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

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

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

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

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

~~Indicate by check mark~~ whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and ~~“emerging~~"emerging growth ~~company”~~company" in Rule ~~12b2~~12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

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

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock as of ~~March 4, 2019~~February 7, 2020 was ~~11,970,042.~~12,076,777. The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, ~~2018,~~2019, was ~~$137,450,357.~~$86,980,239.

~~Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”) is filing this Amendment No. 1~~Annual Report on Form ~~10-K/A (“Amendment”) to amend its~~10-K

This Annual Report on Form 10-K ~~for~~and the ~~year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Form 10-K”), which was originally filed with~~documents incorporated by reference herein contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and ~~Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 8, 2019. The purpose~~Section 21E of this Amendment is to refile Exhibit 10.16(b), which was originally filed with the Form 10-K, in connection with the transition to the new requirements set forth in Item 601(b) of Regulation S-K permitting registrants to omit immaterial and competitively harmful confidential information from material contracts filed pursuant to Item 601(b)(10) without the need to submit a confidential treatment request to the SEC. The Company has also withdrawn its confidential treatment request for Exhibit 10.16(b).

This Amendment speaks as of the original filing date and does not reflect events occurring after the filing of the Form 10-K or modify or update disclosures that may be affected by subsequent events. No revisions are being made to the Company’s financial statements or any other disclosure contained in the Form 10-K.

~~This Amendment is an exhibit-only filing. Except for the changes to Exhibit 10.16(b), this Amendment does not otherwise update any exhibits as originally filed or previously amended.~~

~~In addition, as required by Rule 12b-15 under~~ the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K regarding our strategy, future results of operations, future financial condition, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans, intentions and objectives of management, as well as the assumptions that underlie these statements, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as predictions of future events as we cannot assure you that the events or circumstances reflected in these statements will be achieved or will occur. Forward-looking statements are identified by words such as “believes,” “expects,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “intends,” “plans,” “pro forma,” “estimates,” or “anticipates” or the negative of these words and phrases or other variations of these words and phrases or comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Such forward-looking statements are based on our management’s assumptions and assessments in light of information currently available to our management, its experience and its perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors our management believes to be appropriate.

You should read these statements carefully because they discuss future expectations, contain projections of future results of operations or financial condition, or state other “forward-looking” information. These statements relate to our plans, objectives, expectations, intentions and financial performance and the assumptions that underlie these statements. For example, forward-looking statements include any statements regarding:

Any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in or contemplated by such forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, the risks and uncertainties described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including those risks described in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” as well as others that we may consider immaterial or do not anticipate at this time. The risks and uncertainties described in this report, including in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” are not exclusive and further information concerning our company and our businesses, including factors that potentially could materially affect our operating results or financial condition, may emerge from time to time. All forward-looking statements are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. These statements, like all statements in this report, speak only as of their date, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise these statements considering future developments. We caution investors that our business and financial performance are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties and they should carefully consider the factors set forth in other reports or documents that we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business, and the markets for certain drugs, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, their projected growth rates and the incidence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on

estimates, forecasts, projections or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances reflected in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources. In some cases, we do not expressly refer to the sources from which this data is derived. In that regard, when we refer to one or more sources of this type of data in any paragraph, you should assume that other data of this type appearing in the same paragraph is derived from the same sources, unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise requires.

Unless the context requires otherwise, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K the terms “Catalyst,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Catalyst Biosciences, Inc., ~~new certifications~~together with our subsidiary, Catalyst Bio, Inc., which we refer to as “Catalyst Bio.” See “Item 1— Business— Business Organization.”

We are a fully integrated research and clinical development biopharmaceutical company with expertise in protease engineering, discovery and translational research, clinical development and manufacturing. We have a versatile protease engineering platform that feeds our research and development pipeline. Currently, we are focused on advancing and extending our Hemostasis and Complement product candidates. One of our key competitive advantages is that our systemically dosed product candidates, due to the improvements we have made using our protease engineering platform, can be delivered subcutaneously (“SQ”) which is less invasive, more convenient and more efficacious than intravenous (“IV”) drugs currently on the market. Our SQ product candidates demonstrate prolonged duration of activity enabling them to provide continuous therapeutic levels.

We are currently focusing on the clinical development of MarzAA for Hemophilia A and B and DalcA for Hemophilia B. MarzAA is ‘Phase 3 ready’ and DalcA is currently in Phase 2b. Both product candidates have received orphan drug designation in the U.S. and in the E.U. MarzAA for routine prophylaxis to prevent bleeding episodes in individuals with Hemophilia A and B with inhibitors and DalcA for routine prophylaxis to prevent bleeding episodes for Hemophilia B patients. We believe MarzAA may also provide significant on-demand and prophylaxis benefits for other therapeutic areas with high unmet medical needs, such as Factor VII Deficiency, Glanzmann Thrombasthenia, Acquired Hemophilia, and SQ treatment of bleeds in Hemophilia A patients.

We control worldwide development, manufacturing and commercialization rights of both MarzAA and DalcA, except for the commercialization rights of DalcA in South Korea. We estimate the global market opportunity for MarzAA and DalcA to be approximately $3.7 billion: $2.2 billion for the Factor VIIa market and $1.5 billion for the Factor IX market.

We have an early stage Factor IX gene therapy construct - CB 2679d-GT - for Hemophilia B. This gene therapy product candidate has demonstrated a 2-3-fold higher specific activity and a 4-5-fold reduction in bleeding time in a mouse preclinical Hemophilia B model compared with the Factor IX Padua variant currently being developed by others. Recently, we have shown that combination of a novel AAV gene therapy delivery vector expressing our CB 2679d-GT construct provides significantly enhanced expression and Factor IX activity in mouse hemophilia B model.

Using our protease engineering platform, we have also developed a novel anti-C3 protease for dry Age-related Macular Degeneration (“AMD”) - CB 2782-PEG. Dry AMD is estimated to have a $5 billion market opportunity with no approved drugs on the market. We entered into an exclusive worldwide license and collaboration agreement with Biogen International GmbH (Biogen) on December 18, 2019, for the development and commercialization of this product candidate. We received a $15.0 million upfront payment from Biogen in January 2020 and are eligible to receive up to $340 million in milestone payments, along with tiered royalties for worldwide net sales of this product candidate up to low double-digits. As a result of a collaboration, Mosaic Biosciences, Inc. is entitled to receive a double-digit percentage of funds we receive from Biogen.

Hemophilia is a rare and serious bleeding disorder that results from a genetic or an acquired deficiency of a factor required for normal blood coagulation. There are two major types of hemophilia: Hemophilia A and Hemophilia B, caused by abnormalities in coagulation Factor VIII or Factor IX, respectively. Deficiencies in these factors reduce the ability of the affected individuals to form clots and stop bleeding. The disease is X chromosome-linked, meaning that most people who inherit the disorder and suffer from bleeding are male; however, female carriers of mutations in Factor VIII or Factor IX can also have reduced coagulation factor levels and resultant bleeding. Hemophilia A occurs in approximately 1 in 5,000 male births, and Hemophilia B in approximately 1 in 20,000 male births.The estimated number of patients with hemophilia worldwide is 1.1 million, of whom 418,000 are estimated to have severe hemophilia. The prevalence of severe Hemophilia A and Hemophilia B in the United States is approximately 20,000 patients. Patients with hemophilia suffer from spontaneous and traumatic bleeding episodes that can become limb- or life-threatening. In cases of severe hemophilia, spontaneous bleeding into muscles or joints is frequent and often results in disabling irreversible joint damage. Currently there is no cure for hemophilia.

Standard of Care for Hemophilia Management and Opportunities for a New Paradigm with SQ Therapy

Current hemophilia treatment involves on-demand management of acute bleeding episodes or prophylactic treatment through factor replacement or bypass therapy. Replacement therapy involves frequent IV administration of the missing factors to prevent or stop bleeding. IV infusion is invasive, painful, time consuming and particularly challenging to administer to children. Often times, patients must seek assistance of a health professional for the IV infusion.

Another significant challenge in managing patients with hemophilia is the risk for development of inhibitors, which are neutralizing anti-drug-antibodies (“nAbs”) that reduce the efficacy of the factor replacement. This occurs in approximately 30% of Hemophilia A and 5-10% of Hemophilia B patients. Inhibitor patients must be treated with bypass agents to achieve coagulation in the absence of effective factor levels.

Currently, two types of IV bypass treatment exist: recombinant activated coagulation factor VII (rFVIIa: NovoSeven RT) and activated prothrombin complex concentrates (e.g., FEIBA). rFVIIa is the current leading bypass agent for on-demand treatment in inhibitor complicated hemophilia. rFVIIa has a strong safety profile and has proven effective in multiple rare bleeding disorders, including Hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, Severe Factor VII Deficiency, Glanzmann Thrombasthenia, and Acquired Hemophilia A. FEIBA is also administered for acute bleeding but its effect is reduced by the ~~Company’s principal executive officer~~need for frequent dosing and ~~principal financial officer are filed herewith~~the risk of anaphylaxis and renal side effects in Hemophilia B with inhibitor patients.

We believe SQ dosing is the future in hemophilia and other rare hematology indications. Our clinical studies have shown that MarzAA is nine-fold more potent than NovoSeven RT and that DalcA is 22-fold more potent than BeneFIX. The enhanced potency of MarzAA and DalcA allows for SQ dosing using a small volume, which we believe will provide for more effective, durable and convenient treatments of spontaneous bleeds with MarzAA and prophylactic protection with MarzAA and DalcA, especially for children and adults with difficult IV access. Recently, Hemlibra®, a bispecific antibody mimicking FVIIIa, was approved for SQ prophylaxis in Hemophilia A with or without inhibitors but it is ineffective in treatment of breakthrough bleeding.

Our most advanced product candidate - MarzAA, a potent, subcutaneously administered, next-generation Factor VIIa variant, is ‘Phase 3 ready’.

The development program began with a Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of MarzAA administered IV in patients with severe Hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors. In this study, we demonstrated that single IV administration of doses of MarzAA ranging from 0.5 µg/kg/day to 30 µg/kg/day was safe and well tolerated. Moreover, there was a dose dependent increase in MarzAA antigen and activity levels with normalization of coagulation parameters at the higher dose levels.

We completed our Phase 2 open-label SQ trial and met all our primary and secondary end points in 2019. The Phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of MarzAA in reducing total bleeding episodes in hemophilia patients with inhibitors. The primary endpoint was to assess the effect of MarzAA on the annualized bleed rate (ABR) at a subject’s final dose level, with each patient’s prior 6-month ABR serving as ~~exhibits 31.3~~his own control. The secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability and ~~31.4~~lack of anti-drug-antibody (“ADA”) and neutralizing antibody formation.

