4.1 million in license fee revenue in connectionaccordance with the amortization of the up-frontGAAP, stock-based payments, and holdback amounts from Genzyme during the year ended December 31, 2013.

        Accruals are recorded for clinical trial patient site costs when the liability is probable and reasonably estimable. For our pivotal FDA clinical trial and other sample procurement studies we undertake periodically, an accrual is made for a patient site cost once the patient has progressed past certain steps in the patient assessment and sample processing procedure. The accrual is estimated based on historical average patient reimbursement fees. Management has not recorded an accrual for clinical trial costs at December 31, 2013 as our clinical trial is complete. Management recorded an accrual of $0.4 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for clinical trial costs related to site payments.


        All stock-based awards, including grants of employee stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units and shares purchased under an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP)(“ESPP”) (if certain parameters are not met), are recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values.  The grant date fair value of market measure-based share-based compensation plans are calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation pricing model. The following assumptions are used in determining fair value for employee stock options, restricted stock and ESPP shares:

43


Table of Contents

·Risk‑Free Interest Rate—We base the risk‑free interest rate used in the Black‑Scholes valuation method on the implied yield currently available on U.S. Treasury zero‑coupon issues with an equivalent remaining expected term.

·Forfeitures—We record stock‑based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest. A forfeiture rate is estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from initial estimates. Our forfeiture rate used in the twelve months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 was 4.99%.

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The estimated fair value of employee stock options is recognized to expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period.

Expected Term—The Company uses the simplified calculation of expected life, described in the SEC's Staff Accounting Bulletins 107 and 110, as the Company does not currently have sufficient historical exercise data on which to base an estimate of expected term. Using this method, the expected term is determined using the average of the vesting period and the contractual life of the stock options granted.

Expected Volatility—Expected volatility is based on the Company's historical stock volatility data over the expected term of the awards.

Risk-Free Interest Rate—The Company bases the risk-free interest rate used in the Black-Scholes valuation method on the implied yield currently available on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with an equivalent expected term.

Forfeitures—The Company records stock-based compensation expense onlyservice-based awards for those awards that are expected to vest. A forfeiture rate is estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from initial estimates.

        The fair value of each restricted stock award and restricted stock unit is determined on the date of grant using the closing stock price on that day. The fair value of market measure-based share-based compensation plans are calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation pricing model. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-ScholesBlack‑Scholes option pricing model based on the assumptions noted above and as further described in Note 67 to our financial statements.

Tax Positions

. A valuation allowance to reduce the deferred tax assets is reported if, based on the weight of the evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The Company hasWe have incurred significant losses since itsour inception and due to the uncertainty of the amount and timing of future taxable income, management has determined that a $124.5$215.1 million and $103.9$161.9 million valuation allowance at December 31, 20132015 and 20122014 is necessary to reduce the tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. The change in valuation allowance for the current year is $20.6 million.December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $53.2 million and $37.4 million, respectively. Due to the existence of the valuation allowance, future changes in our unrecognized tax benefits will not impact the Company'sour effective tax rate.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2011,February 2015, the FASB issuedIssued ASU No. 2011-11,2015-02, Balance Sheet“Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis (Topic 210)—Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.810).” ASU 2011-11 requires an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. EntitiesThe amendments in this Update affect reporting entities that are required to disclose both grossevaluate whether they should consolidate certain legal entities. All legal entities are subject to reevaluation under the revised consolidation model.  Specifically, the amendments (1) modify the evaluation of whether limited partnerships and net information about these instruments. ASU 2011-11 wassimilar legal entities are variable interest entities (“VIEs”) or voting interest entities, (2) eliminate the presumption that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership, (3) affect the consolidation analysis of reporting entities that are involved with VIEs, particularly those that have fee arrangements and related party relationships and (4) provide a scope exception from consolidation guidance for reporting entities with interests in legal entities that are required to comply with or operate in accordance with requirements that are similar to those in Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The amendments in this Update are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013,public business entities for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those annual periods. Thefiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted.  We have not early adopted this Update, and the adoption of this ASU didUpdate is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

44


Table of Contents

this standard is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-03, “Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs”, which requires debt issuance costs to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the associated debt liability. This guidance simplifies presentation of debt issuance costs but does not address presentation or subsequent measurement of debt issue costs related to line of credit arrangements. In August 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-15 “Interest-Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30) Presentation and Subsequent Measurement of Debt Issuance Costs Associated with Line-of-Credit Arrangements” which indicates the SEC staff would not object to an entity deferring and presenting debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements as an asset and subsequently amortizing the deferred debt issuance costs ratably over the term of the line-of-credit arrangement, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on the line-of-credit arrangement. Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-03 will be effective for the first interim period within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.

In August 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Deferral of the Effective Date” to defer for one year the effective date of the new revenue standard and allow early adoption as of the original effective date which is for annual reports beginning after December 15, 2016. We are currently evaluating the impact of this amendment on our financial position and results of operations.

In November 2015, the FASB Issued ASU No. 2015-17, “Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (Topic740)”.   The amendments in this Update simplify the presentation of deferred income taxes, by requiring that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. The amendments in this Update apply to all entities that present a classified statement of financial position.  The amendments in this Update are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is permitted.  We do not expect to early adopted this Update, and the adoption of this Update is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. 

In January 2016, the FASB Issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets andFinancial Liabilities (Subtopic 825-10)”.   The amendments in this Update supersede the guidance to classify equity securities with readily determinable fair values into different categories (that is, trading or available-for-sale) and require equity securities (including other ownership interests, such as partnerships, unincorporated joint ventures, and limited liability companies) to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income. An entity’s equity investments that are accounted for under the equity method of accounting or result in consolidation of an investee are not included within the scope of this Update. The amendments allow equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values to be remeasured at fair value either upon the occurrence of an observable price change or upon identification of an impairment. The amendments also require enhanced disclosures about those investments. The amendments improve financial reporting by providing relevant information about an entity’s equity investments and reducing the number of items that are recognized in other comprehensive income. The amendments in this Update are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted.  We do not expect to early adopted this Update, and the adoption of this Update is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. 

Off‑Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2013,2015, we had no off-balanceoff‑balance sheet arrangements.


Item 7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Our exposure to market risk is principally confined to our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. We invest our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities in securities of the U.S. governments and its agencies and in investment-grade,investment‑grade, highly liquid investments consisting of commercial paper, bank certificates of deposit and corporate bonds, which as of December 31, 20132015 and December 31, 20122014 were classified as available-for-sale.available‑for‑sale. We place our cash equivalents and marketable securities with high-qualityhigh‑quality financial institutions, limit the amount of credit exposure to any one institution and have established investment guidelines relative to diversification and maturities designed to maintain safety and liquidity.

45


Table of Contents

Based on a hypothetical ten percent adverse movement in interest rates, the potential losses in future earnings, fair value of risk-sensitiverisk‑sensitive financial instruments, and cash flows are immaterial, although the actual effects may differ materially from the hypothetical analysis.


Item 8.  Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Index to Financial Statements


Page

Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

36
47 

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20132015 and 20122014

38
49 

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013

39
50 

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss for the Years Ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013

40
51 

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders'Stockholders’ Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013

41
52 

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013

42
53 

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

43
54 


46


Table of Contents

Repor


Reportt of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Exact Sciences Corporation

Madison, Wisconsin

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Exact Sciences Corporation (the "Company"“Company”) as of December 31, 20132015 and 20122014 and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders'stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2013.2015. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company'sCompany’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements 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 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, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Exact Sciences Corporation at December 31, 20132015 and 2012,2014, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2013,2015, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Exact Sciences Corporation'sCorporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013,2015, based on criteria established inInternal Control—Integrated Framework (1992)(2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated February 28, 201424, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ BDO USA, LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

February 28, 201424, 2016


47


Table of Contents

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Exact Sciences Corporation

Madison, Wisconsin

We have audited Exact Sciences Corporation'sCorporation’s (the "Company"“Company”) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013,2015, based on criteria established inInternal Control—Integrated Framework (1992)(2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Exact Sciences Corporation'sCorporation’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Item 9A, Management'sManagement’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit 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 effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company'scompany’s internal control over financial reporting is a process 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. A company'scompany’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company'scompany’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

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.

In our opinion, Exact Sciences Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013,2015, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Exact Sciences Corporation as of December 31, 20132015 and 2012,2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders'stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 20132015 and our report dated February 28, 201424,  2016 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ BDO USA, LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

February 28, 201424, 2016


48


Table of Contents


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Consolidated Balance Sheets

Sheet
s

(Amounts in thousands, except share data)

 
 December 31,
2013
 December 31,
2012
 

ASSETS

       

Current Assets:

       

Cash and cash equivalents

 $12,851 $13,345 

Marketable securities

  120,408  94,776 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

  2,199  593 
      

Total current assets

  135,458  108,714 

Property and Equipment, at cost:

       

Laboratory equipment

  5,087  4,051 

Assets under construction

  2,592   

Office and computer equipment

  1,217  824 

Leasehold improvements

  5,043  283 

Furniture and fixtures

  268  28 
      

  14,207  5,186 

Less—Accumulated depreciation

  (3,038) (1,781)
      

  11,169  3,405 
      

 $146,627 $112,119 
      
      

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

       

Current Liabilities:

       

Accounts payable

 $761 $3,652 

Accrued liabilities

  5,806  3,327 

Capital lease obligation, current portion

  351  333 

Lease incentive obligation, current portion

  540   

Deferred license fees, current portion

  294  4,143 
      

Total current liabilities

  7,752  11,455 

Long-term debt

  
1,000
  
1,000
 

Long-term accrued interest

  84  63 

Capital lease obligation, less current portion

  360  711 

Lease incentive obligation, less current portion

  2,115   

Deferred license fees, less current portion

    295 

Commitments and contingencies

  
 
  
 
 

Stockholders' Equity:

  
 
  
 
 

Preferred stock, $0.01 par value

       

Authorized—5,000,000 shares

       

Issued and outstanding—no shares at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012

     

Common stock, $0.01 par value

       

Authorized—100,000,000 shares

       

Issued and outstanding—71,071,838 and 63,909,800 shares at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012

  711  639 

Additional paid-in capital

  455,239  372,123 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

  125  78 

Accumulated deficit

  (320,759) (274,245)
      

Total stockholders' equity

  135,316  98,595 
      

 $146,627 $112,119 
      
      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

December 31,

    

December 31,

 

 

 

2015

 

2014

 

ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

41,135

 

$

58,131

 

Marketable securities

 

 

265,744

 

 

224,625

 

Accounts receivable, net of reserves of $275 and $86 at December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014

 

 

4,933

 

 

1,376

 

Inventory, net

 

 

6,677

 

 

4,017

 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

 

 

7,641

 

 

3,528

 

Total current assets

 

 

326,130

 

 

291,677

 

Property and Equipment, at cost:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory equipment

 

 

12,786

 

 

10,381

 

Computer equipment and computer software

 

 

14,025

 

 

7,577

 

Assets under construction

 

 

8,038

 

 

1,552

 

Leasehold improvements

 

 

7,118

 

 

5,937

 

Buildings

 

 

4,777

 

 

 —

 

Furniture and fixtures

 

 

1,265

 

 

939

 

 

 

 

48,009

 

 

26,386

 

Less—Accumulated depreciation

 

 

(13,913)

 

 

(6,439)

 

Net property and equipment

 

 

34,096

 

 

19,947

 

Other long-term assets

 

 

4,070

 

 

1,200

 

Total assets

 

$

364,296

 

$

312,824

 

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

$

3,308

 

$

2,647

 

Accrued liabilities

 

 

22,253

 

 

13,960

 

Debt and capital lease obligation, current portion

 

 

166

 

 

360

 

Other short-term liabilities

 

 

996

 

 

554

 

Total current liabilities

 

 

26,723

 

 

17,521

 

Long-term debt

 

 

4,852

 

 

1,000

 

Long-term accrued interest

 

 

 —

 

 

106

 

Other long-term liabilities

 

 

4,804

 

 

3,599

 

Lease incentive obligation, less current portion

 

 

1,061

 

 

1,614

 

     Total liabilities

 

 

37,440

 

 

23,840

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commitments and contingencies (Note 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stockholders’ Equity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preferred stock, $0.01 par value Authorized—5,000,000 shares issued and outstanding—no shares at December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock, $0.01 par value Authorized—200,000,000 shares issued and outstanding—96,674,786 and 88,626,042 shares at December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014

 

 

968

 

 

887

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

 

904,931

 

 

709,019

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

(433)

 

 

(115)

 

Accumulated deficit

 

 

(578,610)

 

 

(420,807)

 

Total stockholders’ equity

 

 

326,856

 

 

288,984

 

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

 

$

364,296

 

$

312,824

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


49


Table of Contents


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Operations

Operation
s

(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

 
 Year Ended December 31, 
 
 2013 2012 2011 

Revenue:

          

Product royalty fees

 $ $ $20 

License fees

  4,144  4,144  4,143 
        

  4,144  4,144  4,163 

Cost of revenue:

          

Product royalty fees

      24 
        

Gross profit

  4,144  4,144  4,139 

Operating expenses:

  
 
  
 
  
 
 

Research and development

  27,678  42,131  21,968 

General and administrative

  13,649  9,900  8,137 

Sales and marketing

  9,578  4,755  2,857 
        

  50,905  56,786  32,962 
        

Loss from operations

  (46,761) (52,642) (28,823)

Investment income

  316  262  169 

Interest expense

  (69) (41) (21)
        

Net loss

 $(46,514)$(52,421)$(28,675)
        
        

Net loss per share—basic and diluted

 $(0.69)$(0.88)$(0.54)
        
        

Weighted average common shares outstanding—basic and diluted

  67,493  59,481  52,512 
        
        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

 

Laboratory service revenue

 

$

39,437

 

$

1,504

 

$

 —

 

License fees

 

 

 —

 

 

294

 

 

4,144

 

Total revenue

 

 

39,437

 

 

1,798

 

 

4,144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost of sales

 

 

24,501

 

 

4,325

 

 

 —

 

Gross margin

 

 

14,936

 

 

(2,527)

 

 

4,144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating expenses:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research and development

 

 

33,914

 

 

28,669

 

 

27,678

 

General and administrative

 

 

57,950

 

 

30,435

 

 

13,649

 

Sales and marketing

 

 

82,140

 

 

38,908

 

 

9,578

 

Total operating expenses

 

 

174,004

 

 

98,012

 

 

50,905

 

Loss from operations

 

 

(159,068)

 

 

(100,539)

 

 

(46,761)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other income (expense)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment income

 

 

1,271

 

 

542

 

 

316

 

Interest (expense)

 

 

(6)

 

 

(51)

 

 

(69)

 

Total other income

 

 

1,265

 

 

491

 

 

247

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net loss

 

$

(157,803)

 

$

(100,048)

 

$

(46,514)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net loss per share—basic and diluted

 

$

(1.71)

 

$

(1.25)

 

$

(0.69)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding—basic and diluted

 

 

92,135

 

 

80,232

 

 

67,493

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


50


Table of Contents


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

Los
s

(Amounts in thousands)

 
 December 31, 
(In Thousands)
 2013 2012 2011 

Net loss

 $(46,514)$(52,421)$(28,675)

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:

          

Unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale investments

  47  92  (15)
        

Comprehensive loss

 $(46,467)$(52,329)$(28,690)
        
        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

 

Net loss

 

$

(157,803)

 

$

(100,048)

 

$

(46,514)

 

Other comprehensive loss, net of tax:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale investments

 

 

(329)

 

 

(240)

 

 

47

 

Foreign currency translation gain

 

 

11

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Comprehensive loss

 

$

(158,121)

 

$

(100,288)

 

$

(46,467)

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


51


Table of Contents


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity

Stockholders’ Equit
y

(Amounts in thousands, except share data)

 
 Common Stock  
  
  
  
 
 
 Number of
Shares
 $0.01
Par Value
 Additional
Paid In
Capital
 Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 Accumulated
Deficit
 Total
Stockholders'
Equity
 

Balance, January 1, 2011

  52,163,629 $522 $272,380 $1 $(193,149)$79,754 
              

Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs of $1.5 million

  3,593,750  36  27,179      27,215 

Exercise of common stock options and warrants

  708,590  7  678      685 

Issuance of common stock to fund the Company's 2010 401(k) match

  27,872    169      169 

Compensation expense related to issuance of stock options and restricted stock awards

  79,065  1  3,963      3,964 

Purchase of employee stock purchase plan shares

  51,857    291        291 

Expense related to warrants (Note 4)

      107      107 

Net loss

          (28,675) (28,675)

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

        (15)   (15)
              

Balance, December 31, 2011

  56,624,763 $566 $304,767 $(14)$(221,824)$83,495 
              
              

Issuance of common stock related to the Mayo Transaction (Note 4)

  97,466  1  999      1,000 

Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs of $3.9 million

  6,325,000  63  57,692      57,755 

Exercise of common stock options and warrants

  691,471  7  2,381      2,388 

Issuance of common stock to fund the Company's 2011 401(k) match

  32,872    274      274 

Compensation expense related to issuance of stock options and restricted stock awards

  74,617  1  5,492      5,493 

Purchase of employee stock purchase plan shares

  63,611  1  366      367 

Expense related to warrants (Note 4)

      152      152 

Net loss

          (52,421) (52,421)

Accumulated other comprehensive income

        92    92 
              

Balance, December 31, 2012

  63,909,800 $639 $372,123 $78 $(274,245)$98,595 
              
              

Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs of $4.8 million

  6,325,000  63  73,232      73,296 

Exercise of common stock options and warrants

  418,146  4  1,337      1,341 

Issuance of common stock to fund the Company's 2012 401(k) match

  30,538  1  354      354 

Compensation expense related to issuance of stock options and restricted stock awards

  328,422  3  7,741      7,744 

Purchase of employee stock purchase plan shares

  59,932  1  452      453 

Net loss

           (46,514) (46,514)

Accumulated other comprehensive income

         47    47 
              

Balance, December 31, 2013

  71,071,838 $711 $455,239 $125 $(320,759)$135,316 
              
              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common Stock

 

Additional

 

Other

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

    

Number of

    

$0.01

    

Paid In

    

Comprehensive

    

Accumulated

    

Stockholders’

 

 

 

Shares

 

Par Value

 

Capital

 

Income (Loss)

 

Deficit

 

Equity

 

Balance,  January 1 , 2013

 

63,909,800

 

$

639

 

$

372,123

 

$

78

 

$

(274,245)

 

$

98,595

 

Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs of $4.8 million

 

6,325,000

 

 

63

 

 

73,232

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

73,296

 

Exercise of common stock options and warrants

 

418,146

 

 

4

 

 