We reported in July 2019 that daily SQ administration of MarzAA for 50 days significantly reduced the 6-month pre-study mean ABR from 19.8 to 1.6 at the subjects’ final individual dose levels (p<0.01) at the International Society for Thrombosis & Hemostasis (“ISTH”) 2019 Congress in July 2019. Additionally, during the 6-month pre-treatment period patients were bleeding on average 12.3% of days also referred to as Proportion of Days with Bleeding (“PDB”). MarzAA treatment was able to successfully reduce this number to 0.8% (p<0.01) during the active treatment period. The median ABR and PDB were both reduced to zero during treatment, with seven of nine subjects experiencing no bleeds, either traumatic or spontaneous, at their final dose levels. Only 2 subjects required dose escalation due to spontaneous bleeding from 30 µg/kg/day to 60 µg/kg/day per protocol. SQ treatment with MarzAA was safe and well-tolerated. Six mild to moderate localized skin reactions were observed in 2 subjects, that resolved spontaneously without sequelae. Neither ADAs nor nAbs to MarzAA were detected after administration of a total of 517 SQ doses. Moreover, our pharmacokinetics data has shown that SQ dosing prolonged the half-life of MarzAA from 3.7 hours after IV administration to approximately 17 hours after SQ administration.

Interplay of On-demand Treatment of Bleed and Prophylaxis for Hemophilia Management

Our preclinical data has shown that SQ injections of MarzAA given one minute after injury to mirror on-demand therapy significantly reduced bleeding in a mouse model of Hemophilia A. In this setting, reduction of bleeding after SQ administration of MarzAA was as efficient as NovoSeven RT administered IV. Moreover, bleeding was reduced in a dose-dependent manner when MarzAA was given 15 minutes prior to the injury. These data suggest that MarzAA has the potential to be used on-demand for treatment of acute bleeding episodes and supports further clinical testing for on-demand treatment of bleeds in individuals with hemophilia or Factor VII deficiency.

Patients on prophylaxis with Hemlibra or other Factor replacement therapy may experience breakthrough bleeds— bleeding despite preventive treatment—or require additional treatments for certain procedures or surgery. Our preclinical data showed that MarzAA is expected to have a similar safety profile as NovoSeven when used in combination with Hemlibra. Specifically, as tested in vitro by the thrombin-generation assay with Hemophilia A plasma, both MarzAA and NovoSeven were equally effective at triggering blood coagulation at their respective clinically relevant concentrations without overshooting safe levels when combined with Hemlibra. Current therapies used with Hemlibra include FEIBA (a pro-coagulation complex) and NovoSeven. However, the concurrent administration of FEIBA with Hemlibra has been associated with thrombotic events (when a blood clot forms inside a blood vessel), requiring a boxed warning in the package insert. While NovoSeven is safe in patients on Hemlibra prophylaxis, it is administered through an IV infusion to treat a bleed. Ideally, add-on therapy for patients on SQ Hemlibra would be given subcutaneously. We believe MarzAA provides a potential SQ solution to this ~~Amendment pursuant~~problem and that MarzAA could be a SQ rescue therapy for hemophilia patients experiencing breakthrough bleeds while on prophylaxis with other agents such as Hemlibra.

We are currently conducting a SQ Phase 1 study to ~~Rule 13a-14(a)~~evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in patients with Hemophilia A or B with or without inhibitors at ascending dose levels. The purpose of the ~~Exchange~~trial is to determine if the timing of the peak levels achieved is sufficient to treat a breakthrough bleed with SQ dosing and determine if increasing dose levels increase blood levels in a dose proportional manner. This trial will enable final dose selection for a MarzAA Phase 3 study. We reported interim data from this trial at the 13th Annual Congress of the European Association of Haemophilia and Allied Disorders (EAHAD) on February 5, 2020 that showed SQ dosing of MarzAA reaches target levels that are consistent with the treatment of a bleed.

Our next most advanced product candidate is DalcA, a next-generation SQ Factor IX drug for the prophylactic treatment of individuals with Hemophilia B. DalcA is completing a Phase 2b study. We completed our Phase 1/2 SQ dosing trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of DalcA in patients with severe Hemophilia B in a collaboration with ISU Abxis. The objective was to demonstrate the feasibility of increasing Factor IX activity levels from approximately 1% (severe hemophilia) to greater than 12% (mild hemophilia corresponding to a reduced risk of spontaneous joint bleeds) with daily SQ injections. DalcA maintained protective Factor IX activity levels of 12-30%. Mild to moderate injection site reactions were reported and all resolved spontaneously without sequelae. Two subjects, who were cousins with the same rare Factor IX mutation, developed nAbs, one transiently. The nAbs were specific to DalcA (did not bind to wild-type Factor IX) and therefore did not interfere with the patients’ ability to resume use of their prior Factor IX therapy. Thus, the nAbs to DalcA are not referred to as inhibitors.

We completed a comprehensive investigation of the cause of the nAbs in 2018 and concluded that the immunogenic potential of DalcA was low and similar to that of commercial Factor IX products. Furthermore, the drug product quality of DalcA was shown to be comparable to commercial Factor IX products. Based on the results of the investigation, and discussions with clinicians and regulatory experts, we initiated an open-label Phase 2b study to evaluate the ability of DalcA to maintain steady state protective Factor IX levels above 12% in six individuals with severe hemophilia B. Each subject received a single intravenous dose, followed by daily SQ doses of DalcA for 28 days. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of daily SQ dosing and anti-drug antibody formation are being monitored. We reported interim data from this trial at The European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders (EAHAD) on February 7, 2020. Data from the trial showed that 28 days of daily SQ dosing of DalcA achieved protective target Factor IX levels of >12%, with steady state Factor IX levels of up to 27% after 14 days with no bleeds, demonstrating effective prophylaxis and the potential for lower or less frequent dosing. One subject withdrew on day 7. No anti-drug antibodies were detected and no serious adverse events were reported. Three subjects reported injection site reactions (“ISRs”), the majority of which were mild in severity and resolved without sequelae. We have completed enrollment for the Phase 2b study and expect to report final data in Q2 2020.

Our Factor IX gene therapy construct CB 2679d-GT has demonstrated a 2-fold to 3-fold higher activity resulting in improved clotting time in a preclinical Hemophilia B mouse model compared with the Padua variant of Factor IX. Fidanacogene elaparvovec (Pfizer/Spark), AMT-061 (uniQure) and FLT180A (Freeline) use the Padua variant as the transgene in their AAV-based gene therapy clinical programs. Fidanacogene elaparvovec, AMT-061 and FLT180A have demonstrated encouraging Factor IX levels in their respective Phase 1/2 and Phase 2/3 studies with median Factor IX activity levels of approximately 30-45%. By its increased activity, CB 2679d-GT has the potential to reach higher Factor IX activity levels at lower vector doses which could improve tolerability of the vector as well as efficacy of the transgene, and ultimately lower manufacturing costs. We have licensed AAV technology from The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) and are currently optimizing the vector under a sponsored research agreement with Stanford. Data presented at EAHAD show that the combination of our proprietary potency enhanced CB 2679d-GT Factor IX construct with a novel chimeric AAV capsid may reduce the vector dose required in gene therapy while maintaining high Factor IX levels. We expect the completion of our next generation vector and nonhuman primate efficacy study in Q2 2020.

We have engineered Factor Xa proteases that have demonstrated efficacy in preclinical bleeding models and have the potential to be used as a universal procoagulant. We have delayed initiating further work on our Factor Xa therapeutic program at this time to focus efforts on the MarzAA and DalcA clinical programs.

The complement system shares many similarities with the hemostatic system. They both function as cascades of enzymes. Whereas the hemostatic system is central to stopping bleeding, the complement system plays a central role in both innate and adaptive immune responses. The resultant process helps to attract certain immune system cells at the site of infection or inflammation, to eliminate pathogens, and to mediate various specific responses to foreign proteins through effects on the immune system. When the complement system is over-reactive, it can cause severe diseases. Thus, drugs that target the complement cascade could potentially be beneficial in a variety of indications, including but not limited to dry AMD, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), complement 3 glomerulopathy (C3G) as well as neurological disorders, such as myasthenia gravis. Common to these diseases are that they are relatively rare and severely debilitating or life-threatening, for which large unmet medical needs still exist. Many key targets, such as the complement proteins C3 and C5, within the complement cascade circulate in high concentrations such that it can be difficult or impractical to block their action using antibody-based or small molecule approaches. We believe that targeting complement proteins using engineered enzymes is an efficient way to overcome some of the challenges of inhibiting the complement cascade. In contrast to an antibody or small molecule where one therapeutic compound neutralizes one target, a single protease has the potential to neutralize thousands of target complement molecules. Preclinical support for using this design strategy to target the complement pathway was presented at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) in the spring of 2019 highlighting our preclinical anti-C3 candidate being developed for the treatment of geographic atrophy (GA) associated dry AMD. We continue to pursue the development of novel proteases that target the complement cascade and are leveraging our proprietary protease engineering platform in this therapeutic space.

Geographic atrophy is an advanced stage of dry AMD that results in the irreversible loss of retinal cells and can lead to blindness. Dry AMD affects approximately one million people in the United States and approximately over five million people worldwide. Complement factor 3 (C3) is the central regulator of the complement cascade. Apellis Pharmaceuticals’ APL-2 (C3 binding cyclic peptide) clinically validated C3 as a target for geographic atrophy in AMD after demonstrating statistically significant reduction in geographic atrophy associated dry AMD in a randomized Phase 2 study with monthly APL-2 intravitreal injections.

We have developed CB 2782-PEG, which is a potent, long acting anti-C3 protease that selectively degrades C3 into inactive fragments. Our preclinical data predict best-in-class human intravitreal dosing three or four times a year. As described below in the “Collaboration” section, we have entered into a license and collaboration with Biogen for the development and commercialization of CB 2782-PEG.

We have initiated discovery research to identify novel complement pathway regulating proteases.

We are building a portfolio of engineered proteases to enable the development of valuable therapies for individuals with rare diseases who need new or better treatment options. Our key objective is to get our novel treatments to patients rapidly and we are constantly exploring ways to quickly advance our programs which may include research and/or development collaborations. Key focus areas for us in the near and longer term include:

In 2009, we licensed MarzAA to Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Wyeth). Wyeth was subsequently acquired by Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) who terminated the license and collaboration agreement after completing an IV Phase 1 trial. Pursuant to the collaboration termination agreement, in exchange for the rights to certain Pfizer technology, we agreed to make payments to Pfizer in an aggregate amount equal to up to $17.5 million, payable upon the achievement of clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones. Following commercialization of any covered product, Pfizer would also receive a single-digit royalty on net product sales on a country-by-country basis for a predefined royalty term. In February 2018, we paid Pfizer a $1 million milestone payment based on the dosing of the first patient in the Phase 2 study.

We collaborated with ISU Abxis (“ISU”), in the early development of DalcA. Under the collaboration agreement, ISU conducted the Phase I clinical trial of DalcA and was responsible for all manufacturing activities for the Phase 1 clinical trial. Pursuant to the agreement, as amended in December 2018, ISU is entitled to a low single-digit royalty payment, on a country-by-country basis, for net product sales of DalcA by the Company or its affiliates in each country other than South Korea. ISU is also entitled up to $19.5 million in milestone payments, of which $2.5 million are regulatory and development milestone payments and up to $17 million in commercial milestone payments.

Under the original agreement with ISU, we received and recognized $2.65 million from ISU through 2018.

On December 18, 2019, we agreed to collaborate with Biogen to develop and commercialize CB 2782-PEG and our other anti-C3 proteases for potential treatment of dry AMD and other disorders. We will perform pre-clinical and manufacturing activities, and Biogen will be solely responsible for funding the pre-clinical and manufacturing activities and performing IND-enabling activities, worldwide clinical development, and commercialization. We received a $15.0 million upfront payment from Biogen in January 2020 and are eligible to receive up to $340 million in milestone payments, along with tiered royalties for worldwide net sales of this product candidate up to low double-digits.

We also collaborated with Mosaic Biosciences, Inc. (“Mosaic”) in the development of our complement product candidates, including CB 2782-PEG. Under the collaboration agreement, as amended in December 2019, Mosaic will perform all future services for a fee. Mosaic is entitled to a double-digit percentage of funds we receive from Biogen. Mosaic is also entitled to sublicense fees and/or research and development, commercial milestones and royalties on one non-anti-C3 complement product.

Our product candidates will face competition from approved therapeutics. Competition for our product candidate pipeline comes primarily from large, well-established pharmaceutical companies, who have greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, conducting clinical trials, and marketing approved products. Mergers and acquisitions within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may further concentrate competitors’ resources. We are not only competing with these companies in terms of technology, but also in recruiting and retaining qualified scientists and management personnel, in establishing partnerships with clinical trial sites, and in registering individuals into clinical trials.

In addition to current standard of care for individuals, clinical trials are being pursued by several parties in the field of biologics and in our lead indications. These products in development may provide efficacy, safety, convenience, and other benefits that are not provided by currently marketed therapies. As a result, they may provide significant competition for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Based on publicly available information, the following are some of the products currently on market or being developed by competitors in indications overlapping with those of our programs.

Takeda’s FEIBA is a plasma-based composition of coagulation factors indicated for intravenous on-demand and prophylactic use in the treatment of individuals with Hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. FEIBA has been on the market for more than 30 years.

Roche’s Hemlibra (emicizumab-kxwh), a bispecific Factor IXa-Factor X monoclonal antibody is indicated for routine SQ prophylaxis in adults and children with Hemophilia A with a Factor VIII inhibitor. Emicizumab received approval from the FDA in 2017. Emicizumab cannot treat episodic bleeding.

Dry AMD Competition: While there are no currently approved treatments for dry AMD that we believe would pose a long-term competitive risk, several companies are developing cyclic peptide, aptamer or antibody-based anti-complement product candidates for the treatment of dry AMD that are currently in clinical studies:

Our commercial opportunity in different indications could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and market products that are safer, more effective, more convenient to use, or less expensive to use than our products. Furthermore, if competitors gain FDA approval faster than we do, we may be unable to establish a strong market presence or to gain market share. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

We have established a broad intellectual property portfolio including patents and patent applications covering the identification, selection, optimization, and manufacture of human proteases, the composition of matter and methods of use of our product candidates and related technology, and other inventions that are important to our business.

We strive to protect the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business by seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or in conjunction with or in-licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary technology platform and know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in the field of human protease engineering

As more fully described below, as of December 31, 2019, our patent portfolio included approximately 177 patents; including 15 issued U.S. patents and 162 foreign granted and accepted patents, and 7 U.S. patent applications, plus an additional 35 pending foreign patent applications. We also rely on trade secrets and careful monitoring of our proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets.

In addition, a third-party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development of our products. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

There may be third party patents or patent applications with claims to compositions of matter, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. There is a patent family pending in the U.S. and Europe in which claims that may read on MarzAA have been filed. We, however, do not believe such claims are patentable. If they were to issue, we would take appropriate action to challenge their enforceability and/or validity.

We are aware of a patent family that includes issued patents in the United States, Australia, and Japan, and pending applications in Europe and Canada. The patents and pending applications may include claims that may read on a contemplated Factor Xa (“FXa”) clinical candidate. There is prior art that we believe discloses subject matter on which a challenge to the patentability of such claims can be based. In the event that development of the FXa candidate is pursued we would, if necessary, consider appropriate action to challenge such claims.

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific, and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties.

Because patent applications in the United States and certain other jurisdictions are maintained in secrecy for 18 months, and since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags actual discoveries, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or a foreign patent office to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such proceedings could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

All our patents and applications were internally developed and assigned to us, except for one granted South Korean patent that is co-owned. Members of the 4902 family, directed to screening methods (4 patents, including 2 of the issued U.S. patents) are jointly owned with the Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies, which licensed its interest to us. Our current patents and patent applications include:

The term for individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in that country or the international filing date. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The regulatory review period that occurs after the patent to be extended was issued is eligible to be counted for extension. The extension is calculated as one-half of the time of the testing phase added to time in the approval phase. The testing phase is the period between the effective date of an investigational product exemption (Investigational New Drug Application) and the initial submission of the marketing application (New Drug Application or Biologic License Application). The approval phase is the period between the submission and approval of the marketing application. Extensions can be reduced by any time that the applicant did act not with due diligence as determined by the FDA. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in the European Union and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

In the future, to the extent our product candidates including MarzAA, DalcA, Anti-C3 and systemic complement proteases receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors.

Our team has in-depth knowledge on biologics development, manufacturing and CMC regulatory requirements. We do not have any manufacturing facilities and we currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for clinical or commercial uses. We own or have rights to all intellectual property developed in such manufacturing development activities that are specifically related to our product candidates and have a royalty-free and perpetual license to use the intellectual property to the extent reasonably necessary to make our product candidates, including commercial manufacturing.

We have a long-term development and manufacturing services agreement with AGC Biologics, Inc. (“AGC”). AGC has global manufacturing sites and we use their facilities in the U.S. and Europe for drug substance manufacturing of MarzAA and DalcA. We have successfully manufactured MarzAA to support our Phase 2 clinical trial and received FDA agreement that we have demonstrated comparability between our current manufacturing and that previously produced by Pfizer. In the third quarter of 2019, we also successfully completed a GMP batch of MarzAA at a larger scale that will support our future pivotal studies and commercialization requirements. We started clinical scale manufacturing of DalcA in February 2019.

We have a long-term clinical supply services agreement with Catalent Indiana, LLC (“Catalent”). Catalent has facilities in the U.S. and Europe and conducts drug product development and manufacturing for MarzAA and DalcA. At the end of 2019 we have successfully completed development work for a variety of vial sizes which will support flexible dosing and will initiate large scale engineering batches in Q1 2020.

We also work with Symbiosis Pharmaceutical Services Limited on drug product manufacturing for MarzAA on a fee-for-services basis. Symbiosis has a facility in the United Kingdom.

We have yet to establish a sales, marketing, or product distribution infrastructure for our product candidates, which are still in clinical development. We expect to retain commercial rights for our product candidates in the United States except for our anti-C3 dry AMD program, for which we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Biogen to develop and commercialize CB 2782-PEG and other products or compounds that target complement Factor 3 globally. We have also granted ISU rights to commercialize DalcA in South Korea. We believe that it will be possible to access the United States hemophilia market through a focused, specialized sales force. We have not yet developed a commercial hemophilia strategy outside of the United States.

As a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our engineered human protease products will be regulated as biological products. Biological products, including engineered human proteases, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations. The FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their implementing regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biological products.

FDA approval must be obtained before clinical testing of a biological product begins and before the marketing of biological products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development, the approval process, or after product approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

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

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

The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with the manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after an IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical hold within that 30-day period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.

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

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

In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in instances where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible such as in rare or orphan diseases like hemophilia. In the case of hemophilia, almost all clinical trials are conducted as open-label single arm trials, in which both the researchers and participants know which treatment is being administered and there is no placebo or blinded portion of the trial because there are too few subjects available in these orphan populations to perform statistically powered placebo or active comparator trials. Endpoints for on-demand therapies are the number of treatments required to control bleeding episodes and for prophylaxis therapies are the calculated annualized bleeding rates. Bleeding rates during the trial are compared to historic bleeding rates for participating individuals. Patients are often studied for at least 50 treatment days to see if neutralizing anti-drug antibodies (inhibitors) develop.

Pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act, which was enacted on December 13, 2016, the manufacturer of an investigational drug for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access to such investigational drug. This requirement applies on the later of 60 calendar days after the date of enactment of the law or the initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial of the investigational drug.

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up.

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

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual product fee for biological products and an annual establishment fee on facilities used to manufacture prescription biological products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. No user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. MarzAA has been granted orphan drug designation for routine prophylaxis to prevent bleeding episodes in individuals with Hemophilia A and B with inhibitors and DalcA has received orphan designation for routine prophylaxis to prevent bleeding episodes for Hemophilia B patients.

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

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

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.

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

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

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

Fast Track Designation, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review, Orphan Drug Designation, and Breakthrough Therapy Programs

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

A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review to facilitate the review.

A product that is being studied for safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that it may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, for seven years. These circumstances are an inability to supply the drug in sufficient quantities or a situation in which a new formulation of the drug has shown superior safety or efficacy or a major contribution to patient care. This exclusivity, however, could also block the approval of our product for seven years if a competitor obtains earlier approval of the same drug for the same indication.

MarzAA has been granted orphan drug designation in the U.S. and the E.U. for routine prophylaxis to prevent bleeding episodes in individuals with Hemophilia A and B with inhibitors. DalcA has been granted orphan drug designation in the U.S. and the E.U. for routine prophylaxis to prevent bleeding episodes for Hemophilia B patients. We may seek orphan drug designation for MarzAA and DalcA for a different indication, or other product candidates, but the FDA may disagree with our analysis of the prevalence of the particular disease or condition or other criteria for designation and refuse to grant orphan status. We cannot guarantee that we will obtain orphan drug designation or approval for any product candidate, or that we will be able to secure orphan drug exclusivity if we do obtain approval.

A product may also be eligible for receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation. The Breakthrough Therapy designation is intended to expedite the FDA’s review of a potential new drug for serious or life-threatening diseases where “preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development.” The designation of a drug as a Breakthrough Therapy provides the same benefits as are available under the Fast Track program, as well as intensive FDA guidance on the product’s development program. Fast Track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and Breakthrough Therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but they may expedite the development or approval process.

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

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in-patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacturing and distribution of approved biological products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with GMPs and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain GMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, amended the PHS Act to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. A competitor seeking approval of a biosimilar must file an application to establish its molecule as highly similar to an approved innovator biologic, among other requirements. The BPCIA, however, bars the FDA from accepting biosimilar applications for four years after an innovator biological product receives initial marketing approval and from approving biosimilar applications for 12 years after an innovator biological product receives initial marketing approval. As innovative biological products, we believe that our products would receive this data protection if the FDA approves them for marketing.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity that may apply to biological products approved in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods, include the 4- and 12-year periods discussed. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

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

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and similar state laws, each as amended.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.

Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including ~~certifications pursuant~~items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below).

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to ~~Section 1350~~have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of ~~Chapter 63~~a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of ~~Title 18~~2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of, or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

To distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party

payors include federal and state healthcare programs, privately managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. This is also true of Medicare reimbursement, where different vendors process payments, so that coverage by one vendor does not assure that all other vendors will provide coverage. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In addition, the United States federal government position on matters related to drug pricing is evolving and uncertain, and any changes could have a material impact on drug pricing generally in the United States, including for our product candidates if approved.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom also requires consideration of cost-benefit analysis. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third- party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on healthcare pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern the use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on its business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect its future operations.

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States ~~Code (18 U.S.C. 1350)~~have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a clinical trial application must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the clinical trial application is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the EU, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

As of December 31, 2019, we had 34 full-time employees. Of the full-time employees, 21 employees are engaged in manufacturing and clinical development activities and 13 employees are engaged in finance, business development, facilities and general management. We have no ~~financial statements~~collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

We commenced operations in 2002 and are ~~being~~a Delaware corporation. On August 20, 2015, we merged with Targacept, Inc. Our corporate headquarters are in South San Francisco, California. We conduct our research and development activities and general and administrative functions primarily from our South San Francisco, California location.