1,337

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

1,341

 

Issuance of common stock to fund the Company’s 2012 401(k) match

 

30,538

 

 

1

 

 

354

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

354

 

Compensation expense related to issuance of stock options and restricted stock awards

 

328,422

 

 

3

 

 

7,741

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

7,744

 

Purchase of employee stock purchase plan shares

 

59,932

 

 

1

 

 

452

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

453

 

Net loss

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

(46,514)

 

 

(46,514)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

47

 

 

 —

 

 

47

 

Balance,  December 31 , 2013

 

71,071,838

 

$

711

 

$

455,239

 

$

125

 

$

(320,759)

 

$

135,316

 

Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs of $11.0 million

 

15,500,000

 

 

155

 

 

238,425

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

238,580

 

Exercise of common stock options and warrants

 

1,522,753

 

 

15

 

 

2,625

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

2,640

 

Issuance of common stock to fund the Company’s 2013 401(k) match

 

32,666

 

 

1

 

 

455

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

456

 

Compensation expense related to issuance of stock options and restricted stock awards

 

410,619

 

 

4

 

 

11,516

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

11,520

 

Purchase of employee stock purchase plan shares

 

88,166

 

 

1

 

 

759

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

760

 

Net loss

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

(100,048)

 

 

(100,048)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

(240)

 

 

 —

 

 

(240)

 

Balance,  December 31 , 2014

 

88,626,042

 

$

887

 

$

709,019

 

$

(115)

 

$

(420,807)

 

$

288,984

 

Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs of $4.4 million

 

7,000,000

 

 

70

 

 

174,070

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

174,140

 

Exercise of common stock options and warrants

 

281,315

 

 

3

 

 

1,245

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

1,248

 

Issuance of common stock to fund the Company’s 2014 401(k) match

 

21,826

 

 

 —

 

 

836

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

836

 

Compensation expense related to issuance of stock options and restricted stock awards

 

568,818

 

 

6

 

 

18,044

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

18,050

 

Purchase of employee stock purchase plan shares

 

176,785

 

 

2

 

 

1,717

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

1,719

 

Net loss

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

(157,803)

 

 

(157,803)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

(318)

 

 

 —

 

 

(318)

 

Balance,  December 31 , 2015

 

96,674,786

 

$

968

 

$

904,931

 

$

(433)

 

$

(578,610)

 

$

326,856

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


52


Table of Contents


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

Flow
s

(Amounts in thousands, except share data)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 Year Ended December 31, 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 


 2013 2012 2011 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

 

Cash flows from operating activities:

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net loss

 $(46,514)$(52,421)$(28,675)

 

$

(157,803)

 

$

(100,048)

 

$

(46,514)

 

Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation and amortization of fixed assets

 1,418 985 411 

 

 

7,600

 

 

3,710

 

 

1,418

 

Loss on disposal of property and equipment

 100   

 

 

40

 

 

49

 

 

100

 

Stock-based compensation

 7,744 5,493 3,964 

 

 

18,050

 

 

11,520

 

 

7,744

 

Amortization of deferred license fees

 (4,144) (4,144) (4,143)

 

 

 —

 

 

(294)

 

 

(4,144)

 

Warrant licensing expense

  152 107 

Restricted stock licensing expense

  1,000  

Amortization of other liabilities

 

 

(573)

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Amortization of deferred financing costs

 

 

44

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Forgiveness of long-term debt

 

 

(1,000)

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Amortization of premium on short-term investments

 636 532 360 

 

 

1,323

 

 

842

 

 

636

 

Amortization of intangible assets

 

 

150

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Changes in assets and liabilities:

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts receivable, net

 

 

(3,557)

 

 

(1,376)

 

 

 —

 

Inventory, net

 

 

(2,660)

 

 

(4,017)

 

 

 —

 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

 (1,606) 441 (788)

 

 

(3,057)

 

 

(1,329)

 

 

(1,606)

 

Accounts payable

 (2,891) 2,887 (263)

 

 

661

 

 

1,886

 

 

(2,891)

 

Accrued liabilities

 3,286 899 1,542 

 

 

7,424

 

 

8,064

 

 

2,299

 

Lease incentive obligation

 2,655   

 

 

(553)

 

 

(487)

 

 

2,655

 

Accrued interest

 21 21 21 

 

 

(106)

 

 

22

 

 

21

 

       

Net cash used in operating activities

 (39,295) (44,155) (27,464)

 

 

(134,017)

 

 

(81,458)

 

 

(40,282)

 

Cash flows from investing activities:

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purchases of marketable securities

 (98,510) (96,047) (87,017)

 

 

(205,054)

 

 

(209,471)

 

 

(98,510)

 

Maturities of marketable securities

 72,289 58,411 45,725 

 

 

162,283

 

 

104,172

 

 

72,289

 

Purchases of property and equipment

 (9,282) (681) (2,115)

 

 

(20,084)

 

 

(11,991)

 

 

(8,748)

 

       

Purchases of intangible assets

 

 

(1,900)

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Net cash used in investing activities

 (35,503) (38,317) (43,407)

 

 

(64,755)

 

 

(117,290)

 

 

(34,969)

 

Cash flows from financing activities:

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proceeds from exercise of common stock options

 

 

1,248

 

 

2,640

 

 

1,341

 

Proceeds from sale of common stock, net of issuance costs

 73,296 57,755 27,215 

 

 

174,140

 

 

238,580

 

 

73,296

 

Proceeds from exercise of common stock options

 1,341 2,388 685 

Payments on capital lease obligations

 (333) (107)  

 

 

(360)

 

 

(351)

 

 

(333)

 

       

Payments on mortgage payable

 

 

(44)

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Proceeds from mortgage payable

 

 

5,062

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

Proceeds from New Market Tax Credit financing agreements

 

 

 —

 

 

2,399

 

 

 —

 

Proceeds in connection with the Company's employee stock purchase plan

 

 

1,719

 

 

760

 

 

453

 

Net cash provided by financing activities

 74,304 60,036 27,900 

 

 

181,765

 

 

244,028

 

 

74,757

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents

 (494) (22,436) (42,971)

Effects of exchange rate on cash and cash equivalents

 

 

11

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

 

 

(16,996)

 

 

45,280

 

 

(494)

 

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period

 13,345 35,781 78,752 

 

 

58,131

 

 

12,851

 

 

13,345

 

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period

 

$

41,135

 

$

58,131

 

$

12,851

 

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing activities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property and equipment acquired but not paid

 

$

1,705

 

$

546

 

$

534

 

Unrealized gain on available-for-sale investments

 

$

(329)

 

$

(240)

 

$

47

 

Issuance of 21,826, 32,666 and 30,538 shares of common stock to fund the Company’s 401(k) matching contribution for 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively

 

$

836

 

$

456

 

$

354

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period

 $12,851 $13,345 $35,781 
       
       

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing activities:

       

Unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale investments

 $47 $92 $(15)
       
       

Issuance of 30,538, 32,872, and 27,872 shares of common stock to fund the Company's 401(k) matching contribution for 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively

 $354 $274 $169 
       
       

Conversion of accrued expenses into 59,932, 63,611 and 51,857 shares of common stock in connection with the Company's ESPP for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively

 $453 $367 $291 
       
       

Laboratory equipment acquired with a capital lease

 $ $1,151 $ 
       
       

Interest paid

 

$

95

 

$

29

 

$

48

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


53


Table of Contents


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(1) ORGANIZATIONORGANIZATION

Exact Sciences Corporation ("Exact"(“Exact” or the "Company"“Company”) was incorporated in February 1995. Exact is a molecular diagnostics company currently focused on the early detection and prevention of colorectalsome of the deadliest forms of cancer. The Company'sCompany has developed an accurate, non-invasive, stool-based DNA (sDNA)patient friendly screening technology includes proprietary and patented methods that isolate and analyze human DNA present in stool to screentest called Cologuard for the presenceearly detection of colorectal cancer and pre-cancer, and is currently working on the development of tests for lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer.

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,Company’s wholly‑owned subsidiaries, Exact Sciences Laboratories, LLC.LLC, Exact Sciences Finance Corporation, Exact Sciences Europe LTD, Beijing Exact Sciences Medical Technology Company Limited, and variable interest entities. See Note 13 for the discussion of financing arrangements involving certain entities that are variable interest entities that are included in our consolidated financial statements.  All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

References to "Exact"“Exact”,  "we"“we”,  "us"“us”,  "our"“our”, or the "Company"“Company” refer to Exact Sciences Corporation and its subsidiary, Exact Sciences Laboratories, LLC.wholly owned subsidiaries.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

The Company considers cash on hand, demand deposits in bank, money market funds, and all highly liquid investments with an original maturity of 90 days or less to be cash and cash equivalents. The Company had no restricted cash at December 31, 20132015 and 2012.2014.

Marketable Securities

Management determines the appropriate classification of debt securities at the time of purchase and re-evaluatesre‑evaluates such designation as of each balance sheet date. Debt securities carried at amortized cost are classified as held-to-maturityheld‑to‑maturity when the Company has the positive intent and ability to hold the securities to maturity. Marketable equity securities and debt securities not classified as held-to-maturityheld‑to‑maturity are classified as available-for-sale. Available-for-saleavailable‑for‑sale. Available‑for‑sale securities are carried at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, reported in other comprehensive income. The amortized cost of debt securities in this category is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity computed under the straight-linestraight‑line method. Such amortization is included in investment income. Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be other-than-temporaryother‑than‑temporary on available-for-saleavailable‑for‑sale securities are included in investment income. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method. Interest and dividends on securities classified as available-for-saleavailable‑for‑sale are included in investment income.

At December 31, 20132015 and December 31, 20122014 the Company'sCompany’s investments were comprisedconsisted of fixed income investments and all were deemed available-for-sale.available‑for‑sale. The objectives of the Company'sCompany’s investment strategy are to provide liquidity and safety of principal while striving to achieve the highest rate of return consistent with these two objectives. The Company's investment policy limits investments to



54


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

Company’s investment policy limits investments to certain types of instruments issued by institutions with investment grade credit ratings and places restrictions on maturities and concentration by type and issuer. Investments in which the Company has the ability and intent, if necessary, to liquidate in order to support its current operations (including those with a contractual term greater than one year from the date of purchase) are classified as current. All of the Company'sCompany’s investments are considered current. Realized gains were $14,205,  $11,000, and $9,639,  $6,231, and $419net of insignificant realized losses, for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013, 2012,respectively. 

The Company periodically reviews investments in unrealized loss positions for other-than-temporary impairments. This evaluation includes, but is not limited to, significant quantitative and 2011, respectively. Unrealized gains onqualitative assessments and estimates regarding credit ratings, collateralized support, the length of time and significance of a security’s loss position, the Company’s intent not to sell the security, and whether it is more likely than not that the Company will have to sell the security before recovery of its cost basis. For the year ended December 31, 2015, no investments recordedwere identified with other-than-temporary declines in value.

Available‑for‑sale securities at December 31, 2015 consist of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31, 2015

 

 

    

 

 

    

Gains in Accumulated

    

Losses in Accumulated

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Comprehensive

 

Other Comprehensive

 

Estimated Fair

 

(In thousands)

 

Amortized Cost

 

Income

 

Income

 

Value

 

Corporate bonds

 

$

179,471

 

$

2

 

$

(262)

 

$

179,211

 

U.S. government agency securities

 

 

7,057

 

 

 —

 

 

(18)

 

 

7,039

 

Asset backed securities

 

 

77,661

 

 

 —

 

 

(166)

 

 

77,495

 

Certificates of deposit

 

 

1,999

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

1,999

 

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

266,188

 

$

2

 

$

(446)

 

$

265,744

 

Available‑for‑sale securities at December 31, 2014 consist of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31, 2014

 

 

    

 

 

    

Gains in Accumulated

    

Losses in Accumulated

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Comprehensive

 

Other Comprehensive

 

Estimated Fair

 

(In thousands)

 

Amortized Cost

 

Income

 

Income

 

Value

 

Corporate bonds

 

$

141,239

 

$

20

 

$

(135)

 

$

141,124

 

U.S. government agency securities

 

 

18,687

 

 

8

 

 

(7)

 

 

18,688

 

Asset backed securities

 

 

60,821

 

 

17

 

 

(18)

 

 

60,820

 

Commercial paper

 

 

3,993

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

3,993

 

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

224,740

 

$

45

 

$

(160)

 

$

224,625

 

55


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

Changes in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

The amount recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income were $125,473 and $77,808(loss) (“AOCI”) for the years ended December 31, 20132015 and 2012. Unrealized losses on investments recorded in other comprehensive income2014 were $13,784 for the year ended December 31, 2011.as follows (in thousands):

 The amounts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accumulated

 

 

 

Cumulative

 

Unrealized

 

Other

 

 

 

Translation

 

Gain (Loss)

 

Comprehensive

 

 

    

Adjustment

    

on Securities

    

Income (Loss)

 

Balance at January 1, 2013

 

$

 —

 

$

78

 

$

78

 

Other comprehensive (loss) income before reclassifications

 

 

 —

 

 

90

 

 

90

 

Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

 —

 

 

(43)

 

 

(43)

 

Net current period change in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

 

 

 —

 

 

47

 

 

47

 

Balance at December 31, 2013

 

$

 —

 

$

125

 

$

125

 

Other comprehensive (loss) income before reclassifications

 

 

 —

 

 

(200)

 

 

(200)

 

Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

 —

 

 

(40)

 

 

(40)

 

Net current period change in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

 

 

 —

 

 

(240)

 

 

(240)

 

Balance at December 31, 2014

 

$

 —

 

$

(115)

 

$

(115)

 

Other comprehensive (loss) income before reclassifications

 

 

11

 

 

(361)

 

 

(350)

 

Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

 —

 

 

32

 

 

32

 

Net current period change in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

 

 

11

 

 

(329)

 

 

(318)

 

Balance at December 31, 2015

 

$

11

 

$

(444)

 

$

(433)

 

Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to investment income during(loss) for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 2012were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affected Line Item in the

 

Year Ended December 31,

Details about AOCI  Components

 

Statement of Operations

 

2015

 

2014

 

2013

Change in value of available-for-sale investments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sales and maturities of available-for-sale investments

 

Investment income

 

$

32

 

$

(40)

 

$

(43)

Total reclassifications

 

 

 

$

32

 

$

(40)

 

$

(43)

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

The Company estimates an allowance for doubtful accounts against individual patient accounts receivable based on estimates of expected payment consistent with historical payment experience. The allowance for doubtful accounts is evaluated on a regular basis and 2011 related to the unrealizedadjusted when trends or significant events indicate that a change in the valueestimate is appropriate. Accounts receivable are written off against the allowance when the appeals process is exhausted or when there is other substantive evidence that the account will not be paid.  As of marketable securities, were not significant.

        Available-for-sale securities at December 31, 2013 consist of2015 and 2014 the following:Company’s allowance for doubtful accounts was $275,000 and $86,000, respectively. The Company did not have an allowance for doubtful accounts in 2013. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 net additions charged to revenue were $189,000 and $86,000, respectively. There were no charges to revenue during the year ended December 31, 2013.

56

 
 December 31, 2013 
(In thousands)
 Amortized Cost Gains in Accumulated
Other Comprehensive
Income
 Losses in Accumulated
Other Comprehensive
Income
 Estimated Fair
Value
 

Corporate bonds

 $77,935 $75 $ $78,010 

U.S. government agency securities

  34,291  47    34,338 

Certificates of deposit

  6,558  3    6,561 

Commercial paper

  1,499      1,499 
          

Total available-for-sale securities

 $120,283 $125 $ $120,408 
          
          

 Available-for-sale securities at December 31, 2012 consist

Table of the following:Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

 
 December 31, 2012 
(In thousands)
 Amortized Cost Gains in Accumulated
Other Comprehensive
Income
 Losses in Accumulated
Other Comprehensive
Income
 Estimated Fair
Value
 

U.S. government agency securities

 $44,270 $38 $ $44,308 

Corporate bonds

  43,303  27    43,330 

Certificates of deposit

  5,926  13    5,939 

Commercial paper

  1,199      1,199 
          

Total available-for-sale securities

 $94,698 $78 $ $94,776 
          
          

Property and Equipment

        PropertyProperty and equipment are stated at cost and depreciated using the straight-linestraight‑line method over the assets'assets’ estimated useful lives. Maintenance and repairs are expensed when incurred; additions and improvements are capitalized. The estimated useful lives of fixed assets are as follows:

Estimated

Asset Classification

Estimated

Useful Life

Laboratory equipment

3 - 5 years

Office

Computer equipment and computer equipmentsoftware

3 years

Leasehold improvements

Lesser of the remaining lease term or useful life

Furniture and fixtures

3 years

Buildings

30 years



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

Depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013 2012,was $7.6 million, $3.7 million, and 2011 was $1.4 million, $1.0 million, and $0.4 million, respectively.

At December 31, 2013,2015, the Company had $2.6$8.0 million of assets under construction which consisted of $5.1 million related to building and leasehold improvements, $1.7  million of capitalized costs related to software projects and $0.9$1.2 million of costs related to an equipment project.machinery and equipment. Depreciation will begin on these assets once they are placed into service. We expectThe Company expects that it will cost $0.5$1.2 million to complete the equipment projectbuilding and $1.0 millionleasehold improvements. The Company expects to incur minimal costs to complete the machinery and equipment and the software projects, and these projects are expected to be completed in 2014.2016. The Company assesses its long-lived assets, consisting primarily of property and equipment, for impairment when material events and changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. There were no impairment losses for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 or 2013.

Software Capitalization Policy

Software development costs related to internal use software are incurred in three stages of development: the preliminary project stage, the application development stage, and the post-implementationpost‑implementation stage. Costs incurred during the preliminary project and post-implementationpost‑implementation stages are expensed as incurred. Costs in the application development stage that meet the criteria for capitalization are capitalized and amortized using the straight-linestraight‑line basis over the estimated economic useful life of the software.

Patent Costs and Intangible Assets

Patent costs, which have historically consisted of related legal fees, are capitalized as incurred, only if the Company determines that there is some probable future economic benefit derived from the transaction. The capitalized patents are amortized beginning when patents are approved over an estimated useful life of five years.life. Capitalized patent costs are expensed upon disapproval, upon a decision by the Company to no longer pursue the patent or when the related intellectual property is either sold or deemed to be no longer of value to the Company. The Company determined that all patent costs incurred during the year ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013 should be expensed and not capitalized as the future economic benefit derived from the transactions cannot be determined.