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, are available for free at www.catalystbiosciences.com as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. They are also available for free on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. The information in or accessible through the SEC and our website are not incorporated into, and are not considered part of, this ~~Amendment.~~

~~(a)~~ The following ~~documents are included as part of~~section includes the ~~Company's~~most significant factors that may adversely affect our business and operations. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and all information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K before deciding to invest in our common stock. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects may be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and are expected to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company, and we have not yet generated significant revenues. We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception in August 2002, including net losses of $55.2 million and $30.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $258.5 million.

We are still in the early stages of development of our product candidates, and have no products approved for commercial sale. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through issuances of shares of common stock, from private placements of convertible preferred stock, and from payments under collaboration agreements.

We have devoted most of our financial resources to research and development, including our preclinical and clinical development activities. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years as we continue clinical development of MarzAA and DalcA and continue research and development of other product candidates. Our operating losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We are expected to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for at least the next several years, and our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

In addition, in connection with the license granted to us by Pfizer, we agreed to make contingent cash payments to Pfizer in an aggregate amount equal to up to $17.5 million, payable upon the achievement of clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones, the timing of which is uncertain. Following commercialization of any Factor VIIa products, Pfizer would also receive a single-digit royalty on net product sales on a country-by-country basis for a predefined royalty term. See “Item 1—Business—Collaborations” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In connection with the license agreement with ISU, the Company will also make up to an aggregate of $19.5 million in milestone payments to ISU, inclusive of $2.5 million in regulatory and development milestone payment and up to $17 million in commercial milestone payment, if the applicable milestones are met. See “Item 1—Business—Collaborations” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In connection with our collaboration with Mosaic Biosciences, Inc. regarding our anti-complement program, we have agreed to pay Mosaic a double-digit percentage of funds we receive from Biogen or other sublicensees, or certain milestone payments and royalties if we develop and commercialize products from the collaboration ourselves.

Further, in connection with the development and manufacturing agreement that we have with AGC, we have firm work orders with AGC to manufacture MarzAA and DalcA to support our clinical trials totaling $12.4 million and the payment obligations remaining at December 31, 2019 was $4.6 million. Furthermore, in connection with the clinical supply services agreement we have with Catalent, we have firm work orders with Catalent to manufacture DalcA to support its clinical trial totaling $0.5 million and the payment obligations remaining at December 31, 2019 was $0.4 million. See Item 1—Business—Manufacturing” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which regulatory approval is obtained. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain research and development efforts, diversify product offerings or even continue operations. A decline in the value of our common stock could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We may need additional capital. If we are unable to raise sufficient capital, we will be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate product development programs.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. We expect our research and development expenses to increase with our ongoing activities, particularly activities related to the continued clinical development of MarzAA and DalcA, including clinical efficacy trials for each compound. We believe that our available cash will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months from the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. However, we may need to raise substantial additional capital to complete the development and commercialization of MarzAA, DalcA, or other product candidates, and depending on the availability of capital, may need to delay development of some of our product candidates.

Until we can generate a sufficient revenue from our product candidates, if ever, we expect to finance future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, corporate collaborations and/or licensing arrangements. Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable, or at all. If adequate funds are not available, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our research or development programs.

Because successful development of our product candidates is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds required to complete research and development and commercialize our products under development. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

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

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these new securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of common stockholders.

Debt financing, if available at all, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, product candidates or future revenue streams or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. We may also seek to access the public or private capital markets whenever conditions are favorable, even if we do not have an immediate need for additional capital at that time. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain additional funding if, and when necessary. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis, we could be required to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more, or all, of our development programs or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

In January 2018, we filed a shelf registration statement with the SEC, which registration statement was declared effective on February 6, 2018 and which allowed us to offer up to $150 million of securities from time to time in one or more offerings (the “January 2018 Registration Statement”). In February 2018, we sold an aggregate of 3,382,352 registered shares of common stock at a price of $34.00 per share, for net proceeds, after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses, of approximately $106.8 million. Pursuant to the January 2018 Registration Statement, we may sell up to approximately $35 million in additional securities in one or more offerings. In addition, in December 2018, we filed a shelf registration statement with the SEC, which registration statement was declared effective on February 14, 2019 and which allowed us to offer up to $200 million of securities from time to time in one or more offerings (the “December 2018 Registration Statement”). In February 2020, we sold an aggregate of 5,307,692 registered shares of common stock at $6.50 per share, for net proceeds, after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses, of approximately $32.0 million. Pursuant to the December 2018 Registration Statement, we may sell up to approximately $165 million in additional securities in one or more offerings.

Any additional sales in the public market of our common stock or other securities under these shelf registration statements could adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock.

We have no history of clinical development or commercialization of pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the Company’s prospects.

We began operations in August 2002. Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing the Company, developing our technology and product candidates, establishing collaborations and conducting Phase 2 clinical trials on small numbers of patients. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully conduct a Phase 3 clinical trial, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a product at commercial scale repeatedly, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, predictions about the Company’s future product development timelines, clinical trial plans, expenses, success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

Risks related to the discovery, development and commercialization of our product candidates

The failure of MarzAA or DalcA to achieve successful clinical trial endpoints, delays in clinical development, unanticipated adverse side effects, the cessation of clinical development or any other adverse developments or information related to MarzAA or DalcA would significantly harm our business, its prospects and the value of the Company’s common stock. MarzAA has completed a Phase 2 open-label SQ trial in eleven patients and we are currently completing a Phase 2b open-label trial of DalcA in six patients. We reported interim data from this trial at EAHAD on February 7, 2020. Data from the trial showed that 28 days of daily SQ dosing of DalcA achieved protective target Factor IX levels of >12%, with steady state Factor IX levels of up to 27% after 14 days with no bleeds, demonstrating effective prophylaxis and the potential for lower or less frequent dosing. One subject withdrew on day 7. No anti-drug antibodies were detected and no serious adverse events were reported. Three subjects reported injection site reactions (“ISRs”), the majority of which were mild in severity and resolved without sequelae. We have completed enrollment for the Phase 2b study and expect to report final data in Q2 2020.There is no guarantee that the results of further clinical trials of MarzAA or DalcA will be positive or will not generate unanticipated safety concerns. If neutralizing antibodies or other adverse events in patients receiving either MarzAA or DalcA lead to concerns about patient safety, the long-term efficacy, or commercial viability of either product candidate, development of such product candidate could be halted. Each product candidate requires substantial additional trials and other testing before being approved for marketing.

MarzAA and DalcA are not expected to be commercially available in the near term, if at all. Further, the commercial success of each product candidate will depend upon its acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and other key decision-makers as a therapeutic and cost-effective alternative to currently available products. If we are unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize MarzAA and DalcA, our ability to generate revenue from product sales will be significantly delayed and our business will be materially and adversely affected, and we may not be able to earn sufficient revenues to continue as a going concern.

Even if the FDA or other regulatory agency approves MarzAA or DalcA, the approval may impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses, conditions for use, labeling, advertising, promotion, marketing and/or production of such product and may impose ongoing commitments or requirements for post-approval studies, including additional research and development and clinical trials. The FDA and other agencies also may impose various civil or criminal sanctions for failure to comply with regulatory requirements, including withdrawal of product approval. Regulatory approval from authorities in foreign countries will be needed to market MarzAA or DalcA in those countries. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. If we fail to obtain approvals from foreign jurisdictions, the geographic market for MarzAA or DalcA would be limited.

DalcA has caused and MarzAA may cause the generation of neutralizing antibodies, which could prevent their further development.

Both MarzAA and DalcA are protein molecules which may cause the generation of antibodies in individuals who receive them. The Phase 1 clinical trial of MarzAA was a single-dose intravenous escalation trial that would not, compared with multi-dose trials or higher doses administered subcutaneously, be expected to exclude the possibility of an immunological response to MarzAA in individuals who received the product candidate. While no antibodies to MarzAA have been observed in a multi-dose subcutaneous Phase 2 trial, there can be no assurance such antibodies will not be observed in the future. Two patients who received DalcA subcutaneously following intravenous dosing developed neutralizing antibodies that inhibit the activity of DalcA. There can be no assurance that such antibodies will not be observed in the future, either in the patients who have already received DalcA or MarzAA, or in new patients. If clinical trials demonstrate a treatment-related neutralizing immunological response in individuals that causes safety concerns or would limit the efficacy of either product candidate, development of the product candidate could be halted.

MarzAA and DalcA are in early clinical trials, and all of our other product candidates are still in preclinical development. The regulatory path for MarzAA and DalcA is uncertain. If we are unable to obtain regulatory clearance and commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

MarzAA has completed a Phase 2 clinical trial and DalcA is completing a Phase 2 clinical trial. All our other product candidates are still in preclinical development. Engineered protease biopharmaceuticals are a relatively new class of therapeutics. There can be no assurance as to the length of the trial period, the number of individuals the FDA or EMA will require to be enrolled in the trials to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of the engineered protease products, or that the data generated in these trials will be acceptable to the FDA, EMA or other foreign regulatory agencies to support marketing approval. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. Results from our successful Phase 1 or Phase 2 trials may not be confirmed in later trials, and if serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development of some of our product candidates.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any preclinical studies and clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. The clinical development of our product candidates is susceptible to the risk of failure at any stage of drug development, including failure to demonstrate efficacy in a clinical trial or across a suitable population of patients, the occurrence of severe or medically or commercially unacceptable adverse events, failure to comply with protocols or applicable regulatory requirements and determination by the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority that a drug product is not approvable. It is possible that even if one or more of our product candidates has a beneficial effect, that effect will not be detected during clinical evaluation as a result of one or more of a variety of factors, including the size, duration, design, measurements, conduct or analysis of our clinical trials. Conversely, as a result of the same factors, our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any. Similarly, in our clinical trials we may fail to detect toxicity of or intolerability caused by our product candidates, or mistakenly believe that our product candidates are toxic or not well tolerated when that is not in fact the case.

In addition, the outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials. Our Phase 2 trial of MarzAA was conducted in eleven patients, and DalcA has been dosed repeatedly in a subcutaneous prophylaxis trial in only six patients. Trials of these product candidates in larger numbers of patients may not have similar efficacy results and could result in adverse effects that were not observed in the earlier trials with smaller numbers of patients.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we may face similar setbacks. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether our results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for the product candidates. Even if we believe that the results of clinical trials for our product candidates warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Any Phase 2, Phase 3 or other clinical trials that we may conduct may not demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates.

If our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon development or limit development of the product candidate to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Any such limitations could adversely affect the value of our product candidates or common stock.

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

We or our collaborators may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate, enroll and maintain enrollment of a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. In particular, there is a relatively small number of individuals with hemophilia, that may cause delays in enrollment of clinical trials of MarzAA in individuals with hemophilia A and B with an inhibitor or DalcA in individuals with hemophilia B. In addition, some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates.

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials will result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in clinical trials conducted by us may also result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of the Company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

Our collaboration with Biogen may not result in successful product development or payments to us.

We have entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Biogen to develop and commercialize CB 2782-PEG and our other anti-C3 proteases for potential treatment of dry AMD and other disorders. We will perform pre-clinical and manufacturing activities, and Biogen will be solely responsible for funding the pre-clinical and manufacturing activities and performing IND-enabling activities, worldwide clinical development, and commercialization. Future revenues from this collaboration depend upon the achievement of milestones and payment of royalties based on product sales after successful product development and regulatory approval. Biogen can terminate this agreement on 60 days’ prior written notice. If Biogen terminates the agreement, our reputation in the business and scientific community may suffer and we will not receive payments from them after termination. If milestones are not achieved or Biogen is unable to successfully develop and commercialize products from which milestones and royalties are payable, we will not earn the revenues contemplated by the collaboration.

We have limited or no control over the resources that Biogen may devote to the development and commercialization of products under our agreement. Biogen may not perform its obligations as expected or may breach or terminate the agreement with us or otherwise fail to conduct research, development or commercialization activities successfully or in a timely manner. Further, Biogen may elect not to develop pharmaceutical products arising out of our collaborative arrangement or may not devote sufficient resources to the development, regulatory approval, manufacture, marketing or sale of these products. If any of these events occurs, we may not receive collaboration revenue or otherwise realize anticipated benefits from such collaborations, our product development efforts may be delayed and our business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

We expect to seek to establish additional collaborations, and, if we are not able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. We have previously relied on collaborators, such as Pfizer and ISU, to contribute to the development of our product candidates, and we are currently working with Biogen and Mosaic to support the development of our dry AMD product candidates. We may seek one or more additional collaborators for the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. For example, we may seek a new collaborator to develop MarzAA and might also seek collaborators for DalcA or our earlier stage programs. In addition, full development efforts on the use of our novel proteases for the treatment of other complement mediated diseases will likely involve significant cost, and we do not expect to conduct any such efforts except in collaboration with one or more partners who are willing to pay for such costs.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we can reach a definitive agreement with a collaborator will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of preclinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities and the regulatory pathway for any such approval, the potential market for the product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering the product to patients and the potential of competing products. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available for collaboration and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us. There can also be no assurance that any collaboration agreements will be on favorable terms.

Collaborations are complex and time consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay our development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay our potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, and increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical testing and expect to continue to do so for clinical testing and commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We currently have no internal capabilities to manufacture our product candidates for clinical use or for preclinical trials following good manufacturing practices, or GMP, or good laboratory practices, or GLP. We expect to rely on one or more third-party contractors to manufacture, package, label and distribute clinical supplies and commercial quantities of any product candidate that we commercialize following approval for marketing by applicable regulatory authorities. We also expect to rely on one or more third-party contractors to manufacture our product candidates for use in our clinical trials. Reliance on such third-party contractors entails risks, including:

We may incur delays in product development resulting from the need to identify or qualify manufacturers for our product candidates. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

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

All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical studies or commercial sale, including any contract manufacturers for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with GMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a biologics license application (“BLA”) on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s good laboratory practices, or GLP, and GMP regulations enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection or do not have a GMP compliance status acceptable for the FDA, FDA approval of the products will not be granted.

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

If we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new drug product or biologic product, or revocation of a pre-existing approval. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.

Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply. An alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through a BLA supplement which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

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

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

We expect to rely on third parties such as contract research organizations, or CROs, medical institutions and clinical investigators to enroll qualified patients and conduct, supervise and monitor clinical trials. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities will reduce our control over these activities. Our reliance on these third parties, however, will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities, including ensuring that our clinical studies are conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCP, and the investigational plan and protocols contained in the relevant regulatory application, such as an investigational new drug application, or IND. In addition, the CROs with whom we contract may not complete activities on schedule or may not conduct our preclinical studies or clinical studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical study design. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, our efforts to obtain regulatory approvals for, and to commercialize, our product candidates may be delayed or prevented.

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

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our executive management and scientific personnel. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. In addition, we will need to add personnel to achieve our business objectives. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and our inability to find suitable replacements, or our inability to hire new clinical development and manufacturing personnel, could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

We conduct operations at our facility in the San Francisco Bay Area. This region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all.

To induce valuable employees to remain at Catalyst, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in the Company’s stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of management and scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with the Company on short notice. Our employees are under at-will employment arrangements, which means that any of our employees can leave employment with Catalyst at any time, with or without notice. Failure to retain, replace or recruit personnel could harm our business.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants and collaborators. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and non-US regulators, to provide accurate information to the FDA and non-US regulators, to comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, to report financial information or

data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained during clinical studies that could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

We will continue to incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives.

As a public company, we have and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, including costs associated with public company reporting and corporate governance requirements, in order to comply with the rules and regulations imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection, or the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq. Stockholder activism, the political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways that are not currently anticipated. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. In addition, these rules and regulations make it difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain our current levels of such coverage. We expect that we will annually incur significant expenses to comply with the requirements imposed on us as a public company.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, as a public company, we are required to perform system and process evaluations and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management and our independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our independent registered public accounting firm is required to deliver an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over reporting. In addition, our testing, or the subsequent testing in the future by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that may be deemed to be material weaknesses. Our compliance with Section 404 will require that we incur substantial accounting expense and management time on compliance-related issues. Moreover, if we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, or if we or our independent registered public accounting firm identify deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could cause our stock price to decline.

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

Our offices are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is prone to earthquakes. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented U.S. from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us. to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans that, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we are unable to obtain, protect or enforce intellectual property rights related to our product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. Third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of our patents, which may result in those patents being narrowed or invalidated. The patent applications that we own may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. Certain of our patents also cover processes, for which enforcement can be difficult. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties that may have an adverse impact on our business.

If the patents or patent applications we hold or have in-licensed for our programs or product candidates are invalidated or fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our product candidates, it could threaten our ability to commercialize future products. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic medications.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent and other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

Although we expect all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed or that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information.

Further, filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, and there is no guarantee that we will have any such enforceable trade secret protection, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement or challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

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

Third parties may assert that the manufacture, use or sale of our product candidates infringes patents held by such third parties, or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to compositions of matter, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. There is a patent family pending in the U.S. and Europe in which claims that may read on MarzAA have been filed. We, however, do not believe such claims are patentable. If they were to issue, we would take appropriate action to challenge their enforceability and/or validity.

We are aware of a patent family that includes issued patents in the United States, Australia, and Japan, and pending applications in Europe and Canada. The patents and pending applications may include claims that may read on a contemplated FXa clinical candidate. There is prior art that we believe discloses subject matter on which a challenge to the patentability of such claims can be based. In the event that development of the FXa candidate is pursued we would, if necessary, consider appropriate action to challenge such claims.

In addition, we have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties, and we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief that could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates unless we redesigned infringing products (which may be impossible) or obtained a license under the applicable patents (which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all), or until such patents expire.

Competitors may infringe our patents. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we or our collaborators may be required to file infringement claims that can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one of our patents is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

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

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

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

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, regardless of their merit, would cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, in addition to paying royalties, redesign infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

We may need to license certain intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

A third-party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights, that is important or necessary to the development of our products. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

Risks related to regulatory approval of our product candidates and other legal compliance matters

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

While we have multiple drug candidates in clinical and advanced preclinical development for a range of diseases, we have not yet submitted BLAs for our engineered human proteases to the FDA, or similar approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. Submission of a BLA requires extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information that demonstrates the product candidate’s safety, purity, and potency, also known as safety and effectiveness, for each desired indication. A BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. MarzAA has completed a Phase 2 clinical trial, and DalcA is completing a Phase 2 clinical trial. However, failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage in the clinical trial process. Accordingly, the regulatory pathway for our product candidates is still uncertain, complex, and lengthy, and ultimately, approval may not be obtained.

We may experience delays in completing planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

We could also experience delays in obtaining approval if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles given the serious nature of the diseases for the core indications for our product candidates. Additionally, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs for the institutions in which the trials are being conducted, the Data Monitoring Committee for the trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for a number of reasons, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues, or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, the FDA review and approval process could be delayed by any future shutdown of the U.S. government, and our development activities could be harmed or delayed as a result. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, our ability to commercialize our product candidates will be harmed and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired. Additionally, delays in completing trials will increase costs, slow down our product development and approval process, and impair our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. Many of the factors that could create or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may lead to the denial of regulatory approval for our product candidates.

The FDA may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The results of clinical trials we conduct may not support regulatory approval of our product candidates. Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

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

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would market, sell and distribute our products. As a pharmaceutical company, even though we do not and may not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. These regulations include:

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

Our results of operations may be adversely affected by current and potential future healthcare legislative and regulatory actions.

Legislative and regulatory actions affecting government prescription drug procurement and reimbursement programs occur relatively frequently. In the United States, the ACA was enacted in 2010 to expand healthcare coverage. Since then, numerous efforts have been made to repeal, amend or administratively limit the ACA in whole or in part. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Trump in 2017, repealed the individual health insurance mandate, which is considered a key component of the ACA. In December 2018, a Texas federal district court struck down the ACA on the grounds that the individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional, although this ruling has been stayed pending appeal. The ongoing challenges to the ACA and new legislative proposals have resulted in uncertainty regarding the ACA's future viability and destabilization of the health insurance market. The resulting impact on our business is uncertain and could be material.

Efforts to control prescription drug prices could also have a material adverse effect on our business. For example, in 2018, President Trump and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released the "American Patients First Blueprint" and have begun implementing certain portions. The initiative includes proposals to increase generic drug and biosimilar competition, enable the Medicare program to negotiate drug prices more directly and improve transparency regarding drug prices and ways to lower consumers' out-of-pocket costs. The Trump administration also proposed to establish an “international pricing index” that would be used as a benchmark to determine the costs and potentially limit the reimbursement of drugs under Medicare Part B. Among other pharmaceutical manufacturer industry-related proposals, Congress has proposed bills to change the Medicare Part D benefit to impose an inflation-based rebate in Medicare Part D and to alter the benefit structure to increase manufacturer contributions in the catastrophic phase. The volume of drug pricing-related bills has dramatically increased under the current Congress, and the resulting impact on our business is uncertain and could be material.

In addition, many states have proposed or enacted legislation that seeks to indirectly or directly regulate pharmaceutical drug pricing, such as by requiring biopharmaceutical manufacturers to publicly report proprietary pricing information or to place a maximum price ceiling on pharmaceutical products purchased by state agencies. For example, in 2017, California’s governor signed a prescription drug price transparency state bill into law, requiring prescription drug manufacturers to provide advance notice and explanation for price increases of certain drugs that exceed a specified threshold. Both Congress and state legislatures are considering various bills that would reform drug purchasing and price negotiations, allow greater use of utilization management tools to limit Medicare Part D coverage, facilitate the import of lower-priced drugs from outside the United States and encourage the use of generic drugs. Such initiatives and legislation may cause added pricing pressures on our products.

Changes to the Medicaid program at the federal or state level could also have a material adverse effect on our business. Proposals that could impact coverage and reimbursement of our products, including giving states more flexibility to manage drugs covered under the Medicaid program and permitting the re-importation of prescription medications from Canada or other countries, could have a material adverse effect by limiting our products’ use and coverage. Furthermore, state Medicaid programs could request additional supplemental rebates on our products as a result of an increase in the federal base Medicaid rebate. To the extent that private insurers or managed care programs follow Medicaid coverage and payment developments, they could use the enactment of these increased rebates to exert pricing pressure on our products, and the adverse effects may be magnified by their adoption of lower payment schedules.