        Accruals are recorded for clinical trial patient site costs whenUnder a technology license and royalty agreement entered into with MDx Health, the Company is required to pay MDx Health milestone-based royalties on sales of products or services covered by the licensed intellectual property.  Once the achievement of a milestone has occurred or is considered probable, an intangible asset and corresponding liability is probablereported in other long-term assets and reasonably estimable. For our pivotal FDA clinical trialaccrued expenses, respectively.  The intangible asset is amortized over the estimated ten-year useful life of the licensed intellectual property, and other sample procurement studies we undertake periodically, an accrualsuch amortization is made for a patient sitereported in cost once the patient has progressed past certain steps in the patient assessment and sample processing procedure. The accrual is estimated based on historical average patient reimbursement fees. Management has not recorded an accrual for clinical trial costs atof sales.   As of December 31, 2013 as our clinical trial is complete. Management recorded2015, an accrualintangible asset of $0.4$1.8 million atand a liability of $2.0 million are reported

57


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

in other long-term assets and accrued expenses, respectively.  Amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for clinical trial costs related to site payments.2015 was $0.2 million. 

Net Loss Per Share

Basic net loss per common share was determined by dividing net loss applicable to common stockholders by the weighted average common shares outstanding during the period. Basic and diluted net loss per share is the same because all outstanding common stock equivalents have been excluded, as they are anti-dilutiveanti‑dilutive as a result of the Company'sCompany’s losses.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

The following potentially issuable common shares were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per share because they would have an anti-dilutiveanti‑dilutive effect due to net losses for each period (amounts are in thousands):

 
 2013 2012 2011 

Shares issuable upon exercise of stock options

  6,063  6,182  6,454 

Shares issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants(1)

  155  325  325 

Shares issuable upon the release of restricted stock awards

  1,151  814  401 

Shares issuable upon exercise of restricted stock awards related to licensing agreement

  49  73   
        

  7,418  7,394  7,180 
        
        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

 

Shares issuable upon exercise of stock options

 

4,937

 

4,934

 

6,063

 

Shares issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants(1)

 

 —

 

 —

 

155

 

Shares issuable upon the release of restricted stock awards

 

3,445

 

1,541

 

1,151

 

Shares issuable upon the vesting of restricted stock awards related to licensing agreement

 

 —

 

24

 

49

 

 

 

8,382

 

6,499

 

7,418

 


(1)
At December 31, 2013, represents warrants to purchase 80,000 shares of common stock issued under a license agreement and warrants to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock issued under a consulting agreement. At December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, represents warrants to purchase 250,000 shares of common stock issued under a licensing agreement and warrants to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock issued under a consulting agreement.

(1)

At December 31, 2013, represents warrants to purchase 80,000 shares of common stock issued under a license agreement and warrants to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock issued under a consulting agreement.

Accounting for Stock-BasedStock‑Based Compensation

 

The Company requires all share-basedshare‑based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units and shares purchased under an ESPP (if certain parameters are not met), to be recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values.

Revenue Recognition

Laboratory service revenue. The Company’s laboratory service revenue are generated by performing diagnostic services using its Cologuard test, and the service is completed upon delivery of a test result to an ordering physician. The Company recognizes revenue in accordance with the provision of ASC 954-605, Health Care Entities - Revenue Recognition. The Company recognizes revenue related to billings for Medicare and other third-party payors on an accrual basis, net of contractual and other adjustments, when amounts that will ultimately be realized can be estimated. Contractual and other adjustments represent the difference between the list price (the billing rate) and the estimated reimbursement rate for each payor. Upon ultimate collection, the amount received from Medicare and other third-party payors where reimbursement was estimated is compared to previous estimates and, if necessary, the contractual allowance is adjusted accordingly.

The estimates of amounts that will ultimately be realized requires significant judgment by management. Some patients have out-of-pocket costs for amounts not covered by their insurance carrier, and the Company may bill the patient directly for these amounts in the form of co-payments and co-insurance in accordance with their insurance carrier and health plans. Some payors may not cover Cologuard as ordered by the prescribing physician under their reimbursement policies. The Company pursues reimbursement from such patients on a case-by-case basis. In the absence

58


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

of contracted reimbursement coverage or the ability to estimate the amount that will ultimately be realized for the Company’s services, revenue is recognized upon cash receipt.

The Company uses judgment in determining if it is able to make an estimate of what will ultimately be realized. The Company also uses judgment in estimating the amounts it expects to collect by payor. The Company’s judgments will continue to evolve in the future as it continues to gain payment experience with third-party payors and patients.

The Company recognized approximately $39.4 million and $1.5 million in laboratory service revenue for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

License fees.  License fees for the licensing of product rights are recorded as deferred revenue upon receipt of cash and recognized as revenue on a straight-linestraight‑line basis over the license period.

As more fully described in Note 3 below, in connection with the Company'sCompany’s transaction with Genzyme Corporation, Genzyme agreed to pay the Company a total of $18.5 million, of which $16.65 million was paid on January 27, 2009 and $1.85 million was subject to a holdback by Genzyme to satisfy certain potential indemnification obligations in exchange for the assignment and licensing of certain intellectual property to Genzyme. The Company's on-goingCompany’s on‑going performance obligations to Genzyme under the Collaboration, License and Purchase Agreement (the "CLP Agreement"“CLP Agreement”), as described below, including its obligation to deliver through licenses certain intellectual property improvements to Genzyme, if improvements are made during the initial five-yearfive‑year collaboration period, were deemed to be undelivered elements of the CLP Agreement on the date of closing. Accordingly, the Company deferred the initial $16.65 million in cash received at closing and is amortizing that up-frontup‑front payment on a straight line basis into revenue over the initial five-yearfive‑year collaboration period ending in January 2014. The Company received the first holdback amount of $962,000, which included accrued interest, due from Genzyme during the first quarter of 2010. The Company received the second holdback amount of $934,250$934,000 which included accrued interest due, from Genzyme during the third quarter of 2010. The amounts were deferred and are beingwere amortized on a straight-linestraight‑line basis into revenue over the remaining term of the collaboration at the time of receipt.

In addition, Genzyme purchased 3,000,000 shares of common stock purchased from the Company on January 27, 2009 for $2.00 per share, representing a premium of $0.51 per share above the closing



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

price of the Company'sCompany’s common stock on that date of $1.49 per share. The aggregate premium paid by Genzyme over the closing price of the Company'sCompany’s common stock on the date of the transaction of $1.53 million is deemed to be a part of the total consideration for the CLP Agreement. Accordingly, the Company deferred the aggregate $1.53 million premium and is amortizingamortized that amount on a straight line basis into revenue over the initial five-yearfive‑year collaboration period ending in January 2014.

The Company did not recognize license fee revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company recognized approximately $0.3 million and $4.1 million in license fee revenue for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, in connection with the amortization of the up-front payments from Genzyme duringGenzyme.

Inventory

Inventory is stated at the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

        Product royalty fees.lower of cost or market value (net realizable value). The Company determines the cost of inventory using the first-in, first out method (“FIFO”). The Company estimates the recoverability of inventory by reference to internal estimates of future demands and product life cycles, including expiration. The Company periodically analyzes its inventory levels to identify inventory that may expire prior to expected sale or has licensed certaina cost basis in excess of its technologies, including improvementsestimated realizable value, and records a charge to cost of sales for such technologies, on an exclusive basisinventory as appropriate. In addition, the Company’s products are subject to LabCorp. LabCorp developedstrict quality control and commercially offered a non-invasive stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening service formonitoring which the average-risk population based onCompany performs throughout the Company's technology. The Company is entitledproduction process. If certain batches or units of product no longer meet quality specifications or become obsolete due to certain royalties on any sales of this product. Accordingly,expiration, the Company records product royalty fees based ona charge to cost of sales to write down such unmarketable inventory to its estimated realizable value.

59


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

Direct and indirect manufacturing costs incurred during process validation and for other research and development activities, which are not permitted to be sold, have been expensed to research and development.

Inventory consists of the specified contractual percentage of LabCorp's net revenues from its sales of such colorectal cancer screening tests, as reported to the Company each month by LabCorp. The current royalty rate is subject to an increasefollowing (amount in the event that LabCorp achieves a specified significant threshold of annual net revenues from the sales of such colorectal cancer screening tests. No sales of this product were reported to the Company during the year ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and no product royalty fees were recorded. Product royalty fees were $20,000 for the year ended December 31, 2011.thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

 

Raw materials

 

$

1,772

 

$

1,019

 

Semi-finished and finished goods

 

 

4,905

 

 

2,998

 

Total inventory

 

$

6,677

 

$

4,017

 

Advertising Costs

The Company expenses the costs of media advertising at the time the advertising takes place. The Company expensed approximately $97.7 thousand, $57.4 thousand$10.8 million, $5.3 million and $110.0 thousand$0.1 million of media advertising during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012,2015, 2014, and 2011,2013, respectively.

Fair Value Measurements

The FASB has issued authoritative guidance which requires that fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing an asset or liability and establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the information used to develop those assumptions. Under the standard, fair value measurements are separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy. The fair value hierarchy establishes and prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs. Observable inputs are inputs that reflect the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect the Company'sCompany’s assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy established are as follows:

Level 1

Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.

Level 2

Pricing inputs other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. These include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets and quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active.

Level 3

Unobservable inputs that reflect the Company'sCompany’s assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available.

 Fixed-income

Fixed‑income securities and mutual funds are valued using a third partythird-party pricing agency. The valuation is based on observable inputs including pricing for similar assets and other observable market factors. There has been no material change from period to period.

60


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

The following table presents the Company'sCompany’s fair value measurements as of December 31, 20132015 along with the level within the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurements in their entirety fall. Amounts in the table are in thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair Value Measurement at December 31, 2015 Using:

 

 

    

 

 

    

Quoted Prices

    

Significant

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Active

 

Other

 

Significant

 

 

 

 

 

 

Markets for

 

Observable

 

Unobservable

 

 

 

Fair Value at

 

Identical Assets

 

Inputs

 

Inputs

 

Description

 

December 31, 2015

 

(Level 1)

 

(Level 2)

 

(Level 3)

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and money market

 

$

37,435

 

$

37,435

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

Commercial paper

 

 

3,700

 

 

 —

 

 

3,700

 

 

 —

 

Available-for-Sale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marketable securities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate bonds

 

 

179,211

 

 

 —

 

 

179,211

 

 

 —

 

Asset backed securities

 

 

77,495

 

 

 —

 

 

77,495

 

 

 —

 

U.S. government agency securities

 

 

7,039

 

 

 —

 

 

7,039

 

 

 —

 

Certificates of deposit

 

 

1,999

 

 

 —

 

 

1,999

 

 

 —

 

Total

 

$

306,879

 

$

37,435

 

$

269,444

 

$

 —

 

 
  
 Fair Value Measurement at December 31, 2013 Using: 
Description
 Fair Value at
December 31, 2013
 Quoted Prices
in Active
Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 Significant Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
 

Cash and cash equivalents

             

Cash and money market

 $12,851 $12,851 $ $ 

Available-for-Sale

             

Marketable securities

             

Corporate bonds

  78,010    78,010   

U.S. government agency securities

  34,338    34,338   

Certificates of deposit

  6,561    6,561   

Commercial paper

  1,499    1,499   
          

Total

 $133,259 $12,851 $120,408 $ 
          
          


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

The following table presents the Company'sCompany’s fair value measurements as of December 31, 20122014 along with the level within the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurements in their entirety fall. Amounts in the table are in thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair Value Measurement at December 31, 2014 Using:

 

 

    

 

 

    

Quoted Prices

    

Significant

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Active

 

Other

 

Significant

 

 

 

 

 

 

Markets for

 

Observable

 

Unobservable

 

 

 

Fair Value at

 

Identical Assets

 

Inputs

 

Inputs

 

Description

 

December 31, 2014

 

(Level 1)

 

(Level 2)

 

(Level 3)

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and money market

 

$

53,569

 

$

53,569

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

Corporate bonds

 

 

4,562

 

 

 —

 

 

4,562

 

 

 —

 

Available-for-Sale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marketable securities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate bonds

 

 

141,124

 

 

 —

 

 

141,124

 

 

 —

 

U.S. government agency securities

 

 

18,688

 

 

 —

 

 

18,688

 

 

 —

 

Asset backed securities

 

 

60,820

 

 

 —

 

 

60,820

 

 

 —

 

Commercial paper

 

 

3,993

 

 

 —

 

 

3,993

 

 

 —

 

Total

 

$

282,756

 

$

53,569

 

$

229,187

 

$

 —

 

The Company monitors investments for other-than-temporary impairment.  It was determined that unrealized gains and losses at December 31, 2015 and 2014, are temporary in nature, because the change in market value for those securities has resulted from fluctuating interest rates, rather than a deterioration of the credit worthiness of the issuers. So long as the Company holds these securities to maturity, it is unlikely to experience gains or losses. In the event that the Company disposes of these securities before maturity, it is expected that realized gains or losses, if any, will be immaterial.

61

 
  
 Fair Value Measurement at December 31, 2012 Using: 
Description
 Fair Value at
December 31, 2012
 Quoted Prices
in Active
Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
 Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
 

Cash and cash equivalents

             

Cash and money market

 $13,095 $13,095 $ $ 

Corporate bonds

  250    250   

Available-for-Sale

             

Marketable securities

             

U.S. government agency securities

  44,308    44,308   

Certificates of deposit

  5,939    5,939   

Corporate bonds

  43,330    43,330   

Commercial paper

  1,199    1,199   
          

Total

 $108,121 $13,095 $95,026 $ 
          
          

 As

Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

The following table summarizes the gross unrealized losses and fair values of investments in an unrealized loss position as of December 31, 20132015, aggregated by investment category and 2012 there were available for salelength of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position for less than twelve months whereposition:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31, 2015

 

 

 

 

Less than 12 months

 

12 months or greater

 

Total

 

(In thousands)

    

 

Fair Value

    

 

Gross Unrealized Loss

    

 

Fair Value

    

 

Gross Unrealized Loss

    

 

Fair Value

    

 

Gross Unrealized Loss

 

Marketable Securities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate bonds

 

$

166,238

 

$

(262)

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

$

166,238

 

$

(262)

 

U.S. government agency securities

 

 

7,039

 

 

(18)

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

7,039

 

 

(18)

 

Asset backed securities

 

 

72,792

 

 

(164)

 

 

3,887

 

 

(2)

 

 

76,679

 

 

(166)

 

Total

 

$

246,069

 

$

(444)

 

$

3,887

 

$

(2)

 

$

249,956

 

$

(446)

 

The following table summarizes the totalgross unrealized losses were $7.2 thousand and $4.8 thousand respectively. Atfair value of investments in an unrealized loss position as of December 31, 20132014, aggregated by investment category and 2012 there were no available for salelength of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position for greater than twelve months.position:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31, 2014

 

 

 

Less than 12 months

 

12 months or greater

 

Total

(In thousands)

    

 

Fair Value

    

 

Gross Unrealized Loss

    

 

Fair Value

    

 

Gross Unrealized Loss

    

 

Fair Value

 

 

Gross Unrealized Loss

Marketable Securities

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate bonds

    

$

113,960

    

$

(135)

    

$

 —

    

$

 —

    

$

113,960

 

$

(135)

Asset backed securities

    

 

33,073

    

 

(18)

    

 

 —

    

 

 —

    

 

33,073

 

 

(18)

U.S. government agency securities

    

 

5,641

    

 

(7)

    

 

 —

    

 

 —

    

 

5,641

 

 

(7)

Total

    

$

152,674

    

$

(160)

    

$

 —

    

$

 —

    

$

152,674

 

$

(160)

The following table summarizes contractual underlying maturities of the Company's available-for-saleCompany’s available‑for‑sale investments at December 31, 20132015 (in thousands):

 
 Cost Fair Value 

Due in one year or less

 $53,843 $53,871 

Due after one year through two years

  66,440  66,537 
      

 $120,283 $120,408 
      
      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due one year or less

 

Due after one year through four years

Description

    

 

Cost

    

 

Fair Value

 

 

Cost

    

 

Fair Value

Marketable Securities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. government agency securities

 

$

2,500

 

$

2,494

 

$

4,557

 

$

4,545

Corporate bonds

 

 

115,647

 

 

115,555

 

 

63,824

 

 

63,656

Certificates of deposit

 

 

1,999

 

 

1,999

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

Asset backed securities

 

 

373

 

 

373

 

 

77,288

 

 

77,122

Total

 

$

120,519

 

$

120,421

 

$

145,669

 

$

145,323

Concentration of Credit Risk

In accordance with GAAP, the Company is required to disclose any significant off-balance-sheetoff‑balance‑sheet risk and credit risk concentration. The Company has no significant off-balance-sheetoff‑balance‑sheet risk, such as foreign exchange contracts or other hedging arrangements. Financial instruments that subject the Company to credit risk consist of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. As of December 31, 2013,2015, the Company had cash and cash equivalents deposited in financial

62


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

institutions in which the balances exceed the federal government agency insured limit of $250,000 by approximately $12.1$40.1 million. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts and management believes it is not exposed to any significant credit risk.

Through December 31, 2015, all of the Company’s laboratory service revenues have been derived from the sale of Cologuard, and one payor, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has provided greater than 10% of revenue during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.  Medicare revenue as a percentage of total laboratory service revenue was 71% and 80% for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  Medicare accounts receivable as a percentage of total accounts receivable were 64% and 88% at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As the number of payors reimbursing for Cologuard increases, the percentage of laboratory service revenue derived from Medicare will continue to change as a percentage of revenue and accounts receivable.

Subsequent Events

The Company evaluates events that occur through the filing date and discloses those events or transactions that provide additional evidence with respect to conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet. In addition, the financial statements are adjusted for any changes in estimates resulting from the use of such evidence.


Tax Positions

A valuation allowance to reduce the deferred tax assets is reported if, based on the weight of the evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The Company has incurred significant losses since its inception and due to the uncertainty of the amount and timing of future taxable income, the Company has determined that a $215.1 million and $161.9 million valuation allowance at December 31, 2015 and 2014 is necessary to reduce the tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. The change in valuation allowance for December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $53.2 million and $37.4 million, respectively. Due to the existence of the valuation allowance, future changes in the Company’s unrecognized tax benefits will not impact the Company’s effective tax rate.


Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2015, the FASB Issued ASU No. 2015-02, “Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis (Topic 810).” The amendments in this Update affect reporting entities that are required to evaluate whether they should consolidate certain legal entities. All legal entities are subject to reevaluation under the revised consolidation model.  Specifically, the amendments (1) modify the evaluation of whether limited partnerships and similar legal entities are variable interest entities (“VIEs”) or voting interest entities, (2) eliminate the presumption that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership, (3) affect the consolidation analysis of reporting entities that are involved with VIEs, particularly those that have fee arrangements and related party relationships and (4) provide a scope exception from consolidation guidance for reporting entities with interests in legal entities that are required to comply with or operate in accordance with requirements that are similar to those in Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The amendments in this Update are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted.  The Company has not early adopted this Update, and the adoption of this Update is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. 

In July 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-11, “Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory (Topic 330).” The new guidance requires most inventory to be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value, thereby simplifying the previous guidance under which an entity must measure inventory at the lower of cost or market. Market is defined as replacement cost, net realizable value (“NRV”), less a normal profit margin. The Accounting Standards Update will not apply to inventory that is measured using either the last-in, first-out method or the retail inventory method. The standard will be effective prospectively for the first interim

63


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

period within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is permitted. We do not expect to early adopt this guidance and are currently assessing the provisions of the guidance and have not determined the impact of the adoption of this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

RecentIn April 2015, the Financial Accounting PronouncementsStandards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-05, “

        In December 2011,Customer’s Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement”, which provides guidance that requires management to evaluate each cloud computing arrangement in order to determine whether it includes a software license that must be accounted for separately from hosted services. The new guidance clarifies that if a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license, we should account for the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11,Balance Sheet (Topic 210)—Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. ASU 2011-11 requires an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of itssoftware license consistent with our accounting for other software licenses. If the arrangement does not include a software license, we should account for the arrangement as a service contract. The standard will be effective for our financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. Entities are required to disclose both gross and net information about these instruments. ASU 2011-11 was effectivethat we issue for annual reportingfiscal periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods.2016. Early adoption is permitted for financial statements that have not previously been issued. The adoption of this ASU didstandard is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

ReclassificationsIn April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-03, “Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs”, which requires debt issuance costs to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the associated debt liability. This guidance simplifies presentation of debt issuance costs but does not address presentation or subsequent measurement of debt issue costs related to line of credit arrangements. In August 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-15 “Interest-Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30) Presentation and Subsequent Measurement of Debt Issuance Costs Associated with Line-of-Credit Arrangements” which indicates the SEC staff would not object to an entity deferring and presenting debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements as an asset and subsequently amortizing the deferred debt issuance costs ratably over the term of the line-of-credit arrangement, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on the line-of-credit arrangement. Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-03 will be effective for the first interim period within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.

 

In August 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Deferral of the Effective Date” to defer for one year the effective date of the new revenue standard and allow early adoption as of the original effective date which is for annual reports beginning after December 15, 2016. We are currently evaluating the impact of this amendment on our financial position and results of operations.

In November 2015, the FASB Issued ASU No. 2015-17, “Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (Topic740)”.   The amendments in this Update simplify the presentation of deferred income taxes, by requiring that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. The amendments in this Update apply to all entities that present a classified statement of financial position.  The amendments in this Update are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is permitted.  The Company does not expect to early adopt this Update, and the adoption of this Update is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. 

In January 2016, the FASB Issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets andFinancial Liabilities (Subtopic 825-10)”.   The amendments in this Update supersede the guidance to classify equity securities with readily determinable fair values into different categories (that is, trading or available-for-sale) and require equity securities (including other ownership interests, such as partnerships, unincorporated joint ventures, and limited liability companies) to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income. An entity’s equity investments that are accounted for under the equity method of accounting or result in consolidation of an investee are not included within the scope of this Update. The amendments allow equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values to be remeasured at fair value either upon the occurrence of an observable price change or upon identification of an impairment. The amendments also require enhanced disclosures about those investments. The amendments improve financial reporting by providing relevant information about an entity’s equity investments and

64


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

reducing the number of items that are recognized in other comprehensive income. The amendments in this Update are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted.  The Company does not expect to early adopt this Update, and the adoption of this Update is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. 

Foreign Currency Translation

For the Company’s international subsidiaries, the local currency is the functional currency. Assets and liabilities of these subsidiaries are translated into United States dollars at the period-end exchange rate or historical rates as appropriate. Consolidated statements of operations amounts are translated at average exchange rates for the period. The cumulative translation adjustments resulting from changes in exchange rates are included in the consolidated balance sheet as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in total Exact Sciences Corporation’s shareholders’ equity. Transaction gains and losses are included in the consolidated statement of operations in 2015.

Reclassifications

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

(3) GENZYME STRATEGIC TRANSACTION

Transaction summary

Transaction summary

On January 27, 2009, the Company entered into a Collaboration, License and Purchase Agreement (the "CLP Agreement"“CLP Agreement”) with Genzyme Corporation ("Genzyme"(“Genzyme”). Pursuant to the CLP Agreement, the Company (i) assigned to Genzyme all of its intellectual property applicable to the fields of prenatal and reproductive health (the "Transferred“Transferred Intellectual Property"Property”), (ii) granted Genzyme an irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive, worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-freefully‑paid, royalty‑free license to use and sublicense all of the Company'sCompany’s remaining intellectual property (the "Retained“Retained Intellectual Property"Property”) in the fields of prenatal and reproductive health (the "Genzyme“Genzyme Core Field"Field”), and (iii) granted Genzyme an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive,non‑exclusive, worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-freefully‑paid, royalty‑free license to use and sublicense the Retained Intellectual Property in all fields other than the Genzyme Core Field and other than colorectal cancer detection and stool-basedstool‑based disease detection (the "Company Field"“Company Field”). Following the transaction, the Company retained rights in its intellectual property to pursue only the fields of colorectal cancer detection and stool-basedstool‑based detection of any disease or conditioncondition.  The Company agreed to deliver to Genzyme certain intellectual property improvements, if improvements were made during the initial five year collaboration period

 

Pursuant to the Genzyme Strategic Transaction, Genzyme agreed to pay an aggregate of $18.5 million to the Company, of which $16.65 million was paid at closing and $1.85 million (the "Holdback Amount"“Holdback Amount”) was subject to a holdback by Genzyme to satisfy certain potential indemnification obligations of the Company. Genzyme also agreed to pay a double-digitdouble‑digit royalty to the Company on income received by Genzyme as a result of any licenses or sublicenses to third parties of the Transferred Intellectual Property or the Retained Intellectual Property in any field other than the Genzyme Core Field or the Company Field.

 

The Company's on-goingCompany’s on‑going performance obligations to Genzyme under the CLP including the obligation to deliver certain intellectual property improvements to Genzyme, if improvements are made during the initial five year collaboration period, were deemed to be undelivered elements of the CLP Agreement on the date of closing. Accordingly, the Company deferred the initial $16.65 million in cash received at closing and is amortizingamortized that up-frontup‑front payment on a straight line basis into the License Fee Revenue line item in its statements of operations over the initial five year collaboration period. The Company received the first holdback amount of $962,000, which included accrued interest, due from Genzyme during the first quarter of 2010. The Company received the second holdback amount of



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(3) GENZYME STRATEGIC TRANSACTION (Continued)

$934,250 $934,000 which included accrued interest due, from Genzyme during the third quarter of 2010. The amounts were deferred and are beingwere amortized on a straight-linestraight‑line basis into revenue over the remaining term of the collaboration through January 2014.

65


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

In addition, the Company entered into a Common Stock Subscription Agreement with Genzyme on January 27, 2009, which provided for the private issuance and sale to Genzyme of 3,000,000 shares (the "Shares"“Shares”) of the Company'sCompany’s common stock, $0.01 par value per share, at a per share price of $2.00, for an aggregate purchase price of $6.0 million. The price paid by Genzyme for the Shares represented a premium of $0.51 per share above the closing price of the Company'sCompany’s common stock on that date of $1.49 per share. The aggregate premium paid by Genzyme over the closing price of the Company'sCompany’s common stock on the date of the transaction of $1.53 million is included as a part of the total consideration for the CLP. Accordingly, the Company deferred the aggregate $1.53 million premium and is amortizingamortized that amount on a straight line basis into the License fees line item in the Company'sCompany’s statements of operations over the initial five-yearfive‑year collaboration period.

 

The Company did not recognize license fee revenue from the CLP Agreement during the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company recognized approximately $0.3 million and $4.1 million in license fee revenue in connection with the amortization of the up-front payments and holdback amounts from Genzyme during each of the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, 2012, and 2011.respectively.

(4) MAYO LICENSE AGREEMENT

Overview

On June 11, 2009, the Company entered into a licensepatent licensing agreement (the "License Agreement") with MAYO Foundation for Medical Education and Research ("MAYO"(“MAYO”). The Company’s license agreement with MAYO was most recently amended and restated in February 2015 and further amended in January 2016. Under the License Agreement,license agreement, MAYO granted the Company an exclusive, worldwide license withinto certain MAYO patents and patent applications, as well as a non‑exclusive, worldwide license with regard to certain MAYO know‑how. The scope of the field (the "Field") oflicense initially covered diagnostics and screenings for stool or blood based cancer, diagnosticsbut was later amended to cover gastrointestinal cancers, pre-cancers, diseases and conditions.  Under the January 2016 amendment to the license agreement, the scope has been expanded to cover any screening, (excluding a specified proteomic target)surveillance or diagnostic tests or tools for use in connection with regard to certainany type of cancers, pre-cancers, diseases or conditions. 

The licensed MAYO patents and a non-exclusive worldwide license within the Field with regardpatent applications contain both method and composition‑of‑matter claims that relate to certain MAYO know-how. The licensed patents cover advances in sample processing, analytical testing and data analysis associated with non-invasive, stool-based DNAnucleic screening for colorectal cancer.cancers and other diseases. The jurisdictions covered by these patents and patent applications include the U.S., Canada, the European Union and Japan. In addition to granting the Company a license to the covered MAYO intellectual property, MAYO agreed to make available personnel to provide the Company product development and research and development assistance. Under the License Agreement,license agreement, the Company assumesassumed the obligation and expense of prosecuting and maintaining the licensed MAYO patents and isare obligated to make commercially reasonable efforts to bring to market products covered byusing the licenselicensed MAYO intellectual property.

MAYO has agreed to market. make available personnel through January 2020 to provide us product development and research and development assistance.

Pursuant to the License Agreement,Company’s agreement with MAYO, the Company is required to pay MAYO a low single digit royalty on the Company’s net sales of products using the licensed MAYO intellectual property, with minimum annual royalty fees of $25,000 each year through 2033, the year the last patent expires. The January 2016 amendment to the MAYO license agreement established various low single digit royalty rates on net sales of current and future products and clarified how net sales will be calculated.  As part of the amendment, the royalty rate on the Company’s net sales of Cologuard increased and, if in the future, improvements are made to the Cologuard product, the royalty rate may further increase. However, the amendment provides that the Cologuard royalty will remain a low single digit percentage of net sales.

The Company is also required to issue MAYO shares of the Company’s common stock with a value of $200,000 upon commercial launch of our second and third products that use the licensed MAYO intellectual property, as well as to

66


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

pay MAYO, for each of the Company’s products that use licensed MAYO intellectual property, $200,000 cash upon such product reaching $5 million in cumulative net sales, $750,000 cash upon such product reaching $20 million in cumulative net sales, and $2 million cash upon such product reaching $50 million in cumulative net sales.

As part of the February 2015 amendment and restatement of the license agreement, the Company agreed to pay MAYO an additional $5,000,000, payable in five annual installments, through 2019.

In addition, the Company is paying MAYO for research and development efforts. As part of the Company’s research collaboration with MAYO, the Company has incurred charges of $2.6 million and has made payments of $2.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company has recorded an estimated liability in the amount of $1.3 million for research and development efforts as of December 31, 2015. The Company incurred charges of $2.3 million and made payments of $0.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. The Company recorded an estimated liability in the amount of $1.5 million for research and development efforts at December 31, 2014. The Company incurred charges of $1.7 million and made payments of $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2013.  

The MAYO license agreement required, among other things, a $0.5 million milestone payment upon FDA approval of the Company’s Cologuard test. The Company received this FDA approval, and paid the milestone payment in August 2014.

Pursuant to the license agreement, the Company granted MAYO two common stock purchase warrants with an exercise price of $1.90 per share covering 1,000,000 and 250,000 shares of common stock, respectively. The warrant covering 1,000,000 shares was fully exercised as of September 2011. The warrant covering 250,000 shares was exercised at various dates in 2013 and 2014 and became fully exercised as of June 2014. 

The license agreement will remain in effect, unless earlier terminated by the parties in accordance with the agreement, until the last of the licensed patents expires in 2033 (or later, if certain licensed patent applications are issued). However, if we are still using the licensed MAYO know‑how or certain MAYO‑provided biological specimens or their derivatives on such expiration date, the term shall continue until the earlier of the date we stop using such know‑how and materials and the date that is five years after the last licensed patents expires. The license agreement contains customary termination provisions and permits MAYO to terminate the license agreement if the Company is also requiredsues MAYO or its affiliates, other than any such suit claiming an uncured material breach by MAYO of the license agreement.

(5) MD ANDERSON LICENSE AGREEMENT

Overview

On April 10, 2015, the Company entered into a Joint Development and License Agreement (“MD Anderson Agreement”) with the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“MD Anderson”) to make paymentsjointly develop, clinically validate and obtain FDA approval and CMS coverage and reimbursement for in-vitro diagnostic and screening tools for the early detection of lung cancer (the “IVD Assays”). Under the MD Anderson Agreement, MD Anderson assigned certain patent rights to MAYO for up-front fees, fees once certain milestones are reached by the Company and other payments as outlined ingranted the License Agreement.Company an exclusive license to certain intellectual property rights for the purpose of developing, manufacturing and marketing IVD Assays. In addition, MD Anderson agreed to the licensemake personnel available to intellectual property owned by MAYO,provide the Company receives product development and research and development efforts from MAYO personnel. The Company is also obligated to make royalty payments to MAYO on potential future net sales of any products developed from the licensed technology. The Company sought rightsassistance. Pursuant to the MAYO intellectual property for the specific purpose of developing a non-invasive, stool-based DNA screening test for colorectal cancer. At the time the license agreement was executed, the sole focus of the Company was the development of such a test. Accordingly, the Company recognized the initial payments and expense related to the warrants at the time of the transaction and the amounts were expensed to research and development as there were no anticipated alternative future uses associated with the intellectual property.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(4) MAYO LICENSE AGREEMENT (Continued)

Warrants

        The warrants granted to MAYO were valued using a Black-Scholes pricing model at the date of the grant. The warrants were granted with an exercise price of $1.90 per share of common stock. The grant to purchase 1,000,000 shares was immediately exercisable and the grant to purchase 250,000 shares vests and becomes exercisable over a four year period.

        In March of 2010, MAYO partially exercised its warrant covering 1,000,000 shares by utilizing the cashless exercise provision contained in the agreement. As a result of this exercise for a gross amount of 200,000 shares, in lieu of paying a cash exercise price, MAYO forfeited its rights with respects to 86,596 shares leaving it with a net amount of 113,404 shares.

        In September of 2010, MAYO partially exercised its warrant covering the remaining 800,000 shares by utilizing the cashless exercise provision contained in the agreement. As a result of this exercise for a gross amount of 300,000 shares, in lieu of paying a cash exercise price, MAYO forfeited its rights with respect to 97,853 shares leaving it with a net amount of 202,147 shares.

        In June of 2011, MAYO partially exercised its warrant covering the remaining 500,000 shares by utilizing the cashless exercise provision contained in the warrant. As a result of this exercise for a gross amount of 250,000 shares, in lieu of paying a cash exercise price, MAYO forfeited its rights with respect to 60,246 shares leaving it with a net amount of 189,754 shares.

        In September of 2011, MAYO partially exercised its warrant covering the remaining 250,000 shares by utilizing the cashless exercise provision contained in the warrant. As a result of this exercise for a gross amount of 250,000 shares, in lieu or paying a cash exercise price, MAYO forfeited its right with respect to 56,641 shares leaving it with a net amount of 193,359 shares. Following this exercise, the warrant covering 1,000,000 shares was fully exercised.

        In January of 2013, MAYO partially exercised its warrant covering 250,000 shares by utilizing the cashless exercise provision contained in the warrant. As a result of this exercise for a gross amount of 85,000 shares, in lieu of paying a cash exercise price, MAYO forfeited its right with respect to 14,008 shares leaving it with a net amount of 70,992 shares.

        In June of 2013, MAYO partially exercised this warrant by utilizing the cashless exercise provision contained in the warrant. As a result of this exercise for a gross amount of 85,000 shares, in lieu of paying a cash exercise price, MAYO forfeited its right with respect to 12,765 shares leaving it with a net amount of 72,235 shares. Following this exercise, the warrant originally covering 250,000 covered a total of 80,000 shares at December 31, 2013.

Royalty Payments

        The Company will make royalty payments to MAYO based on a percentage of net sales of products developed from the licensed technology starting in the third year of the agreement. Minimum royalty payments will be $10,000 in 2012 and $25,000 per year thereafter through 2029, the year the last patent expires.

Other Payments

        Other payments under the LicenseMD Anderson Agreement, include an upfront payment of $80,000, a milestone payment of $250,000 on the commencement of patient enrollment in a human cancer screening clinical, and a $500,000 payment upon FDA approval of the Company's Cologuard test. The upfront payment of



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(4) MAYO LICENSE AGREEMENT (Continued)

$80,000 was made in the third quarter of 2009 and expensed to research and development in the second quarter of 2009. The Company began enrollment in its FDA trial in June 2011 and the milestone payment of $250,000 was made and expensed to research and development in June 2011. It is uncertain as to when or if the FDA will approve the Company's Cologuard test; therefore the $500,000 milestone payment has not been recorded as a liability. The Company evaluates the status of the timing of FDA approval at each reporting date to determine if a liability should be recorded for the milestone payment.

        In addition, the Company is paying MAYO for research andobligated to reimburse IVD Assay development efforts. As part ofexpenses incurred by the Company's research collaboration with MAYO, the Company has incurred charges of $1.7 million and has made paymentsstaff at MD Anderson, up to a maximum of $1.0 million per year for the year endedfirst two years of the MD Anderson Agreement. The Company’s current focus for lung cancer is to develop a test to detect cancer in lung nodules which is a shift from the product development efforts that were underway with MD Anderson. Therefore, the Company and MD Anderson have mutually agreed to terminate their collaboration effective February 2016.  At December 31, 2013. The Company has recorded an estimated liability in2015 the amount of $0.7 million for research and development efforts as of December 31, 2013. The Company incurred $1.2 million and made payments of $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company recorded an estimated liability in the amount of $0.1 million$15,000 for research andIVD Assay development efforts at December 31, 2012.