Other proposed regulatory actions affecting manufacturers could have a material adverse effect on our business. It is difficult to predict the impact, if any, of any such proposed legislative and regulatory actions or resulting state actions on the use and reimbursement of our products in the United States, but our results of operations may be adversely affected.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

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

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

In addition, we may incur substantial costs to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We face potential product liability, and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability and costs. If the use of our product candidates harms patients or is perceived to harm patients even when such harm is unrelated to our product candidates, regulatory approvals could be revoked or otherwise negatively impacted and we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. There is a risk that our product candidates may induce adverse events. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We carry product liability insurance of $10,000,000 per occurrence and $10,000,000 aggregate limit. We believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient for our current clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Patients with the diseases targeted by our product candidates are often already in severe and advanced stages of disease and have both known and unknown significant pre-existing and potentially life-threatening health risks. During treatment, patients may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may be related to our product candidates. Such events could subject us to costly litigation, require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, delay, negatively impact or end our opportunity to receive or maintain regulatory approval to market our products, or require us to suspend or abandon our commercialization efforts. Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products, the investigation into the circumstance may be time-consuming or inconclusive. These investigations may interrupt our sales efforts, delay our regulatory approval process in other countries, or impact and limit the type of regulatory approvals our product candidates receive or maintain. As a result of these factors, a product liability claim, even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Even if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, we may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, we may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. For example, current hemophilia treatments like intravenous NovoSeven RT are well established in the medical community, and doctors may continue to rely on these treatments. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on several factors, including:

MarzAA and DalcA are not expected to be commercially available for several years, if at all. Further, the commercial success of either product candidate will depend upon its acceptance by physicians, individuals, third-party payors and other key decision-makers as a therapeutic and cost-effective alternative to products available at the time, which may include competing products currently under development by others. See “We face substantial competition that may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.” If we are unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval in a timely manner (including due to reasons that are beyond our control, such as changes in regulations or a shutdown of the federal government, including the FDA) for and commercialize MarzAA or DalcA, our ability to generate revenue from product sales will be significantly delayed and our business will be materially and adversely affected, and we may not be able to earn sufficient revenues to continue as a going concern.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if they are approved.

We have not yet established a sales, marketing or product distribution infrastructure for our other product candidates, which are still in preclinical or early clinical development. Except for ISU Abxis’ rights to commercialize DalcA in South Korea, we generally expect to retain commercial rights for the Company’s hemophilia product candidates. We believe that it will be possible to access the United States hemophilia market through a focused, specialized sales force. However, we have not yet developed a commercial strategy for hemophilia products outside of the United States, or for any other of our product candidates. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization within the United States and to develop a strategy for sales outside of the United States.

There are risks involved with establishing internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and enter into additional arrangements with third parties to perform these services, then our product revenues and profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves.

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

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Specifically, there are a large number of companies developing or marketing treatments for hemophilia, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Novo Nordisk, which has developed NovoSeven RT, a human recombinant coagulation Factor VIIa indicated for treatment of bleeding episodes that has been approved for use in treatment of hemophilia A or B individuals with inhibitors to Factor VIII or Factor IX and in individuals with Factor VII deficiency and Glanzmann’s thrombasthenia; Baxter, which has developed BAX 817, a biosimilar of NovoSeven RT that recently completed an intravenous Phase 3 clinical trial and has filed for marketing approval; Roche, which is marketing Hemlibra ACE910/Emicizumab, a recombinant humanized bispecific antibody that binds to activated Factor IX and Factor X mimicking the cofactor function of Factor VIIIa, that has been approved by the FDA to treat hemophilia A with inhibitors and is administered subcutaneously; and Alnylam/Sanofi, which is developing an investigational subcutaneously administered RNAi therapeutic targeting antithrombin III, fitusiran, for the treatment of hemophilia and OPKO Biologics, whose recombinant Factor VIIa product that may also be administered subcutaneously has completed a part 1 of a planned Phase 1/2 clinical trial. There are numerous marketed factor IX-based products that are used to replace Factor IX intravenously. BeneFIX, a recombinant Factor IX indicated for treatment of individuals with Hemophilia B, was approved in 1997 and is marketed by Pfizer. In addition, Alprolix, a Factor IX-Fc fusion product was approved in 2014 and is marketed by Sanofi Aventis and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (SOBI - in Europe, Russia, North Africa and the Middle East). Idelvion, a Factor IX-albumin fusion product marketed by CSL Behring was approved by the FDA in 2016. Idelvion is approved for weekly dosing for adolescents and adults and bi-weekly at a higher dose for those same patients if well controlled on the original regimen. It is approved for weekly in patients <12 years of age. Novo Nordisk’s glycopegylated-Factor IX product Rebinyn was approved by the FDA in 2017 but is not indicated for routine prophylaxis in the U.S. Rebinyn is approved for on-demand treatment and control of bleeding episodes as well as Perioperative management of bleeding.CSL Behring is developing its marketed product Idelvion an albumin-linked Factor IX for subcutaneous administration. We are also aware of many companies focused on developing gene therapies that may compete with our planned hemophilia B indication, as well as several companies addressing other methods for modifying genes and regulating gene expression. Alnylam/Sanofi is developing an investigational RNAi therapeutic targeting antithrombin III, fitusiran and Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Green Cross and Bayer are developing antibodies that inhibit Tissue Factor Pathway inhibitor (“TFPI”), and Apcintex has a serpine directed against Activated Protein C, all for the treatment of all forms of hemophilia.

Our commercial opportunity in different indications could be reduced or eliminated if competitors develop and market products or therapies that are more convenient to use, more effective, less expensive, and safer to use than our products. Furthermore, if competitors gain FDA approval earlier than we do, we may be unable to establish a strong market presence or to gain market share. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and individual registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

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

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

Our ability to commercialize any product candidates successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for certain medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any product that we or our collaborators commercialize and, even if these are available, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory. Reimbursement may affect the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate that receives marketing approval. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We may be required to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent.

Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and overall financial condition.

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

The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

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

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than expected, our revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We focus our research and product development on hemostasis and inflammation treatment. Our projections of both the number of people who suffer from related conditions, as well as the subset of people with these conditions who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, Europe and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected or may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

The trading price of our common stock has historically been highly volatile and there have been significant periods of time in which the trading volume of our common stock has been low, which can contribute to volatility in price. Additionally, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. The market prices of securities of pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular have been extremely volatile and have experienced fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to operating performance. Factors giving rise to this volatility may include:

Fluctuations in operating results could adversely affect the price of our common stock.

Our operating results are likely to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. These fluctuations could cause our stock price to decline. Some of the factors that may cause operating results to fluctuate on a period-to-period basis include the scope, progress, duration results and costs of preclinical and clinical development programs, as well as non-clinical studies and assessments of product candidates and programs, restructuring costs, implementation or termination of collaboration, licensing, manufacturing or other material agreements with third parties, non-recurring revenue or expenses under any such agreement, the cost, timing and outcomes of regulatory compliance, approvals or other regulatory actions and general and industry-specific economic conditions, particularly as affects the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical or biotechnology industries in the United States. Period-to-period comparisons of our historical and future financial results may not be meaningful, and investors should not rely on them as an indication of future performance. Fluctuating losses may fail to meet the expectations of securities analysts or investors. Failure to meet these expectations may cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Sales of a significant number of shares of our common stock in the public markets, or the perception that such sales could occur, could depress the market price of our common stock.

Our current trading volumes are modest, and sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, could cause the market price to decline. We have effective registration statements on Form S-3 that enable us to sell up to $200 million in securities. Any additional sales in the public market of our common stock or other securities under these shelf registration statements could adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock. In addition, we have outstanding options to purchase 1,577,541 shares of common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $10.85 as of December 31, 2019. If such options are exercised and the shares are sold into the open market, such sales also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. Conversion or exercise of these securities into shares of our common stock will cause dilution to the other holders of our common stock, and all such stock may be sold in the public market after conversion or exercise, subject to restrictions under the securities laws, which may lead to a decline in the market price of our common stock.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and provisions of Delaware law may make an acquisition more difficult and could result in the entrenchment of management.

We are incorporated in Delaware. Anti-takeover provisions of Delaware law and our charter documents may make a change in control or efforts to remove management more difficult. Also, under Delaware law, our board of directors may adopt additional anti-takeover measures. The existence of the following provisions of Delaware law and our restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock.

Our restated certificate of incorporation authorizes our board of directors to issue up to 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock and to determine the terms of those shares of stock without any further action by our stockholders. If the board of directors exercises this power to issue preferred stock, it could be more difficult for a third-party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock and vote the stock they acquire to remove management or directors.

Our restated certificate also provides staggered terms for the members of our board of directors, and that directors may be removed by stockholders only by vote of the holders of 66 2/3% of voting shares then outstanding. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws do not permit stockholders to call special or annual meetings of stockholders, or to act by written consent without a meeting. These provisions may prevent stockholders from replacing the entire board in a single proxy contest, making it more difficult for a third-party to acquire control without the consent of our board of directors. These provisions could also delay the removal of management by the board of directors with or without cause.

As a Delaware corporation, we are also subject to certain Delaware anti-takeover provisions. Under Delaware law, a publicly-held corporation may not engage in a business combination with any holder of 15% or more of our voting stock unless the holder has held the stock for three years or, among other things, the board of directors has approved the transaction. Our board of directors could rely on Delaware law to prevent or delay an acquisition.

Our business could be negatively affected as a result of actions of activist stockholders, and such activism could impact the trading value of our securities.

Two of our stockholders have requested that we add one or more individuals to our board of directors. Although we have entered into a cooperation agreement with one such stockholder and appointed two new members to our board of directors, one or more other stockholders could engage in proxy solicitations or advance stockholder proposals, or otherwise attempt to effect changes and assert influence on our board of directors and management. Such an activist campaign could conflict with our strategic direction or seek changes in the composition of our board of directors and could have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition. A proxy contest would require us to incur significant legal and advisory fees, proxy solicitation expenses and administrative and associated costs, and require significant time and attention by our board of directors and management, diverting their attention from the pursuit of our business strategy. Any perceived uncertainties as to our future direction and control, our ability to execute on our strategy, or changes to the composition of our board of directors or senior management team arising from a proxy contest could lead to the perception of a change in the direction of our business or instability which

may result in the loss of potential business opportunities, make it more difficult to pursue our strategy, or limit our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, any of which could adversely affect our business and operating results. If individuals are ultimately elected to our board of directors with a specific agenda, it may adversely affect our ability to effectively implement our business strategy and create additional value for our stockholders. We may choose to initiate, or may become subject to, litigation as a result of the proxy contest or matters arising from the proxy contest, which would serve as a further distraction to our board of directors and management and would require us to incur significant additional costs. In addition, actions such as those described above could cause significant fluctuations in our stock price based upon temporary or speculative market perceptions or other factors that do not necessarily reflect the underlying fundamentals and prospects of our business.

We are a smaller reporting company and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We have been a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thus have been allowed to provide simplified executive compensation disclosures in our filings. We have also had certain other decreased disclosure obligations in our SEC filings. We cannot predict whether investors find our common stock less attractive because of our reliance on any of these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Our corporate headquarters is in South San Francisco, California, where we lease approximately 13,232 rentable square feet of space. The term of the lease is five years and two months, starting February 16, 2018.