        In May 2012efforts. During the Company expanded the relationship with MAYO through an amendment to the License Agreement. As part of the amendment, MAYO expanded the Company's license to include all gastrointestinal cancers and diseases, and new cancer screening applications of stool- and blood-based testing. As consideration for the expanded license, the Company granted MAYO 97,466 shares of restricted stock, one quarter of which vested immediately, with the remainder to vest in three equal annual installments. The Company recognized $1.0 million in research and development licensing expense during the twelve monthsyear ended December 31, 2012 in connection with the restricted stock grant. The Company sought rights to the Mayo intellectual property for the specific purpose of developing future non-invasive, stool-based DNA screening tests for gastrointestinal diseases other than colorectal cancer. The Company does not believe there are alternative future uses for the intellectual property. In addition, at the time the restricted stock grant expense was recorded for the intellectual property license,2015, the Company believed it was unlikely they would proceed with the testsmade payments for other gastrointestinal diseases unless the significant risks relatedIVD Assay development costs to the colorectal cancer screening test receiving FDA approval were mitigated. BecauseMD Anderson of the significant uncertainty$0.5 million.

67


Table of receiving FDA approval for the colorectal cancer diagnostic, coupled with the uncertainty associated with funding future development of tests for other gastrointestinal diseases, the Company could not conclude that commencement of any future projects related to the acquired intellectual property was reasonably expected at the time of this license agreement amendment.Contents

        As part of the amendment, the Company will also be responsible for making additional restricted stock grants to MAYO as certain milestones are met with respect to commercial launch of the Company's second and third licensed products. Additionally, the Company will make milestone payments once certain sales levels are reached on the second and third licensed products. It is uncertain as to when or if these milestones will be met; therefore, the milestone payments have not been recorded as a liability. The Company evaluates the status of the milestone payments at each reporting date to determine if a liability should be recorded for the milestone payment.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(5)

(6) ISSUANCES OF EQUITY

Underwritten Public Offerings

        On December 6, 2011, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of 3.6 million shares of common stock at a price of $8.00 per share to the public. The Company received approximately $27.2 million of net proceeds from the offering, after deducting $1.5 million for the underwriting discount and other stock issuance costs paid by the Company.

        On August 13, 2012, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of 6.3 million shares of common stock at a price of $9.75 per share to the public. The Company received approximately $57.8 million of net proceeds from the offering, after deducting $3.9 million for the underwriting discount and other stock issuance costs paid by the Company.

On June 21, 2013, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of 6.3 million shares of common stock at a price of $12.35 per share to the public. The Company received approximately $73.3 million of net proceeds from the offering, after deducting $4.8 million for the underwriting discount and other stock issuance costs paid by the Company.

On April 2, 2014, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of 11.5 million shares of common stock at a price of $12.75 per share to the public. The Company received approximately $137.7 million of net proceeds from the offering, after deducting the $8.9 million for the underwriting discount and other stock issuance costs paid by the Company.

On December 16, 2014, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of 4.0 million shares of common stock at a price of $25.75 per share to the public. The Company received approximately $100.9 million of net proceeds from the offering, after deducting $2.1 million for the underwriting discount and other stock issuance costs paid by the Company.

On July 24, 2015 the Company completed an underwritten public offering of 7.0 million shares of common stock at a price of $25.50 per share to the public. The Company received approximately $174.1 million of net proceeds from the offering, after deducting $4.4 million for the underwriting discount and commissions and other stock issuance costs paid by the Company.

Rights Agreement

In February 2011, the Company adopted a rights agreement and subsequently distributed to the Company'sCompany’s stockholders preferred stock purchase rights. Under certain circumstances, each right can be exercised for one one-thousandthone‑thousandth of a share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock. In general, the rights will become exercisable in the event of an announcement of an acquisition of 15% or more of the Company'sCompany’s outstanding common stock or the commencement or announcement of an intention to make a tender offer or exchange offer for 15% or more of the Company'sCompany’s outstanding common stock. If any person or group acquires 15% or more of the Company'sCompany’s common stock, the Company'sCompany’s stockholders, other than the acquiror, will have the right to purchase additional shares of the Company'sCompany’s common stock (in lieu of the Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock) at a substantial discount to the then prevailing market price. The rights agreement could significantly dilute such acquiror'sacquiror’s ownership position in the Company'sCompany’s shares, thereby making a takeover prohibitively expensive and encouraging such acquiror to negotiate with the Company'sCompany’s board of directors. The ability to exercise these rights is contingent on events that the Company has determined to be unlikely at this time, and therefore this provision has not been considered in the computation of equity or earnings per share.

(6) STOCK-BASED

(7) STOCK‑BASED COMPENSATION

Stock-BasedStock‑Based Compensation Plans

The Company maintains the 2010 Omnibus Long-TermLong‑Term Incentive Plan, the 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,  the 2015 Inducement Award Plan and the 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan(collectively,Plan (collectively, the "Stock Plans"“Stock Plans”).

2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan  The Company adopted the 2000 Option and Incentive Plan (the "2000“2000 Option Plan"Plan”) on October 17, 2000. The 2000 Option Plan expired October 17, 2010 and after such date no further awards could be granted under the plan. Under the terms of the 2000 Option Plan, the Company was authorized to grant incentive stock options, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code, non-qualifiednon‑ qualified options, restricted stock awards and other stock awards to employees, officers, directors, consultants and advisors. Options granted under the 2000 Option

68


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

Plan expire ten years from the date of grant. Grants made from the 2000 Option Plan generally vest over a period of three to four years.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(6) STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Continued)

The 2000 Option Plan was administered by the compensation committee of the Company'sCompany’s board of directors, which selected the individuals to whom equity-basedequity‑based awards would be granted and determined the option exercise price and other terms of each award, subject to the provisions of the 2000 Option Plan. The 2000 Option Plan provides that upon an acquisition of the Company, all options to purchase common stock will accelerate by a period of one year. In addition, upon the termination of an employee without cause or for good reason prior to the first anniversary of the completion of the acquisition, all options then outstanding under the 2000 Option Plan held by that employee will immediately become exercisable. At December 31, 2013,2015, options to purchase 4,582,0643,345,800 shares and 27,000 shares of restricted stock were outstanding under the 2000 Option Plan. There were no shares of restricted stock outstanding under the 2000 Option Plan.

2010 Omnibus Long-TermLong‑Term Incentive Plan  The Company adopted the 2010 Omnibus Long-TermLong‑Term Incentive Plan (the "2010“2010 Stock Plan"Plan”) on July 16, 2010. The 2010 Stock Plan will expire on July 16, 2020 and after such date no further awards may be granted under the plan. Under the terms of the 2010 Stock Plan, the Company is authorized to grant incentive stock options, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code, non-qualifiednon‑ qualified options, restricted stock awards and other stock awards to employees, officers, directors, consultants and advisors. Options granted under the 2010 Stock Plan expire ten years from the date of grant. Grants made from the 2010 Stock Plan generally vest over a period of three to four years.

The 2010 Stock Plan is administered by the compensation committee of the Company'sCompany’s board of directors, which selects the individuals to whom equity-basedequity‑based awards will be granted and determines the option exercise price and other terms of each award, subject to the provisions of the 2010 Stock Plan. The 2010 Stock Plan provides that upon an acquisition of the Company, all equity will accelerate by a period of one year. In addition, upon the termination of an employee without cause or for good reason prior to the first anniversary of the completion of the acquisition, all equity awards then outstanding under the 2010 Stock Plan held by that employee will immediately vest. At December 31, 2013,2015, options to purchase 1,480,5231,590,794 shares were outstanding under the 2010 Stock Plan and 1,123,6943,200,845 shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units were outstanding. On July 25, 201323, 2015 the Company’s stockholders of Exact Sciences Corporation approved an amendment to the 2010 Stock Plan to increase the number of shares reservedavailable for issuance thereunder by 2,800,0008,360,000 shares. At December 31, 2013,2015, there were 2,852,0786,159,082 shares available for future grant under the 2010 Stock Plan.

2015 Inducement Award Plan  The Company adopted the 2015 Inducement Award Plan (“the 2015 Inducement Plan”) on February 9, 2015. The 2015 Inducement Plan expired on July 27, 2015 and after such date no further awards may be granted under the plan. Under the terms of the 2015 Inducement Plan, the Company is authorized to grant incentive stock options, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code, non-qualified options, restricted stock awards and other stock awards to employees who were not previously an employee of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries. Options granted under the 2015 Inducement Plan expire ten years from the date of grant. Grants made from the 2015 Inducement Plan generally vest over a period of three to four years.

The 2015 Inducement Plan is administered by the compensation committee of the Company’s board of directors, which selects the individuals to whom equity-based awards will be granted and determines the option exercise price and other terms of each award, subject to the provisions of the 2015 Inducement Plan. The 2015 Inducement Plan provides that upon an acquisition of the Company, all equity will accelerate by a period of one year. In addition, upon termination of an employee without cause or for good reason prior to the first anniversary of the completion of the acquisition, all equity awards then outstanding under the 2015 Inducement Plan held by that employee will immediately vest. At December 31, 2015, there were 243,849 shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units outstanding. At December 31, 2015, there were no shares available for future grant under the 2015 Inducement Plan.

2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan  The 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "2010“2010 Purchase Plan"Plan”) was adopted by the Company on July 16, 2010. The 2010 Purchase Plan provides participating employees the right to purchase common stock at a discount through a series of offering periods. The 2010 Purchase Plan will expire on October 31, 2020. On July 24, 2014 the stockholders of Exact Sciences Corporation approved an amendment to the 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan to increase the number of shares available for purchase thereunder by 500,000 shares. At

69


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

December 31, 2013,2015, there were 128,343363,392 shares of common stock available for purchase by participating employees under the 2010 Purchase Plan.

The compensation committee of the Company'sCompany’s board of directors administers the 2010 Purchase Plan. Generally, all employees whose customary employment is more than 20 hours per week and more than five months in any calendar year are eligible to participate in the 2010 Purchase Plan. Participating employees authorize an amount, between 1% and 15% of the employee'semployee’s compensation, to be deducted from the employee'semployee’s pay during the offering period. On the last day of the offering period, the employee is deemed to have exercised the employee'semployee’s option to purchase shares of Company common stock, at the option exercise price, to the extent of accumulated payroll deductions. Under the terms of the 2010 Purchase Plan, the option exercise price is an amount equal to 85% of the fair market value, as defined under the 2010 Purchase Plan and no employee can purchase more than $25,000 of Company common stock under the 2010 Purchase Plan in any calendar year. Rights granted



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(6) STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Continued)

under the 2010 Purchase Plan terminate upon an employee'semployee’s voluntary withdrawal from the 2010 Purchase Plan at any time or upon termination of employment. At December 31, 2013,2015, there were 171,657436,608 cumulative shares issued under the 2010 Purchase Plan, and 59,932176,785 shares were issued in the year ended December 31, 2013,2015, as follows:

Offering period ended
 Number of Shares Weighted Average
price per Share
 

April 30, 2013

  33,338 $7.56 

October 31, 2013

  26,594 $7.55 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

    

Weighted Average

 

Offering period ended

 

Number of Shares

 

price per Share

 

April 30, 2015

 

56,635

 

$

13.02

 

October 31, 2015

 

120,150

 

$

7.72

 

Stock-Based

Stock‑Based Compensation Expense

The Company recorded approximately $18.1 million, $11.5 million and $7.7 million in stock-basedstock‑based compensation expense during the yearyears ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, in connection with the amortization of restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards, stock purchase rights granted under the Company'sCompany’s employee stock purchase plan and stock options granted to employees, non-employeenon‑employee consultants and non-employeenon‑employee directors. The Company recorded $5.5 million in stock-based compensation expense during the year ended December 31, 2012 in connection with the amortization of restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards, stock purchase rights granted under the Company's employee stock purchase plan and stock options granted to employees and non-employee directors. The Company recorded approximately $4.0 million in stock-based compensation expense during the year ended December 31, 2011 in connection with the amortization of awards of common stock, restricted common stock and stock options granted to employees, non-employee directors and non-employee consultants. Non-cash stock-basedNon‑cash stock‑based compensation expense by departmentexpense category for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012,2015, 2014, and 20112013 are as follows, and amounts included in the table are in thousands:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 December 31, 

 

December 31,

 


 2013 2012 2011 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

 

Cost of sales

 

$

876

 

$

279

 

$

 —

 

Research and development

 $2,817 $2,396 $1,685 

 

 

3,744

 

 

4,149

 

 

2,817

 

General and administrative

 3,054 2,579 1,622 

 

 

9,358

 

 

5,575

 

 

3,054

 

Sales and marketing

 1,873 518 657 

 

 

4,072

 

 

1,517

 

 

1,873

 

Total stock-based compensation

 

$

18,050

 

$

11,520

 

$

7,744

 

 In connection with the December 31, 2011 resignation of the Company's Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing, the Company accelerated the vesting of 131,250 shares under his previously unvested stock options. This acceleration was done in accordance with his employment agreement. He had a two year period from December 31, 2011 to exercise these options. The remaining 168,750 stock options from his initial grant were forfeited. As a result of this accelerated vesting, the Company recorded additional stock compensation expense in 2011 to ensure that the total grant date fair value of the actual vested awards was amortized to expense.

In connection with the June 7, 2013 resignation of the Company'sCompany’s former Chief Commercial Officer, the Company modified the vesting of 100,000 shares of her previously unvested restricted stock units of whichwhereby 41,250 of the restricted stock units vested upon the execution of the separation agreement, 10,000 will vestvested in March 2014, and the remaining 48,750 will vest in twenty-fourtwenty‑four equal monthly installments beginning in April 2014, subject to her continuing compliance with the terms of the separation agreement. She forfeited all other unvested restricted stock units and stock option awards. It was determined that the continuing compliance and service to be provided to the Company under the separation agreement was not substantive and, as a result, the Company recorded the full value of the modified restricted stock units as additional stock-basedstock‑based compensation expense in the second quarter of 2013.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(6) STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Continued)

Determining Fair Value

Valuation and Recognition—The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricingBlack‑Scholes option‑pricing model based on the assumptions in the table below. The estimated fair value of employee stock options is recognized to expense using the straight-linestraight‑line method over the vesting period.

70


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

Expected Term—The Company uses the simplified calculation of expected life, described in the SEC'sSEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletins 107 and 110, as the Company does not currently have sufficient historical exercise data on which to base an estimate of expected life. Using this method, the expected term is determined using the average of the vesting period and the contractual life of the stock options granted.

Expected Volatility—Expected volatility is based on the Company'sCompany’s historical stock volatility data over the expected term of the awards.

        Risk-FreeRisk‑Free Interest Rate—The Company bases the risk-freerisk‑free interest rate used in the Black-ScholesBlack‑Scholes valuation model on the implied yield currently available on U.S. Treasury zero-couponzero‑coupon issues with an equivalent expected term.

Forfeitures—The Company records stock-basedstock‑based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest. A forfeiture rate is estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from initial estimates. The Company'sCompany’s forfeiture used in the twelve months ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was 4.99%,  4.99%, and 2.76%. The Company's forfeiture rate used in the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 was 1.38%., respectively.  

The fair value of service-based awards for each restricted stock and restricted stock unit award is determined on the date of grant using the closing stock price on that day. The fair value of market measure-based share-based compensation plans are calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation pricing model. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-ScholesBlack‑Scholes option pricing model based on the assumptions in the following table:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Ended

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

 

Option Plan Shares

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Risk-free interest rates

 

1.5%  - 1.92%

 

1.96%  - 2.01%

 

0.94% - 1.73%

 

Expected term (in years)

 

6.25  - 6.6

 

 6

 

6

 

Expected volatility

 

67.1%  - 73.2%

 

77.6%  - 80.8%

 

82.9% - 84%

 

Dividend yield

 

0%

 

0%

 

0 %

 

Weighted average fair value per share of options granted during the period

 

$15.81

 

$ 10.05

 

$ 8.12

 

ESPP Shares

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Risk-free interest rates

 

0.25%  - 0.75%

 

0.1%  - 0.5%

 

0.1%  -  0.33%

 

Expected term (in years)

 

0.5  - 2

 

0.5  - 2

 

0.5  -  2

 

Expected volatility

 

51.2%  - 110%

 

42.5%  - 62.7%

 

39.1%  -  45.6%

 

Dividend yield

 

0%

 

0%

 

0 %

 

Weighted average fair value per share of stock purchase rights granted during the period

 

$ 4.67

 

$ 6.3

 

$ 3.13

 

71

 
 December 31,
 
 2013 2012 2011

Option Plan Shares

      

Risk-free interest rates

 0.94% - 1.73% 0.81% - 1.00% 0.88% - 2.3%

Expected term (in years)

 6 6 6

Expected volatility

 82.9% - 84.0% 85% - 92% 92%

Dividend yield

 0% 0% 0%

Weighted average fair value per share of options granted during the period

 $8.12 $6.90 $4.78

ESPP Shares

 

 

 

 

 

 

Risk-free interest rates

 0.10% - 0.33% 0.18% - 0.30% 0.13% - 0.61%

Expected term (in years)

 0.5 - 2 0.5 - 2 0.5 - 2

Expected volatility

 39.1% - 45.6% 34.0% - 54.9% 48% - 63%

Dividend yield

 0% 0% 0%

Weighted average fair value per share of stock purchase rights granted during the period

 $3.13 $2.84 $2.83


Table of Contents


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(6) STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Continued)

Stock Option, Restricted Stock, and Restricted Stock Unit Activity

A summary of stock option activity under the Stock Plans during the years ended 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013 is as follows:

Options
 Shares Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
 Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term (Years)
 Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value(1)
 

(Aggregate intrinsic value in thousands)

             

Outstanding, January 1, 2011

  6,217,139 $1.93       

Granted

  814,424  6.26       

Exercised

  (325,477) 2.11       

Forfeited

  (252,502) 7.15       
            

Outstanding, December 31, 2011

  6,453,584 $2.27       

Granted

  499,198  9.18       

Exercised

  (691,471) 3.45       

Forfeited

  (79,375) 7.60       
            

Outstanding, December 31, 2012

  6,181,936 $2.62  6.6    
            
            

Granted

  290,570  11.36       

Exercised

  (274,919) 5.17       

Forfeited

  (135,000) 10.08       
            

Outstanding, December 31, 2013

  6,062,587 $2.78  5.9 $54,537 
          
          

Exercisable, December 31, 2013

  5,209,057 $1.79  5.5 $51,879 
          
          

Vested and expected to vest, December 31, 2013

  6,039,030 $2.79  5.9 $54,333 
          
          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

    

 

 

    

Weighted

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weighted

 

Average

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average

 

Remaining

 

Aggregate

 

 

 

 

 

Exercise

 

Contractual

 

Intrinsic

 

Options

 

Shares

 

Price

 

Term (Years)

 

Value(1)

 

(Aggregate intrinsic value in thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding, January 1, 2013

 

6,181,936

 

$

2.62

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted

 

290,570

 

 

11.36

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exercised

 

(274,919)

 

 

5.17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forfeited

 

(135,000)

 

 

10.08

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding, December 31, 2013

 

6,062,587

 

$

2.78

 

6.6

 

 

 

 

Granted

 

266,477

 

 

14.28

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exercised

 

(1,378,372)

 

 

1.91

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forfeited

 

(16,375)

 

 

6.37

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding, December 31, 2014

 

4,934,317

 

$

3.63

 

5.2

 

 

 

 

Granted

 

340,978

 

 

23.51

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exercised

 

(281,315)

 

 

4.44

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forfeited

 

(57,386)

 

 

16.99

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding, December 31, 2015

 

4,936,594

 

$

4.80

 

4.5

 

$

28,126

 

Exercisable, December 31, 2015

 

4,219,865

 

$

2.69

 

3.9

 

$

27,585

 

Vested and expected to vest, December 31, 2015

 

4,900,829

 

$

4.71

 

5.2

 

$

27,601

 


(1)
The aggregate intrinsic value of options outstanding at December 31, 2013 is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying options and the market price of the Company's common stock for the 6,012,587 options that had exercise prices that were lower than the $11.75 market price of our common stock at December 31, 2013. The aggregate intrinsic value of options exercisable at December 31, 2013 is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying options and the market price of the Company's common stock for the 5,209,057 options that had exercise prices that were lower than the $11.75 market price of our common stock at December 31, 2013. The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $1.9 million, $4.5 million, $1.9 million, respectively, determined as of the date of exercise.

(1)

The aggregate intrinsic value of options outstanding at December 31, 2015 is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying options and the market price of the Company’s common stock for the 4,936,594 options that had exercise prices that were lower than the $9.23 market price of our common stock at December 31, 2015. The aggregate intrinsic value of options exercisable at December 31, 2015 is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying options and the market price of the Company’s common stock for the 4,219,865 options that had exercise prices that were lower than the $9.23 market price of our common stock at December 31, 2015. The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $3.6 million, $29.2 million, $1.9 million, respectively, determined as of the date of exercise.

 

Warrants to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock were issued in connection with a consulting agreement in 2009. The warrants contain a performance condition and vest if2009 to provide specific assistance to the Company successfully receivesin attaining FDA approval of Cologuard. The 75,000 warrants vested in the third quarter of 2014 upon successful approval for Cologuard. The Company is uncertain ifrecorded $1.3 million, the performance condition will be attained, and therefore no expense has been recorded on this warrant as of December 31, 2013. The exercise pricefair value of the warrant is $0.01.on the vesting date as stock-based compensation expense during the third quarter of 2014 in connection with the vesting of this warrant.



72


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(6) STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Continued)

 

A summary of restricted stock and restricted stock unit activity under the Stock Plans during the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013 is as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 


 Restricted
Shares
 Weighted
Average Grant
Date Fair Value
 

    

 

    

Weighted

 

Outstanding, January 1, 2011

 263,630 $6.20 

 

Restricted

 

Average Grant

 

 

Shares

 

Date Fair Value

 

Outstanding, January 1, 2013

 

813,955

 

$

8.51

 

Granted

 335,716 6.06 

 

1,147,553

 

 

11.76

 

Released

 (192,856) 5.89 

 

(344,611)

 

 

8.56

 

Forfeited

 (5,000) 5.61 

 

(466,203)

 

 

9.73

 

     

Outstanding, December 31, 2011

 401,490 $6.24 

Outstanding, December 31, 2013

 

1,150,694

 

$

11.23

 

Granted

 602,268 9.47 

 

926,171

 

 

15.61

 

Released

 (185,116) 5.67 

 

(491,370)

 

 

11.17

 

Forfeited

 (4,687) 7.69 

 

(44,381)

 

 

12.44

 

     

Outstanding, December 31, 2012

 813,955 $8.51 
     
     

Outstanding, December 31, 2014

 

1,541,114

 

$

13.86

 

Granted

 1,147,553 11.76 

 

2,895,818

 

 

15.23

 

Released

 (344,611) 8.56 

 

(578,033)

 

 

13.77

 

Forfeited

 (466,203) 9.73 

 

(414,205)

 

 

20.84

 

     

Outstanding, December 31, 2013

 1,150,694 $11.23 
     
     

Outstanding, December 31, 2015

 

3,444,694

 

$

14.19

 

 

As of December 31, 2013,2015, there was approximately $13.5$41.1 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested share-basednon‑vested share‑based compensation arrangements granted under all equity compensation plans. Total unrecognized compensation cost will be adjusted for future changes in forfeitures. The Company expects to recognize that cost over a weighted average period of 2.62.8 years.

The Company received approximately $1.3$1.2 million, $2.4$2.6 million and $0.7$1.3 million from stock option exercises during the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 2011,2013, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, 2012176,785,  88,166 and 2011, 56,189, 63,611 and 51,85759,932 shares of common stock, respectively, were issued under the Company'sCompany’s 2010 Purchase Plan resulting in proceeds to the company of $1.7 million, $0.8 million and $0.5 million, $0.4 million and $0.3 million, respectively.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(6) STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Continued)

The following table summarizes information relating to currently outstanding and exercisable stock options as of December 31, 2013:2015:

 
 Outstanding Exercisable 
Exercise Price
 Number of
Options
 Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life (Years)
 Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
 Number of
Options
 Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
 

$— - $1.00

  3,765,000  5.2 $0.83  3,765,000 $0.83 

$1.01 - $2.00

  72,000  5.3  1.42  72,000  1.42 

$2.01 - $3.00

  697,000  5.5  2.83  697,000  2.83 

$3.01 - $4.00

  124,506  6.5  3.51  119,256  3.49 

$4.01 - $5.00

  256,814  6.5  4.17  190,064  4.17 

$5.01 - $7.00

  241,825  7.2  5.88  108,950  5.95 

$7.01 - $9.00

  181,424  7.5  8.22  122,126  8.30 

$9.01- $14.00

  724,018  8.6  9.96  134,661  9.33 
            

  6,062,587  5.9 $2.78  5,209,057 $1.79 
            
            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding

 

Exercisable

 

 

    

 

    

Weighted

    

 

 

    

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average

 

Weighted

 

 

 

Weighted

 

 

 

 

 

Remaining

 

Average

 

 

 

Average

 

 

 

Number of

 

Contractual

 

Exercise

 

Number of

 

Exercise

 

Exercise Price

 

Options

 

Life (Years)

 

Price

 

Options

 

Price

 

$0.00 - $3.00

 

3,186,500

 

3.3

 

$

1.10

 

3,186,500

 

$

1.10

 

$3.01 - $6.00

 

402,822

 

4.7

 

 

4.40

 

402,822

 

 

4.40

 

$6.01 - $9.00

 

146,991

 

5.5

 

 

7.89

 

146,991

 

 

7.89

 

$9.01 - $12.00

 

619,087

 

6.5

 

 

9.66

 

415,393

 

 

9.55

 

$12.01 - $15.00

 

233,000

 

8.2

 

 

13.96

 

58,250

 

 

13.96

 

$15.01 - $18.00

 

22,227

 

8.6

 

 

16.52

 

9,909

 

 

16.52

 

$18.01 - $24.00

 

313,359

 

9.2

 

 

23.38

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

$24.01-  $26.98

 

12,608

 

9.1

 

 

26.98

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 

4,936,594

 

4.5

 

$

4.80

 

4,219,865

 

$

2.69

 

 

During the first quarter of 2012,2013, the Company granted a total of 262,500180,750 restricted stock units to certain executives that vest based upon the satisfaction of certain 2013 performance conditions. Based on the conditions that were met 100,800 shares were earned. The shares vest equally over three years with the first vesting date at December 31, 2013.

73


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

The company recognized $0.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 related to this restricted stock unit grant.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company granted a total of 203,100 restricted stock units to certain executives that would have vested based upon the satisfaction of certain service and performance conditions. The Company performed an evaluation of internal and external factors, and determined the number of shares that were most likely to vest based on the probability of what performance conditions were met. The expense for the fair value of the awards that were expected to vest of $0.6$0.4 million was recognized during the year ended December 31, 2012.2015. The service and performance conditions were not met and the expense of $0.6$0.4 million was reversed in the firstfourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2013.2015.

        During the first quarter of 2013, the Company granted a total of 180,750 restricted stock units to certain executives that vest based upon the satisfaction of certain 2013 performance conditions. Based on the conditions that were met 100,800 shares were earned. The shares vest equally over three years with the first vesting date at December 31, 2013. The company recognized $0.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 related to this restricted stock unit grant.

Shares Reserved for Issuance

The Company has reserved shares of its authorized common stock for issuance pursuant to its employee stock purchase and stock option plans, including all outstanding stock option grants noted above at December 31, 2013,2015, as follows:

Shares reserved for issuance


2010 Option Plan

6,159,082
2,852,078

2010 Purchase Plan

363,392
128,343

6,522,474
2,980,421



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(7)

(8) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

The Company leases a  35,000 square foot laboratory and office facility in Madison, Wisconsin. This lease has been in effect since 2010 and expires in October 2016. The Company has one option to extend the term of the lease for five years. The lease is not subject to periodic rent escalation adjustments.

During November 2009,the second quarter of 2013, the Company entered into a five year lease for a 17,50028,994 square feet laboratory officefoot facility in Madison, Wisconsin.Wisconsin to house its commercial lab operations. This lease contains periodic rent escalation adjustments.adjustments and includes provisions for tenant improvements. During November 2010,August 2014, the Company entered into an amended lease agreement to lease an additional 7,0723,189 square feet of laboratory and office space for a total of 24,572 square feetoffice. The amended agreement covers the same term as the original term and is also subject to periodic rent escalation adjustments. During March 2012,November 2014, the Company entered into an amended lease agreement to lease an additional 10,428 square feetadjacent land for the construction of laboratory and office space for a total of 35,000 square feet.parking lot. The amended agreement covers the same term as the original term and is also subject to periodic rent escalation adjustments.

During the second quarter of 2013,May 2015, the Company entered into an amended lease agreement to lease an additional 7,853 square feet effective immediately, and another 5,810 square feet effective in June 2015. The lease now covers a five yeartotal of 50,000 square feet. The amended agreement extended the initial term of the lease for a 29,000 square foot facility in Madison, Wisconsin thatand is subject to house its commercial lab operations. This lease contains periodic rent escalation adjustments and includes provisionsadjustments. The Company has two options to extend the term of the lease for tenant improvements.five years. The Company has two options to extend the term of the lease for five years each.

As part of the lease agreement, the landlord has agreed to pay for a portion of leasehold improvements constructed. These payments are recorded as a lease incentive obligation and will be amortized over the five year term of the lease as a reduction of rent expense. As of December 31, 2013,2015 and 2014, the lease incentive obligation was $1.6 million and $2.7 million.million, respectively. Construction of the laboratory facility was substantially complete at December 31, 2013 and the leasehold improvements related to the laboratory waswere placed into service. The amortization of the lease incentive obligation began in December of 2013.

74


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

During April 2014, the Company entered into a one year lease for a 10,137 square foot facility in Madison, Wisconsin for administration purposes. The lease is subject to an annual rent escalation adjustment and includes an option for a one-year extension. During September 2014, the Company entered into an amended lease agreement to lease an additional 12,338 square feet of space for a total of 22,475 square feet. The amended agreement covers the same term as the original lease with an annual rent escalation adjustment and an option for a one-year extension. During November 2015, the Company entered into an amended lease agreement to lease an additional 11,238 square feet. The amended agreement extended the initial term of the lease and is subject to periodic rent escalation adjustments. The Company has two options to extend the lease.

During July 2015, the Company entered into a lease for a 21,000 square foot warehouse facility in Madison, Wisconsin. The lease commenced in October 2015 and is effective until May 2025 and includes an option for a five-year extension. The lease contains periodic rent escalation adjustments.

During November 2014, the Company entered into a two-year lease agreement for a 620 square foot office facility in London, United Kingdom that is to house European operations. This lease contains periodic rent escalation adjustments. 

Future minimum payments under operating leases as of December 31, 20132015 are as follows. Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

 

 

 

 

Year Ending December 31,

   

    

 

    

 

2014

 $1,124 

2015

 680 

2016

 684 

 

$

2,073

 

2017

 689 

 

 

1,664

 

2018

 577 

 

 

1,118

 

2019

 

 

548

 

2020

 

 

277

 

Thereafter

  

 

 

358

 

   

Total lease obligations

 $3,754 

 

$

6,038

 

   
   

Rent expense included in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations was approximately $0.7$1.5 million, $0.4$1.0 million, and $0.3$0.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 2011,2013, respectively.

        During the fourth quarter of 2009, the Company entered into a sublease agreement (the "2009 Sublease Agreement") with an unrelated party to sublease approximately 5,086 square feet of rentable area in the Company's Madison facility. The term of the 2009 Sublease Agreement, which commenced on November 1, 2009, was 36 months. The Company has received approximately $0.2 million in sublease payments over the life of the 2009 Sublease Agreement. Pursuant to the Sublease Agreement, the unrelated party has no rights to renew or extend the 2009 Sublease Agreement. The Company did not receive sublease payments in 2013. The Company received $66,800 and $78,500 in sublease payments in 2012 and 2011, respectively. The 2009 Sublease Agreement expired on November 1, 2012.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(7) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

License Agreements

The Company licenses, on a non-exclusivenon‑exclusive basis, certain technologies that are, or may be, incorporated into its technology under several license agreements. Generally, the license agreements require the Company to pay royalties based on net revenues received using the technologies, and may require minimum royalty amounts or maintenance fees.

MAYO

        On June 11, 2009, the Company entered into a patent licensing agreement with MAYO. Under the license agreement, MAYO granted the Company an exclusive, worldwide license within the field of stool or blood based cancer diagnostics and screening (excluding a specified proteomic target) with regard to certain MAYO patents and patent applications, as well as a non-exclusive, worldwide license within such field with regard to certain MAYO know-how. The licensed MAYO patents and patent applications contain both method and composition-of-matter claims that relate to sample processing, analytical testing and data analysis associated with nucleic screening for cancers and other diseases. The jurisdictions covered by these patents and patent applications include the U.S., Canada, the European Union and Japan. In addition to granting the Company a license to the covered MAYO intellectual property, MAYO agreed to make available personnel to provide the Company product development and research and development assistance.

        Under the license agreement, the Company assumed the obligation and expense of prosecuting and maintaining the licensed MAYO patents and is obligated to make commercially reasonable efforts to bring to market products using the licensed MAYO intellectual property. Pursuant to the license agreement, the Company granted MAYO two common stock purchase warrants with an exercise price of $1.90 per share covering 1,000,000 and 250,000 shares of common stock. The Company agreed to pay MAYO a low single digit royalty on the Company's net sales of products using the licensed MAYO intellectual property. The Company is also required to pay minimum annual royalty fees of $10,000 on June 12, 2012 and $25,000 on June 12, 2013 and each year thereafter through 2029. The MAYO license agreement required various other payments, including an upfront payment of $80,000, which the Company paid in the third quarter of 2009, and a milestone payment of $250,000 on the commencement of patient enrollment in FDA trials for the Company's Cologuard pre-cancer and cancer screening test, which the Company paid in June 2011. The Company will be required to pay MAYO $500,000 upon FDA approval of the Company's Cologuard test.

        In May 2012 the Company expanded its relationship with MAYO through an amendment to the license agreement. As part of the amendment, MAYO expanded the license to include all gastrointestinal cancers and diseases, and new cancer screening applications of stool- and blood-based testing. As consideration for the expanded license, the Company granted MAYO 97,466 shares of its common stock, one quarter of which vested immediately, with the remainder to vest in three equal annual installments. The Company sought rights to the MAYO intellectual property for the specific purpose of developing future non-invasive, stool-based DNA screening tests for gastrointestinal diseases other than colorectal cancer. In addition, the Company agreed to issue MAYO shares of the Company's common stock with a value of $200,000 upon commercial launch of the Company's second and third products that use the licensed MAYO intellectual property. Additionally, the Company agreed in the amendment to pay MAYO, for each of the Company's products that use licensed MAYO intellectual property, $200,000 cash upon such product reaching $5 million in cumulative net sales, $750,000 cash



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(7) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

upon such product reaching $20 million in cumulative net sales, and $2 million cash upon such product reaching $50 million in cumulative net sales.

See Note 4 for additional information related to the MAYO license agreement.

Hologic

On October 14, 2009, the Company entered into a technology license agreement with Hologic, Inc. ("Hologic"(“Hologic”). Under the license agreement, Hologic granted the Company an exclusive, worldwide license within the field of human stool based colorectal cancer and pre-cancerpre‑cancer detection or identification with regard to certain Hologic patents, patent applications and improvements, including Hologic'sHologic’s Invader detection chemistry (the "Covered“Covered Hologic IP"IP”). The licensed patents and patent applications contain both method and composition-of-mattercomposition‑of‑matter claims. The jurisdictions covered by these patents and patent applications include the U.S., Canada, the European Union, Australia and Japan. The license agreement also provided the Company with non-exclusive,non‑exclusive, worldwide licenses to the Covered Hologic IP within the field of clinical diagnostic purposes relating to colorectal cancer (including cancer diagnosis, treatment, monitoring or staging) and the field

75


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

of detection or identification of colorectal cancer and pre-cancerspre‑cancers through means other than human stool samples. In December 2012 the Company entered into an amendment to this license agreement with Hologic pursuant to which Hologic granted the Company a non-exclusivenon‑exclusive worldwide license to the Covered Hologic IP within the field of any disease or condition within, related to or affecting the gastrointestinal tract and/or appended mucosal surfaces.

The Company paidreceived FDA approval for its Cologuard test in August 2014, and was required to make a milestone payment of $100,000 to Hologic, $50,000 upon executing the license agreementwhich was expensed to research and development in 2009 and $100,000 when the Company began enrollment in its FDA trial in June 2011.August 2014. The Company is required to pay Hologic a low single digit royalty on the Company'sCompany’s net sales of products using the Covered Hologic IP, and to make a $100,000 milestone payment upon FDA approval of the Company's Cologuard test.IP.

        It is uncertain as to when the FDA will approve the Company's Cologuard test. Therefore, the $100,000 milestone payment has not been recorded as a liability. The Company evaluates the status of the FDA trial at each reporting date to determine if a liability should be recorded for the milestone payment.