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings or be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that in the opinion of our management, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows.

Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “CBIO.”

As of February 7, 2020, there were approximately 65 holders of record of our common stock. In addition, a substantially greater number of stockholders may be “street name” or beneficial holders, whose shares are held of record by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.

The response to this item is incorporated by reference from the discussion responsive thereto under the caption “Equity Compensation Plan Information” in Item 12. Security Ownership Of Certain Beneficial Owners And Management.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination related to dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors.

Unregistered Sales of Securities; Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities; Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Information requested by this Item is not applicable as we are electing scaled disclosure requirements available to Smaller Reporting Companies with respect to this Item.

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion may contain forward-looking statements based upon current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties, including those set forth under the heading “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our actual results and the timing of selected events discussed below could differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, these forward-looking statements.

MarzAA Our most advanced product candidate is MarzAA, a potent, subcutaneously administered, next-generation Factor VIIa variant that is ‘Phase 3 ready’. We completed our Phase 2 open-label SQ trial and met all our primary and secondary end points in 2019. The Phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of MarzAA in reducing total bleeding episodes. The primary endpoint was to assess the effect of MarzAA on the annualized bleed rate (ABR) at a subject’s final dose level, with each patient’s prior 6-month ABR serving as his own control. The secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability and lack of anti-drug-antibody (ADA) and neutralizing antibody formation.

Our preclinical data suggest that MarzAA has the potential to be used on-demand for treatment of acute bleeding episodes and support further clinical testing for on-demand treatment of bleeds in individuals with hemophilia or Factor VII deficiency.

Our preclinical data also indicate that MarzAA is expected to have a similar safety profile when used in combination with Hemlibra as that of NovoSeven. Specifically, as tested in vitro by the thrombin-generation assay with Hemophilia A plasma, both MarzAA and NovoSeven were equally effective at triggering blood coagulation at their respective clinically relevant concentrations without overshooting safe levels when combined with Hemlibra. Current therapies used with Hemlibra include FEIBA (a pro-coagulation complex) and NovoSeven. However, the concurrent administration of FEIBA with Hemlibra has been associated with thrombotic events (when a blood clot forms inside a blood vessel), requiring a boxed warning in the package insert. While NovoSeven is safe in patients on Hemlibra prophylaxis, it is administered through an IV infusion to treat a bleed. Ideally, add-on therapy for patients on SQ Hemlibra would be given subcutaneously. We believe MarzAA provides a potential SQ solution to this problem and that MarzAA could be a SQ rescue therapy for hemophilia patients experiencing breakthrough bleeds while on prophylaxis with other agents such as Hemlibra.

We are currently conducting a SQ Phase 1 study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in patients with Hemophilia A or B with or without inhibitors at ascending dose levels. The purpose of the trial is to determine if the timing of the peak levels achieved is sufficient to treat a breakthrough bleed with SQ dosing and determine if increasing dose levels increase blood levels in a dose proportional manner. This trial will enable final dose selection for a MarzAA Phase 3 study. We reported interim data from this trial at the 13th Annual Congress of the European Association of Haemophilia and Allied Disorders (EAHAD) on February 5, 2020 that showed SQ dosing of MarzAA reaches target levels that are consistent with the treatment of a bleed.

Our next most advanced product candidate is DalcA, a next-generation SQ Factor IX drug for the prophylactic treatment of individuals with Hemophilia B, which is completing a Phase 2b study. We completed our Phase 1/2 SQ dosing trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of DalcA in patients with severe Hemophilia B in a collaboration with ISU Abxis. The objective was to demonstrate the feasibility of increasing Factor IX activity trough levels from approximately 1% (severe hemophilia) to greater than 12% (mild hemophilia corresponding to a reduced risk of spontaneous joint bleeds) with daily SQ injections. DalcA maintained protective Factor IX activity levels of 12-30%. Mild to moderate injection site reactions were reported and all resolved without sequelae. Two subjects, who were cousins and had the same rare Factor IX mutation, developed nAbs, one transiently. The nAbs were specific to DalcA (did not bind to wild-type Factor IX) and therefore did not interfere with the patients’ ability to resume use of their prior Factor IX therapy. Thus, the nAbs to DalcA are not referred to as inhibitors.

We completed a comprehensive investigation of the cause of the nAbs in 2018 and concluded that the immunogenic potential of DalcA was low and similar to that of commercial Factor IX products. Furthermore, the drug product quality of DalcA was shown to be comparable to commercial Factor IX products. Based on the results of the investigation, and discussions with clinicians and regulatory experts, we initiated a Phase 2b trial to assess safety and efficacy of DalcA in a 2b study that includes 28 days of daily SQ dosing in six subjects. We reported interim data from this trial at EAHAD on February 7, 2020. Data from the trial showed that 28 days of daily SQ dosing of DalcA achieved protective target Factor IX levels of >12%, with steady state Factor IX levels of up to 27% after 14 days with no bleeds, demonstrating effective prophylaxis and the potential for lower or less frequent dosing. One subject withdrew on day 7. No anti-drug antibodies were detected and no serious adverse events were reported. Three subjects reported injection site reactions (ISRs), the majority of which were mild in severity and resolved without sequelae. We have completed enrollment for the Phase 2b study and expect to report final data in Q2 2020.

On December 18, 2019, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Biogen to develop and commercialize CB 2782-PEG and our other anti-C3 proteases for potential treatment of dry AMD and other disorders. We will perform pre-clinical and manufacturing activities, and Biogen will be solely responsible for funding the pre-clinical and manufacturing activities and performing IND-enabling activities, worldwide clinical development, and commercialization. We received a $15.0 million upfront payment from Biogen in January 2020 for the transfer of an exclusive license and the related know-how, and we are eligible to receive up to $340 million in milestone payments, along with tiered royalties for worldwide net sales of this product candidate up to low double-digits. As of December 31, 2019, the Company has recorded the $15.0 million payment in deferred revenue.

We also collaborated with Mosaic in the development of our complement product candidates including CB 2782-PEG. Under the collaboration agreement, as amended in December 2019, Mosaic will perform all future services for a fee. Mosaic is entitled to a double-digit percentage of funds we receive from Biogen. Mosaic is also entitled to sublicense fees and/or research and development and commercial milestones and royalties on one non-C3 complement product. Dr. Usman, our Chief Executive Officer and a member of our board of directors, and Mr. Lawlor, a member of our board of directors, are also members of the board of directors of Mosaic. Transactions with related parties, including the transaction referred to above, are reviewed and approved by independent members of our Board of Directors in accordance with our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

We have a long-term clinical supply services agreement with Catalent Indiana, LLC (“Catalent”). Catalent has facilities in the U.S. and Europe and conducts drug product development and manufacturing for MarzAA and DalcA. At the end of 2019 we successfully completed development work for a variety of vial sizes which will support flexible dosing and will initiate large scale engineering batches in Q1 2020.

In February 2020, we sold an aggregate of 5,307,692 registered shares of common stock at $6.50 per share, for net proceeds, after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses, of approximately $32.0 million.

We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. From inception to December 31, 2019, we have raised net cash proceeds of approximately $373.0 million, primarily from private placements of convertible preferred stock and the proceeds from our merger with Targacept in addition to issuances of shares of common stock and warrants, and payments received from collaboration agreements.

We have never been profitable and have incurred significant operating losses in each year since inception. Our net losses were $13.6 million and $10.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, and $55.2 million and $30.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $258.5 million. As of December 31, 2019, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments balance were $76.9 million. Substantially all our operating losses were incurred in our research and development programs and in our general and administrative operations.

We expect to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for at least the next several years as we continue the preclinical, manufacturing and clinical development, and seek regulatory approval for our drug candidates. Our operating losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to timing of preclinical, manufacturing, clinical development programs and regulatory guidance spending.

Contract Revenue Contact revenue consists of revenue received from third party collaborators pursuant to agreements with them. Revenue generated in 2018 was from our collaboration with ISU. The collaboration revenue from ISU ended in 2018 per the terms of the arrangement.

Research and development expenses represent costs incurred to conduct research, such as the discovery and development of our product candidates. We recognize all research and development costs as they are incurred.

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 (in thousands):

The largest component of our total operating expenses has historically been our investment in research and development activities, including the clinical and manufacturing development of our product candidates. We are currently focusing substantially most of our resources and development efforts on MarzAA and DalcA. Our internal resources, employees and infrastructure are not directly tied to individual product candidates or development programs. As such, we do not maintain information regarding these costs incurred for these research and development programs on a project-specific basis.

We expect our aggregate research and development expenses will increase during the next year as we advance the clinical and manufacturing development of MarzAA and DalcA and build out our Systemic complement inhibitors pipeline. While ISU has previously been responsible for clinical and development expenses for DalcA under our agreement with them, their funding obligations ended in 2018, and we have assumed responsibility for these expenses.

At December 31, 2019, we have firm work orders with AGC to manufacture MarzAA and DalcA to support its clinical trials totaling $12.4 million, of which $4.6 million was still outstanding. We also have firm work orders with Catalent as of December 31, 2019, to manufacture DalcA to support its clinical trial totaling $0.5 million, of which was $0.4 million was still outstanding.

The process of conducting clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time consuming. We may never succeed in achieving marketing approval for our product candidates. The probability of success of each product candidate may be affected by numerous factors, including clinical data, competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability. As a result, we are unable to determine the duration of and costs to complete our research and development projects or when and to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates.

Successful development of current and future product candidates is highly uncertain. Completion dates and costs for our research programs can vary significantly for each current and future product candidate and are difficult to predict. Thus, we cannot estimate with any degree of certainty the costs we will incur in the development of our product candidates. We anticipate we will make determinations as to which programs and product candidates to pursue and how much funding to direct to each program and product candidate on an ongoing basis in response to the scientific success of early research programs, results of ongoing and future clinical trials, our ability to enter into collaborative agreements with respect to programs or potential product candidates, as well as ongoing assessments as to each current or future product candidate’s commercial potential.

General and administrative expenses consist of personnel costs, allocated expenses and other expenses for outside professional services, including legal, human resources, audit and accounting services. Personnel costs consist of salaries, bonus, benefits and stock-based compensation. We incur expenses associated with operating as a public company, including expenses related to compliance with the rules and regulations of the SEC and Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), insurance expenses, audit expenses, investor relations activities, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance expenses and other administrative expenses and professional services. We expect such expenses to continue.

Interest and other income, net consist primarily of interest income on our investment portfolio.

The following tables set forth our results of operations data for the periods presented (in thousands):

	Year Ended December 31,
	2019			2018			Change ($)			Change (%)
Contract revenue	$	—		$	6		$	(6	)		(100	)%
Operating expenses:
Research and development		43,859			21,474			22,385			104	%
General and administrative		13,418			12,354			1,064			9	%
Total operating expenses		57,277			33,828			23,449			69	%
Loss from operations		(57,277	)		(33,822	)		(23,455	)		69	%
Interest and other income, net		2,099			3,767			(1,668	)		(44	)%
Net loss	$	(55,178	)	$	(30,055	)	$	(25,123	)		84	%

Contract revenue was $0.0 million and $0.01 million during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, a decrease of $0.01 million, or 100%. The decrease was due to revenue from our ISU collaboration that ended in 2018 per terms of the arrangement. We expect contract revenue to increase in 2020 as a result of the $15.0 million upfront payment and the on-going reimbursable collaboration activities under the Biogen collaboration agreement.