MDx Health

On July 26, 2010, the Company entered into a technology license and royalty agreement with MDx Health (formerly Oncomethylome Sciences, S.A.). Under the license agreement, MDx Health granted the Company a royalty bearing exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents. Under the licensing agreement, the Company is obligated to make commercially reasonable efforts to bring products covered by the license agreement to market. The Company is required to pay MDx Health a minimum royalty fee of $100,000 on each anniversary of the agreement for the life of the contract. The Company also agreed to pay $100,000 upon the first commercial sale of a licensed product after the receipt of FDA approval and $150,000 after the Company has reached net sales of $10 million of a licensed product after receipt of FDA approval, $750,000 after the Company has reached cumulative net sales of  $50 million, and $1 million after the Company has reached net sales of $50 million in a single calendar year. The Company is also required to pay MDx Health a royalty fee based on a certain percentage of the Company'sCompany’s net sales of the licensed products.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(7) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

        The Company has recorded research and development expense associated with license agreements of $1.8 million, $1.4 million, and $0.8 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. Future minimum payments due under the Company's technology licenses as of December 31, 2013 are as follows. Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

Year ending December 31,

    

2014

 $596 

2015

  296 

2016

  256 

2017

  256 

2018

  256 

Thereafter

  2,031 
    

 $3,691 
    
    

Research collaborations

        The Company has also entered into several clinical research agreements, under which it is obligated to fund certain research activities for purposes of technology development. As of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company had no outstanding sample collection commitments. The Company has recorded research and development expense associated with clinical research agreements of approximately $1.7 million, $1.2 million, and $1.0 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. As of December 31, 2013, the Company did not have any remaining obligation under these agreements.

Capital Lease

In 2012 the Company entered into a lease agreement which is accounted for as a capital lease.lease and the final lease payment was made in September 2015. The leased equipment is recorded at $1.2 million and is included in the balance sheet as laboratory equipment at December 31, 2013.equipment. The cost of the leased equipment iswas depreciated over the three year lease term, and the expense iswas recorded as depreciation expense. Accumulated depreciation of theThe leased equipment was fully depreciated at December 31, 2013 was approximately $511.6 thousand.2015. The Company iswas required to make principal and interest payments of approximately $32,000 per month over the three year term of the lease agreement.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(7) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

 The future minimum lease payments required under the capital lease and the present value of the net minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2013 are as follows (in thousands):

Year Ending December 31,

    

2014

 $381 

2015

  369 
    

Total lease obligations

 $750 

Less imputed interest

  (39)

Present value of minimum lease payments

  711 
    

Less current maturities of capital lease obligations

  (351)
    

Long term capital lease obligations

 $360 
    
    

(8)(9) RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

In August 2013, the Company renewed a one year consulting agreement with a non-employeenon‑employee director for an additional year. In accordance with the agreement, the Company granted a restricted stock award for 4,277 shares of common stock that vests over one year, and will make cash payments totaling $60,000 over the one year term of the agreement. The Company recorded expense related to this consulting agreement of $25,000 in 2013.

        In August 2012, the Company entered into a one year consulting agreement with a non-employee director under which the director agreed

76


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to provide advisory services in support of the Company's commercialization activities. In accordance with the agreement, the Company granted a restricted stock award for 4,873 shares of common stock that vested over one year, and made cash payments totaling $60,000 over the initial one year term of the agreement. The Company recorded expense related to this consulting agreement of $35,000 in 2013 and $25,000 in 2012.Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(9)

(10) ACCRUED LIABILITIES

Accrued liabilities at December 31, 20132015 and 20122014 consisted of the following. Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

 

Compensation

 

$

8,460

 

$

5,668

 

Professional fees

 

 

7,502

 

 

5,764

 

Licenses

 

 

3,761

 

 

646

 

Research and trial related expenses

 

 

1,528

 

 

1,447

 

Other

 

 

646

 

 

122

 

Miscellaneous taxes

 

 

309

 

 

261

 

Occupancy costs

 

 

47

 

 

52

 

 

 

$

22,253

 

$

13,960

 

 
 December 31, 
 
 2013 2012 

Compensation

 $2,838 $1,985 

Professional fees

  826  351 

Research and trial related expenses

  801  576 

Assets under construction

  649   

Licenses

  539  373 

Other

  82  19 

Occupancy costs

  71  23 
      

 $5,806 $3,327 
      
      


EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(10)

(11) LONG TERM DEBT

Building Purchase Mortgage

During June 2015, the Company entered into a $5.1 million credit agreement with an unrelated third-party financial institution to finance the purchase of a facility located in Madison, WI. The credit agreement is collateralized by the acquired building.

 

Borrowings under the credit agreement bear interest at 4.15%. The Company made interest only payments on the outstanding principal balance for the period between July 12, 2015 and September 12, 2015.  Beginning on October 12, 2015 and continuing through the maturity date, May 12, 2019, the Company is required to make monthly principal and interest payments of $31,000. The final principal and interest payment due on June 12, 2019 is $4.4 million.

Additionally, the Company has recorded $73,000 in deferred financing costs which are being amortized through June 12, 2019. For the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company has recorded $10,000 in amortization of deferred financing costs.

The table below represents the future principal obligations as of December 31, 2015:

 

 

 

 

 

Year ending December 31,

    

 

    

 

2016

 

$

166

 

2017

 

 

174

 

2018

 

 

182

 

2019

 

 

4,496

 

2020

 

 

 —

 

Thereafter

 

 

 —

 

 

 

$

5,018

 

Wisconsin Department of Commerce Loan

During November 2009, the Company entered into a loan agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Commerce pursuant to which the Wisconsin Department of Commerce agreed to lend up to $1$1.0 million to the Company subject to the Company'sCompany’s satisfaction of certain conditions. The Company received the $1$1.0 million in December 2009. The terms

77


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

of the loan are such that portions of the loan become forgivable if the Company meets certain job creation requirements.requirements at a specified wage rate. After the Company creates 100 full time positions, the principal shall be reduced at the rate of $5,405 for each new position created thereafter during the measurement period. If the Company has created 185 new full-time positions as of June 30, 2015, the full amount of principal shall be forgiven. The loan bears an interest rate of 2%, which is subject to an increase to 4% if the Company does not meet certain job creation requirements. Both principal and interest payments under the loan agreement are deferred for five years. Based onThe loan’s terms also contain a milestone that if the Company's estimationCompany has created 185 new full-time positions as of June 30, 2015, the full amount of principal shall be forgiven. The Company met this job creation milestone and the $1.0 million benefit associated with the loan obligation,forgiveness has been recorded as an offset to the table below representsoperating expenses during the future principal obligations as ofyear ended December 31, 2013:2015.

Year ending December 31,

    

2014

 $ 

2015

  145 

2016

  217 

2017

  221 

2018

  225 

Thereafter

  192 
    

 $1,000 
    
    

(11)

(12) EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN

The Company maintains a qualified 401(k) retirement savings plan (the "401(k) Plan"“401(k) Plan”) covering all employees. Under the terms of the 401(k) Plan, participants may elect to defer a portion of their compensation into the 401(k) Plan, subject to certain limitations. Company matching contributions may be made at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

The Company'sCompany’s Board of Directors approved 401(k) Plan matching contributions for the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013 in the form of Company common stock equal to 100% up to 6% of the participant'sparticipant’s salary for that year. The Company recorded compensation expense of approximately $0.5$2.1 million, $0.4$0.8 million, and $0.3$0.5 million, respectively, in the statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 20112013 in connection with 401(k) Plan matching contributions.

(13) NEW MARKET TAX CREDIT

During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Company received approximately $2.4 million in net proceeds from financing agreements related to working capital and capital improvements at one of its Madison, Wisconsin facilities.  This financing arrangement was structured with an unrelated third-party financial institution (the “Investor”), an investment fund, and its majority owned community development entity in connection with the Company’s participation in transactions qualified under the federal New Markets Tax Credit (“NMTC”) program, pursuant to Section 45D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.  Through its participation in this program, the Company has secured low interest financing and the potential for future debt forgiveness related to the Madison, Wisconsin facility.  Upon closing of this transaction, the Company provided an aggregate of approximately $5.1 million to the Investor, in the form of a loan receivable, with a term of seven years, bearing an interest rate of 2.74% per annum.  This $5.1 million in proceeds plus $2.4 million of capital from the Investor was used to make an aggregate $7.5 million loan to a subsidiary of the Company.  This financing arrangement is not secured by any assets of the Company.  On December 1, 2021, the Company would receive a repayment of its approximately $5.1 million loan. The $5.1 million is eliminated in the consolidation of the financial statements. This transaction also includes a put/call feature that becomes enforceable at the end of the seven-year compliance period. The Investor may exercise its put option or the Company can exercise the call, both of which will serve to trigger forgiveness of the debt. The value attributable to the put/call is nominal. The $2.4 million was recorded in other long-term liabilities on the balance sheets. The benefit of this net $2.4 million contribution will be recognized as a decrease in expenses, included in cost of sales, as the Company amortizes the contribution liability over the seven-year compliance period as it is being earned through the Company’s on-going compliance with the conditions of the NMTC program. The Company has recorded $0.4 million as a decrease of expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015. At December 31, 2015, the remaining balance of $2.0 million is included in Other Long Term Liabilities. The Company incurred approximately $0.2 million of debt issuance costs related to the above transactions, which are being amortized over the life of the agreements.

(12)The Investor is subject to 100% recapture of the NMTC it receives for a period of seven years as provided in the Internal Revenue Code and applicable U.S. Treasury regulations.  The Company is required to be in compliance with various regulations and contractual provisions that apply to the NMTC arrangement.  Noncompliance with applicable

78


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

requirements could result in the Investor’s projected tax benefits not being realized and, therefore, require the Company to indemnify the Investor for any loss or recapture of NMTC related to the financing until such time as the recapture provisions have expired under the applicable statute of limitations.  The Company does not anticipate any credit recapture will be required in connection with this financing arrangement. 

The Investor and its majority owned community development entity are considered Variable Interest Entities (“VIEs”) and the Company is the primary beneficiary of the VIEs. This conclusion was reached based on the following:

·

The ongoing activities of the VIEs—collecting and remitting interest and fees and NMTC compliance—were all considered in the initial design and are not expected to significantly affect performance throughout the life of the VIE;

·

Contractual arrangements obligate the Company to comply with NMTC rules and regulations and provide various other guarantees to the Investor and community development entity;

·

The Investor lacks a material interest in the underling economics of the project; and

·

The Company is obligated to absorb losses of the VIEs.

Because the Company is the primary beneficiary of the VIEs, they have been included in the consolidated financial statements. There are no other assets, liabilities or transactions in these VIEs outside of the financing transactions executed as part of the NMTC arrangement.

Also in December 2014, in connection with the NMTC transaction, the Company entered into a land purchase option agreement with the owner of certain real property (land) adjacent to certain of the Company’s current Madison, Wisconsin facilities. The option is renewable annually in exchange for a fee. If the Company exercises its land purchase option, it will pay a fixed amount for the land.  That fixed amount approximates the then-current fair value of the land.  If the Company decides not to exercise its option, then on December 31, 2021 (which is after the seven year compliance period of the NMTC program) the Company must pay $1.2 million to the community development entity. As discussed below, the community development entity is a variable interest entity consolidated into the Company.  The community development entity would then distribute this money to its members.  The majority member of the community development entity is also the owner of the land subject to the land purchase option.  The Company has recorded the obligation and the land purchase option asset for $1.2 million to reflect the Company’s assessment that it is probable that at least $1.2 million will be paid in the future based on resolution of the land purchase option. The asset is included in Other Long-Term Assets and the liability is included in Other Long-Term Liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet.

(14) WISCONSIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDITS

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (“WEDC”) to earn $9.0 million in refundable tax credits if the Company expends $26.3 million in capital investments and establishes and maintains 758 full-time positions in the state of Wisconsin over a seven year period.  The tax credits earned should first be applied against the tax liability otherwise due and if there is no such liability present, the claim for tax credits will be reimbursed in cash to the Company.  The maximum amount of the refundable tax credit to be earned for each year is fixed, and the Company earns the credits by meeting certain capital investment and job creation thresholds over the seven year period. Should the Company earn and receive the job creation tax credits but not maintain those full-time positions through the end of the agreement, the Company may be required to pay those credits back to the WEDC. 

The Company will record the earned tax credits as job creation and capital investments occur. The amount of tax credits earned will be recorded as a liability and amortized as a reduction of operating expenses over the expected period of benefit. The tax credits earned from capital investment will be recognized as an offset to depreciation expense over the expected life of the acquired capital assets. The tax credits earned related to job creation will be recognized as an offset to operational expenses over the life of the agreement as the Company is required to maintain the minimum level of full-time positions through the seven year period.

79


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

As of December 31, 2015 the Company has earned $2.2 million of tax credits.  $1.1 million is reported in prepaid expenses and other current assets and $1.1 million is reported in other long-term assets, reflecting when collection of the refundable tax credits is expected to occur. 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company has amortized $0.2 million of the credits earned as a reduction of operating expenses.  As of December 31, 2015, the Company also has recorded a $0.4 million liability in other short-term liablities and a $1.6 million liability in other long-term liabilities, reflecting when the expected benefit of the tax credit amortization will reduce future operating expenses.

(15) INCOME TAXES

The Company is subject to taxation in the U.S. and various state jurisdictions. All of the Company'sCompany’s tax years are subject to examination by the U.S. and state tax authorities due to the carryforward of unutilized net operating losses.

 

Under financial accounting standards, deferred tax assets or liabilities are computed based on the differences between the financial statement and income tax bases of assets and liabilities using the enacted tax rates. Deferred income tax expense or benefit represents the change in the deferred tax assets or liabilities from period to period. At December 31, 2013,2015, the Company had federal net



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(12) INCOME TAXES (Continued)

operating loss and state net operating loss carryforwardcarryforwards of approximately $300.1$565.9 million and $115.4$208.9 million, respectively for financial reporting purposes, which may be used to offset future taxable income. The Company also had federal and state research tax credit carryforwards of $5.6$7.5 million and $18.7$16.0 million, respectively which may be used to offset future income tax liability. The federal and state carryforwards expire beginning 20132016 through 20322035 and are subject to review and possible adjustment by the Internal Revenue Service.Service and state tax jurisdictions. In the event of a change of ownership, the federal and state net operating loss and research and development tax credit carryforwards may be subject to annual limitations provided by the Internal Revenue Code and similar state provisions.

 

As of December 31, 20132015 and 2012,2014, the Company had $16.5$45.5 million and $14.2$39.8 million, respectively, in excess tax benefit stock option deductions. The excess tax benefit arising from these deductions is credited to additional paid in capital as the benefit is realized.

The components of the net deferred tax asset with the approximate income tax effect of each type of carryforward, credit and temporary differences are as follows. Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 December 31, 

 

December 31,

 


 2013 2012 

    

2015

    

2014

 

Deferred tax assets:

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating loss carryforwards

 $101,942 $88,532 

 

$

189,007

 

$

140,471

 

Tax credit carryforwards

 18,061 10,184 

 

 

17,947

 

 

16,915

 

Deferred revenue

 117 1,758 

 

 

 —

 

 

11

 

Other temporary differences

 4,429 3,445 

 

 

8,146

 

 

4,543

 

     

Tax assets before valuation allowance

 124,549 103,919 

 

 

215,100

 

 

161,940

 

Less—Valuation allowance

 (124,549) (103,919)

 

 

(215,100)

 

 

(161,940)

 

     

Net deferred taxes

 $ $ 

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

     
     

 

A valuation allowance to reduce the deferred tax assets is reported if, based on the weight of the evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The Company has incurred significant losses since its inception and due to the uncertainty of the amount and timing of future taxable income, management has determined that a $124.5valuation allowance of $215.1 million and $103.9$161.9 million valuation allowance at December 31, 20132015 and 20122014, respectively, is necessary to reduce the tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. The change in valuation allowance for the current year is $20.6 million.December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $53.2 million and $37.4 million, respectively. Due to the existence of

80


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

the valuation allowance, future changes in our unrecognized tax benefits will not impact the Company'sCompany’s effective tax rate.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(12) INCOME TAXES (Continued)

The effective tax rate differs from the statutory tax rate due to the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 December 31, 

 

December 31,

 


 2013 2012 2011 

    

2015

    

2014

    

2013

 

U.S. Federal statutory rate

 34.0% 34.0% 34.0%

 

35.0

%  

34.0

%  

34.0

%

State taxes

 4.8 1.7 5.6 

 

2.1

 

5.5

 

4.8

 

Research and development tax credit

 16.9 5.1 1.7 

Federal and state tax rate changes

 

(1.7)

 

 —

 

 —

 

Research and development tax credits

 

0.9

 

(1.1)

 

16.9

 

Stock-based compensation expense

 (1.1) (0.6) (2.4)

 

(0.6)

 

(0.5)

 

(1.1)

 

Other adjustments

 (0.3) (0.1) 0.1 

 

(0.9)

 

(0.8)

 

(0.3)

 

Valuation allowance

 (54.3) (40.1) (39.0)

 

(34.8)

 

(37.1)

 

(54.3)

 

       

Effective tax rate

 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

 

0.0

%  

0.0

%  

0.0

%

       
       

There are no unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31,2015, 2014 and 2013, 2012 and 2011, nor are there any tax positions where it is reasonably possible that the total amounts of unrecognized tax benefits will significantly increase or decrease within the 12 months following December 31, 2013.2015.

As of December 31, 2013,2015, due to the carryforward of unutilized net operating losses and research and development credits, the Company is subject to U.S. Federal and state income tax examinations for the tax years 1995 through 2013,2015, and to state income tax examinations for the tax years 1995 through 2013.2015. There were no interest or penalties related to income taxes that have been accrued or recognized as of and for the years ended December 31, 2013, 20122015, 2014 and 2011.2013.

(13)81


Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(16) QUARTERLY RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)

The following table sets forth unaudited quarterly statement of operations data for each of the eight quarters ended December 31, 2013.2015 and 2014. In the opinion of management, this information has been prepared on the same basis as the audited consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K,10‑K, and all necessary adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, have been included in the amounts stated below to present fairly the unaudited quarterly results of operations.



EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(13) QUARTERLY RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) (Continued)

The quarterly data should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and the notes to the consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K.10‑K.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarter Ended

 

 

    

March 31,

    

June 30,

    

September 30,

    

December 31,

 

 

 

(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

 

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory service revenue

 

$

4,266

 

$

8,119

 

$

12,632

 

$

14,420

 

Cost of revenue

 

 

4,212

 

 

5,094

 

 

7,528

 

 

7,667

 

Gross profit

 

 

54

 

 

3,025

 

 

5,104

 

 

6,753

 

Research and development

 

 

6,571

 

 

8,115

 

 

9,863

 

 

9,365

 

General and administrative

 

 

12,971

 

 

13,683

 

 

15,432

 

 

15,864

 

Sales and marketing

 

 

16,524

 

 

20,593

 

 

23,079

 

 

21,944

 

Loss from operations

 

 

(36,012)

 

 

(39,366)

 

 

(43,270)

 

 

(40,420)

 

Investment income

 

 

222

 

 

193

 

 

365

 

 

491

 

Interest income (expense)

 

 

(11)

 

 

107

 

 

(40)

 

 

(62)

 

Net loss

 

$

(35,801)

 

$

(39,066)

 

$

(42,945)

 

$

(39,991)

 

Net loss per share—basic and diluted

 

$

(0.40)

 

$

(0.44)

 

$

(0.45)

 

$

(0.41)

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding—basic and diluted

 

 

88,662

 

 

88,919

 

 

94,444

 

 

96,404

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory service revenue

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

$

1,504

 

License fee revenue

 

$

294

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

$

 —

 

Cost of revenue

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

924

 

 

3,401

 

Gross profit

 

 

294

 

 

 —

 

 

(924)

 

 

(1,897)

 

Research and development

 

 

7,430

 

 

7,174

 

 

9,073

 

 

4,992

 

General and administrative

 

 

4,586

 

 

6,230

 

 

8,994

 

 

10,625

 

Sales and marketing

 

 

4,456

 

 

6,166

 

 

13,217

 

 

15,069

 

Loss from operations

 

 

(16,178)

 

 

(19,570)

 

 

(32,208)

 

 

(32,583)

 

Investment income

 

 

86

 

 

146

 

 

160

 

 

150

 

Interest expense

 

 

(15)

 

 

(13)

 

 

(12)

 

 

(11)

 

Net loss

 

$

(16,107)

 

$

(19,437)

 

$

(32,060)

 

$

(32,444)

 

Net loss per share—basic and diluted

 

$

(0.23)

 

$

(0.24)

 

$

(0.39)

 

$

(0.38)

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding—basic and diluted

 

 

70,987

 

 

82,048

 

 

82,941

 

 

84,734

 

82

 
 Quarter Ended 
 
 March 31, June 30, September 30, December 31, 
 
 (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)
 

2013

             

Revenue

 $1,036 $1,036 $1,036 $1,036 

Cost of revenue

         
          

Gross profit

  1,036  1,036  1,036  1,036 

Research and development

  7,526  6,457  6,982  6,713 

General and administrative

  2,648  3,628  3,686  3,687 

Sales and marketing

  1,759  3,302  1,615  2,902 
          

Loss from operations

  (10,897) (12,351) (11,247) (12,266)

Investment income

  62  55  103  96 

Interest expense

  (19) (18) (16) (16)
          

Net loss

 $(10,854)$(12,314)$(11,160)$(12,186)
          
          

Net loss per share—basic and diluted

 $(0.17)$(0.19)$(0.16)$(0.17)
          
          

Weighted average common shares outstanding—basic and diluted

  63,836  64,699  70,559  70,757 
          
          

2012

             

Revenue

 $1,036 $1,036 $1,036 $1,036 

Cost of revenue

         
          

Gross profit

  1,036  1,036  1,036  1,036 

Research and development

  8,999  12,202  10,491  10,439 

General and administrative

  2,145  2,393  2,547  2,815 

Sales and marketing

  594  1,331  1,006  1,824 
          

Loss from operations

  (10,702) (14,890) (13,008) (14,042)

Investment income

  62  59  67  74 

Interest expense

  (5) (5) (11) (20)
          

Net loss

 $(10,645)$(14,836)$(12,952)$(13,988)
          
          

Net loss per share—basic and diluted

 $(0.19)$(0.26)$(0.21)$(0.22)
          
          

Weighted average common shares outstanding—basic and diluted

  56,718  57,037  60,531  63,582 
          
          


Table of Contents

Item 9.  Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

There have been no disagreements with accountants on accounting or financial disclosure matters.

Item 9A.  Controls and Procedures

As required by Rule 13a-15(b)13a‑15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"“Exchange Act”), our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, conducted an evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this report, of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rule 13a-15(e)13a‑15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Act. Based on that evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 20132015 to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported, within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms and that material information relating to the Company is accumulated and communicated to management, including our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

 There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by Rule 13a-15(d) under the Exchange Act during the quarter ended December 31, 2013,2015, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Management of the Company is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f)13a‑15(f) under the Exchange.Exchange Act. The Company'sCompany’s internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance to the Company'sCompany’s management and board of directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013.2015. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) inInternal Control—Integrated Framework.Framework (2013). Based on our assessment, we concluded that, as of December 31, 2013, the Company's2015,  our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria.

Our independent registered public accounting firm, BDO USA, LLP, has issued an audit report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013,2015, which is included herein.

Item 9B.  Other Information

        None.William J. Megan, our Senior Vice President, Finance, is expected to terminate his employment with us on February 29, 2016.  In connection with his termination, we expect to enter into a separation agreement and general release with Mr. Megan (the “Separation Agreement”). Under the Separation Agreement, Mr. Megan will receive (1) severance payments equal to 12 months of his current annual base salary and (2) continuation of group health benefits through no later than February 29, 2017. Further, pursuant to the agreement, 22,650 restricted stock units and 7,150 incentive stock options which were previously granted to Mr. Megan will vest upon the execution of the agreement. Mr. Megan is forfeiting all other equity awards.


83


Table of Contents

In partial consideration for the benefits provided under the Severance Agreement, Mr. Megan agreed to provide us, through August 30, 2016, consulting services in connection with any transition issues, business, needs, litigation, or investigation relating to our business.

PART II


PART III
I

Item 10.  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

The information required under this item is incorporated by reference to the following sections of our proxy statement for our 20142015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders: "Information“Information Concerning Directors and Nominees for Director," "Information” “Information Concerning Executive Officers," "Section” “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance," "Corporate” “Corporate Governance Principles and Board Matters," and "The“The Board of Directors and Its Committees."

Item 11.  Executive Compensation
Compensatio
n

The information required under this item is incorporated by reference to the following sections of our proxy statement for our 20142015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders: "Compensation“Compensation and Other Information Concerning Directors and Officers," "The” “The Board of Directors and Its Committees," and "Report“Report of The Compensation Committee."

Item 12.  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The information required under this item is incorporated by reference to the following sections of our proxy statement for our 20142015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders: "Equity“Equity Compensation Plan Information"Information” and "Securities“Securities Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management."

Item 13.  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

The information required under this item is incorporated by reference to the following sections of our proxy statement for our 20142015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders: "Certain“Certain Relationships and Related Transactions"Transactions” and "Corporate“Corporate Governance Principles and Board Matters."

Item 14.  Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The information required under this item is incorporated by reference to the following sections of our proxy statement for our 20142015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders: "Independent“Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm"Firm” and "Pre-Approval“Pre‑Approval Policies and Procedures."

PART I
PART IV
V

Item 15.  Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

(a)

(a)

The following documents are filed as part of this Form 10‑K:

(1)

Financial Statements (see “Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” at Item 8 and incorporated herein by reference).

(2)

Financial Statement Schedules (Schedules to the Financial Statements have been omitted because the information required to be set forth therein is not applicable or is shown in the accompanying Financial Statements or notes thereto).

(3)

Exhibits (The exhibits required to be filed as a part of this Report are listed in the Exhibit Index).

84


Table of this Form 10-K:

(1)
Financial Statements (see "Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" at Item 8 and incorporated herein by reference).

(2)
Financial Statement Schedules (Schedules to the Financial Statements have been omitted because the information required to be set forth therein is not applicable or is shown in the accompanying Financial Statements or notes thereto).

(3)
Exhibits (The exhibits required to be filed as a part of this Report are listed in the Exhibit Index).
Contents


SIGNATURES


SIGNATURES

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

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION


Date: February 28, 201424, 2016


By:


By:


/s/ KEVINKevin T. CONROY


Conroy

Kevin T. Conroy

President & Chief Executive Officer


POWER OF ATTORNEY AND SIGNATURES

We, the undersigned officers and directors of Exact Sciences Corporation, hereby severally constitute and appoint Kevin T. Conroy our true and lawful attorney, with full power to him to sign for us and in our names in the capacities indicated below, any amendments to this Annual Report on Form 10-K,10‑K, and generally to do all things in our names and on our behalf in such capacities to enable Exact Sciences Corporation to comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and all the requirements of the Securities Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Name
Title
Date





Name

Title

Date

/s/ KEVIN T. CONROY


Kevin T. Conroy

Kevin T. Conroy

President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

February 28, 2014

/s/ WILLIAM J. MEGAN

William J. Megan


Principal Financial Officer


February 28, 2014

/s/ JAMES CONNELLY

James Connelly


and Chairman of the Board



February 28, 201424, 2016


/s/ THOMAS D. CAREY


Maneesh K. Arora

Maneesh K. Arora

Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer and Director

February 24, 2016

/s/ John K. Bakewell

John K. Bakewell

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

February 24, 2016

/s/ Thomas D. Carey

Thomas D. Carey


Director


Director


February 28, 201424, 2016


/s/ SALLY W. CRAWFORD

Sally W. Crawford



Director


February 28, 2014

Name
Title
Date





/s/ DANIEL J. LEVANGIE


James E. Doyle

James E. Doyle

Director

February 24, 2016

/s/ John A. Fallon M.D

John A. Fallon

Director

February 24, 2016

./s/ Daniel J. Levangie

Daniel J. Levangie

Director

Director

February 28, 201424, 2016


/s/ KATHERINE NAPIER

Katherine Napier



Director


February 28, 2014


/s/ LIONEL STERLING


Lionel SterlingKatherine Napier

Katherine Napier


Director


Director


February 28, 201424, 2016


/s/ DAVID THOMPSON


Lionel Sterling

Lionel Sterling

Director

February 24, 2016

/s/ David Thompson

David Thompson


Lead Independent Director


Director

February 24, 2016



/s/ Michael S. Wyzga

Michael S. Wyzga

Director

February 28, 201424, 2016


85


Table of Contents

Exhibit Index to Annual Report on Form 10-K

10‑K

Exhibit Number

Description

3.1

Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant (previously filed as Exhibit 3.3 to ourthe Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1S‑ 1 (File No. 333-48812), which is333‑48812) and incorporated herein by reference)

3.2 

First Amendment to Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant (previously filed as Appendix A to the Definitive Proxy Statement for the Registrant’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders filed on June 20, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference)

3.3 
3.2

Second Amended and Restated By-Laws of the Registrant (previously filed as Exhibit 3.13.3 to ourthe Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, which isSeptember 30, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference)

3.4 
3.3

Certificate of Designations of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock of Exact Sciences Corporationthe Registrant (previously filed as Exhibit 3.1 to ourthe Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form 8-A filed on February 23, 2011 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

4.1 
4.1

Specimen certificate representing the Registrant'sRegistrant’s Common Stock (previously filed as Exhibit 4.1 to ourthe Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1S‑1 (File No. 333-48812), which is333‑48812) and incorporated herein by reference)

4.4 
4.3Warrant No. W-2 issued to MAYO Foundation for Medical and Educational Research dated June 11, 2009 (previously filed as Exhibit 4.2 to our Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference)
4.4

Rights Agreement, dated as of February 22, 2011, by and between Exact Sciences Corporationthe Registrant and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC (previously filed as Exhibit 4.1 to ourthe Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form 8-A8‑A filed on February 23, 2011 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.1*

10.1*

2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (previously filed as Exhibit 10.2 to ourthe Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K10‑K filed for the period ended December 31, 2008 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.2*

10.2*

2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement (previously filed as Exhibit 10.29 to ourthe Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K10‑K for the period ended December 31, 2007 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.3**

10.3**

Collaboration, License and Purchase Agreement between Genzyme Corporation and the Registrant, dated January 27, 2009 by and between the Registrant and Genzyme Corporation (previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to ourthe Registrant’s Report on Form 8-K8‑K filed on January 28, 2009 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.4*

10.4*

Employment Agreement dated March 18, 2009 by and between Kevin T. Conroy and the Registrant dated as of March 18, 2009 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to ourthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K8‑K filed on March 18, 2009 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.5*

10.5*

Employment Agreement dated March 18, 2009 by and between Maneesh Arora and the Registrant dated as of March 18, 2009 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.2 to ourthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K8‑K filed on March 18, 2009 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.6*+

Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2016 by and between John Bakewell and the Registrant

10.7*+

10.6*

Employment Agreement dated October 30, 2015 by and between Scott Coward and the Registrant

10.8*

Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2009 by and between Graham Lidgard and the Registrant dated as of August 1, 2009 (previously filed as Exhibit 10 to ourthe Registrant’s Current Report on Form 10-Q10‑Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.9**

10.7**License Agreement by and between MAYO Foundation for Medical and Educational Research and the Registrant, dated June 11, 2009 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference)


Exhibit NumberDescription
10.8**Technology License Agreement by and betweenamong Hologic, Inc., Third Wave Technologies, Inc., and the Registrant, dated as of October 14, 2009 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.39 to ourthe Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K10‑K filed for the period ended December 31, 2009 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.10 
10.9

Loan Agreement, dated November 10, 2009, by and  between the Wisconsin Department of Commerce and the Registrant (previously filed as Exhibit 10.1310.40 to ourthe Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K10‑K filed for the period ended December 31, 2009 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.11 
10.10

Lease Agreement, dated November 11,1, 2009, by and between University Research Park Incorporated and the Registrant (previously filed as Exhibit 10.1310.41 to ourthe Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K10‑K filed for the period ended December 31, 2009 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.12*

10.11*

The Registrant'sRegistrant’s 2010 Omnibus Long-TermLong‑Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective April 28, 2015 (previously filed as Appendix A to the Definitive Proxy Statement for the Company's 2010Registrant’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders filed on April 30, 2010)2015 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.13*

10.12*

The Registrant'sRegistrant’s 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (previously filed as Appendix B to the Definitive Proxy Statement for the Company'sRegistrant’s 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders filed on April 30, 2010)2010 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.14*

First Amendment to the Registrant’s 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (previously filed as Appendix A to the Definitive Proxy Statement for the Registrant’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders filed of June 20, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.15*

10.13*

2010 Omnibus Long-TermLong‑Term Incentive Plan Form Stock Option Award Agreement, as amended and restated effective April 28, 2015  (previously filed as Exhibit 4.54.7 to ourthe Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-8S‑8 (File No. 333-168909), which is333‑207703) and incorporated herein by reference)

10.16*

10.14*

2010 Omnibus Long-TermLong‑Term Incentive Plan Form Restricted Stock Award Agreement, as amended and restated effective April 28, 2015 (previously filed as Exhibit 4.6 to ourthe Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-8S‑8 (File No. 333-168909), which is333‑207703) and incorporated herein by reference)

86


Exhibit Number

Description

10.17*

10.15*

2010 Omnibus Long-TermLong‑Term Incentive Plan Form Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement, as amended and restated effective April 28, 2015  (previously filed as Exhibit 4.5  to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on  S‑8 (File No. 333‑207703) and incorporated herein by reference)

10.18*

2015 Inducement Award Plan (previously filed as Exhibit 4.8 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S‑8 (File No. 333‑207703) and incorporated herein by reference)

10.19*

2015 Inducement Award Plan Form Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (previously filed as Exhibit 10.35 our Annual Report4.9 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form 10-K filed for the period ended December 31, 2010, which isS‑8 (File No. 333‑207703) and incorporated herein by reference)

10.20*

10.16*Employment

Amended and Restated License Agreement by and between Laura Stoltenberg and the Registrant dated as of March 19, 2012and MAYO Foundation for Medical Education and Research (previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to ourthe Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, which is2015 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.21**

10.17

Amendment No. 4dated December 7, 2012 to the ResearchTechnology License Agreement dated June 12,October 14, 2009 between the Registrant and Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research dated May 15, 2012 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to our Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, which is incorporated herein by reference)

10.18*Consulting Agreement dated August 27, 2013 between the Registrant and James P. Connelly (previously filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013, which is incorporated herein by reference)
10.19**+Amendment to Technology License Agreement by and between Hologic, Inc., Third Wave Technologies, Inc., and the Registrant dated as of December 7, 2012 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.37 to ourthe Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K10‑K for the period ended December 31, 2013, which is2012 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.22*



Exhibit NumberDescription
10.20*Employment Letter Agreement by and between William J. Megan and the Registrant, dated as of August 7, 2013November 10, 2014 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.110.20 to ourthe Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-Q10-K filed for the period ended September 30, 2013, which isending December 31, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.23*

10.21*First Amendment to the Exact Sciences Corporation 2010 Omnibus Long-Term Incentive Plan (previously filed as Appendix A to the Proxy Statement for the Company's 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which is incorporated herein by reference)
10.22*Exact Sciences Corporation Non-employee

Non‑Employee Director Compensation Policy dated July 25, 2013 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.4 to our Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013, which is incorporated herein by reference)

10.23Separation Agreement and General Release between Laura S. Stoltenberg and Exact Sciences Corporation dated June 7, 2013 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to our Report on Form 8-K filed on June 7, 2013, which is incorporated herein by reference)
10.24Lease Agreement between The Alexander Company and Exact Sciences Laboratories, Inc. dated June 25, 2013April 28, 2015 (previously filed as Exhibit 10.2 to ourthe Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q10‑Q for the period ended June 30, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.24 

Lease Agreement dated June 25, 2013 by and between Tech Building I, LLC and Exact Sciences Laboratories, Inc. (previously filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 which isand incorporated herein by reference)

10.25**

10.25**+

License Agreement dated July 26, 2010 by and between MDx Health S.A. and the Registrant (previously filed as Exhibit 10.25 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.26**

Addendum dated as ofMay 6, 2011 to License Agreement dated July 26, 2010

10.26**+Addendum to License Agreement by and between MDx Health S.A. and the Registrant dated May 6, 2011(previously filed as Exhibit 10.26 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 and incorporated herein by reference) 

10.27 

Amendment One to Lease dated November 1, 2010 by and between University Research Park Incorporated and the Registrant(previously filed as Exhibit 10.27 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.28 
21

Lease Agreement dated April 16, 2014 by and between Ultratec, Inc. and the Registrant (previously filed as Exhibit 10.28 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference)

10.29 
+

First Amendment to Lease dated September 26, 2014 by and between Ultratec, Inc. and the Registrant  (previously filed as Exhibit 10.29 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference)

21+

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

23.1+

23.1+

Consent of BDO USA, LLP

24.1 
24.1

Power of Attorney (included on signature page)

31.1+

31.1+

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)13a‑14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)15d‑14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

31.2+

31.2+

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)13a‑14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)15d‑14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

32+

32+

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleySarbanes‑Oxley Act of 2002

101 

Interactive Data Files


*

Indicates a management contract or any compensatory plan, contract or arrangement.

**

Confidential Treatment requested for certain portions of this Agreement.

+

Filed herewith.


87