Research and development expenses were $43.9 million and $21.5 million during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, an increase of $22.4 million, or 104%. The increase was due primarily to an increase of $14.0 million in manufacturing activities, an increase of $3.9 million in personnel related expenses, including stock-based compensation, as a result of increased headcount, and an increase of $3.9 million in complement and other preclinical research.

Based on our current programs and related commitments, we expect our research and development expenses for the year ending December 31, 2020 to increase materially compared with 2019, due primarily to costs associated with furthering clinical trials and manufacturing for MarzAA and DalcA.

General and administrative expenses were $13.4 million and $12.4 million during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, an increase of $1.0 million, or 9%. The increase was due primarily to an increase of $0.9 million in personnel-related costs, including stock-based compensation, as a result of increased headcount, and an increase of $0.3 million in D&O insurance premium; partially offset by a $0.1 million decrease in professional fees due to fewer corporate transactions in 2019.

Interest and other income, net, was $2.1 million and $3.8 million during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, a decrease of $1.7 million, or 44%. The decrease was due primarily to a $1.5 million milestone payment received from the sale of an NNR asset in 2018, and the absence of similar transactions in 2019.

Refer to Note 3 to our consolidated financial statements included within Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a description of recent accounting pronouncements adopted and not yet adopted for the year ended December 31, 2019.

As of December 31, 2019, we had $76.9 million of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. During the year ended December 31, 2019, we had a $55.2 million net loss and $43.6 million cash used in operating activities. We have an accumulated deficit of $258.5 million as of December 31, 2019. Our primary uses of cash are to fund operating expenses, including research and development expenditures and general and administrative expenditures. Cash used to fund operating expenses is impacted by the timing of when we pay these expenses, as reflected in the change in its outstanding accounts payable and accrued expenses.

We believe that our existing capital resources, including cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to meet our projected operating requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. We plan to continue to fund losses from operations and capital funding needs through future equity and/or debt financings, as well as potential additional asset sales, licensing transactions, collaborations or strategic partnerships with other companies. We have effective registration statements on Form S-3 that enable us to sell up to $200.0 million in securities. The sale of additional equity or convertible debt could result in additional dilution to our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in debt service obligations and could result in operating and financing covenants that would restrict our operations. Licensing transactions, collaborations or strategic partnerships may result in us relinquishing valuable rights. We can provide no assurance that financing will be available in the amounts we need or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding we may be forced to delay, make reductions in spending, extend payment terms with suppliers, liquidate assets where possible, and/or suspend or curtail planned programs. Any of these actions could materially harm our business.

The following table summarizes our cash flows for the periods presented (in thousands):

Cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $43.6 million, primarily due to a net loss of $55.2 million, partially offset by non-cash charges of $3.4 million and cash used in operating activities reflected a net change in our net operating assets and liabilities of $8.2 million: primarily due to a $15.0 million increase in deferred revenue related to the upfront payment from Biogen, a $5.6 million increase in accrued compensation and other accrued liabilities, and a $3.0 million increase in accounts payable, partially offset by a $15.0 million increase in accounts receivable related to the upfront payment from Biogen, and a $0.5 million increase in prepaid and other assets.

Cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $28.6 million, primarily due to a net loss of $30.1 million, partially offset by non-cash charges of $2.6 million for stock-based compensation. Cash used in operating activities reflected a net change in our net operating assets and liabilities of $1.4 million, which was primarily due to a $2.9 million increase in prepaid and other current assets, offset by a $0.9 million increase in accrued compensation and other accrued liabilities and a $0.5 million increase in accounts payable.

Cash provided by investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $27.4 million, primarily due to $157.4 million in proceeds from maturities of investments, partially offset by $130.0 million in purchases of investments.

Cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $71.3 million, primarily due to $198.9 million in purchases of investments and $0.4 million purchase of property and equipment, partially offset by proceeds from maturities of investments of $128.0 million.

Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $0.3 million due to proceeds from the issuance of common stock from stock grants and optionexercises.

Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $111.3 million, primarily due to $106.8 million in net proceeds from the issuance of common stock related to our underwritten public offering in February 2018, $9.5 million in proceeds from the exercise of common stock warrants, partially offset by $5.1 million payments for the redemption of the redeemable convertible notes.

The preparation of the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and the Company’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and operating results require the Company’s management to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in its consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our significant accounting policies and methods used in preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements are described in Note 3 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions it believes to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities. Actual results may differ from these estimates, and such differences may be material.

Management believes the Company’s critical accounting policies and estimates discussed below are critical to understanding its historical and future performance, as these policies relate to the more significant areas involving management’s judgments and estimates.

Effective January 1, 2018, we adopted Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 606 using the modified retrospective method and applied the standard only to contracts that were still active or in place at that date.

We may enter into collaboration arrangements that fall under the scope Collaborative Arrangements (Topic 808) (“ASC 808��). We analyze collaboration arrangements to assess whether they are within the scope of ASC 808 to determine whether such arrangements involve joint operating activities performed by parties that are both active participants in the activities and exposed to significant risks and rewards dependent on the commercial success of such activities. This assessment is performed throughout the life of the arrangement based on changes in the responsibilities of all parties in the arrangement. The accounting for some of the activities under collaboration arrangements may be analogized to ASC 606 for distinct units of accounting that are reflective of a vendor-customer relationship.

Under ASC 606, in determining the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized as we fulfill our obligations under its agreements, we perform the following steps: (i) identification of the promised goods or services in the contract; (ii) determination of whether the promised goods or services are performance obligations including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) measurement of the transaction price, including the constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations based on estimated selling prices; and (v) recognition of revenue when we satisfy each performance obligation.

If a license to our intellectual property is determined to be distinct from the other performance obligations identified in the arrangement, we recognize revenues attributed to the license when the license is transferred to the customer and the customer is able to use and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promises, we use our judgement to assess the nature of the combined performance obligation to determine whether the combined performance obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time.

At the inception of each arrangement that contains development milestones, we evaluate whether the development milestones included are considered probable of being reached and estimate the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. If it is probable that a significant revenue reversal would not occur, the associated milestone value is included in the transaction price. Milestone payments that are not within our control or the licensee, such as regulatory approvals, are not generally considered probable of being achieved until those approvals are received.

At the end of each reporting period, we re-evaluate the probability of achievement of any development milestones, and if necessary, adjust its estimate of the transaction price. Any such adjustments would be recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect revenues and earnings in the period of adjustment. For research and development services, we elected the practical expedient to recognize revenue as the research and development services are invoiced.

The transaction price is allocated to each performance obligation on a relative stand-alone selling price (“SSP”) basis. We recognize revenue as or when the performance obligations under the contract are satisfied. As part of the accounting for these arrangements, we must develop assumptions that require judgment to determine the timing of recognition and the SSP for each performance obligation identified in the contract.

The SSP for licenses are calculated using the residual approach if we have not yet established a price for such license and the license has not previously been sold on a standalone basis. Otherwise, selling prices for licenses are determined using an income approach model and include key assumptions such as: development timeline, revenue forecast, commercialization expenses, discount rate and probabilities of technical and regulatory success. To estimate the SSP for research and development services, we use a cost-plus margin approach.

We record accrued expenses for estimated costs of our research and development activities conducted by external service providers, which include the conduct of preclinical studies and clinical trials and contract manufacturing activities. We record the estimated costs of research and development activities based upon the estimated amount of services provided but not yet invoiced and includes these costs in accrued liabilities in the balance sheet and within research and development expense in the consolidated statement of operations. These costs are a significant component of our research and development expenses. We record accrued expenses for these costs based on the estimated amount of work completed and in accordance with agreements established with these external service providers.

We estimate the amount of work completed through discussions with internal personnel and external service providers as to the progress or stage of completion of the services and the agreed-upon fee to be paid for such services. We make significant judgments and estimates in determining the accrued balance in each reporting period. As actual costs become known, we adjust its accrued estimates.

We measure the cost of employee and director services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the fair value-based measurement of the award on the date of grant and recognize the related expense over the period during which an employee or director is required to provide service in exchange for the award on a straight-line basis.

Determining the fair value of stock-based awards at the grant date requires judgment. We use the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to determine the fair value of stock options. The determination of the grant date fair value of options using an option-pricing model is affected by our assumptions regarding a number of variables including the fair value of our common stock, our expected common stock price volatility over the expected life of the options, expected term of the stock option, risk-free interest rates and expected dividends. We record stock-based compensation as a compensation expense, net of the forfeited awards. We elected to account for forfeitures when they occur. As such, we recognize stock-based compensation expense only for those stock-based awards that are expected to vest, over their requisite service period, based on the vesting provisions of the individual grants. See Note 10 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information.

On January 1, 2019, we adopted the new lease accounting standard ASC 842 using the optional transition method under which comparative financial information is not restated and continues to apply the provisions of the previous lease accounting standard in its financial disclosures for the comparative periods. We also elected relevant optional practical expedients including 1) did not reassess whether expired or existing contracts are or contain a lease, 2) did not reassess the lease classifications or reassess the initial direct costs associated with expired or existing leases, and 3) did not separate lease and non-lease components of its operating leases in which it is the lessee.

Under the new lease accounting standard, at the inception of an arrangement, we determine whether the arrangement is or contains a lease based on the unique facts and circumstances present. Operating lease liabilities and their corresponding right-of-use assets are recorded based on the present value of lease payments over the expected lease term. The interest rate implicit in lease contracts is typically not readily determinable. As such, we utilize our incremental borrowing rate, which is the rate incurred to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment. Certain adjustments to the right-of-use asset may be required for items such as initial direct costs paid or incentives received.

We have elected to combine lease and non-lease components as a single component. The lease expense is recognized over the expected term on a straight-line basis. Operating leases are recognized on the balance sheet as right-of-use assets, operating lease liabilities, current and operating lease liabilities, non-current. As a result, we no longer recognize deferred rent on the balance sheet.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company") as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years then ended, 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) ("PCAOB"), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2019, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”), and our report dated February 20, 2020 expressed an unqualified opinion.

As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, the Company has changed its method of accounting for leases in the 2019 consolidated financial statements due to the adoption of ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842).

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

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

	December 31, 2019			December 31, 2018
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	15,369		$	31,213
Short-term investments		61,496			88,914
Restricted cash		—			50
Accounts receivable		15,000			—
Prepaid and other current assets		4,201			3,814
Total current assets		96,066			123,991
Other assets, noncurrent		257			543
Right-of-use assets		1,927			—
Property and equipment, net of $0.4 million and $0.3 million of accumulated depreciation in 2019 and 2018, respectively		304			386
Total assets	$	98,554		$	124,920
Liabilities and stockholders’ equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	4,279		$	1,248
Accrued compensation		2,106			1,495
Deferred revenue		15,000			—
Other accrued liabilities		7,031			2,043
Operating lease liability		483			—
Deferred rent, current portion		—			15
Total current liabilities		28,899			4,801
Operating lease liability, noncurrent		1,319			—
Deferred rent, noncurrent portion		—			174
Total liabilities		30,218			4,975
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value, 5,000,000 shares authorized; zero shares issued and outstanding		—			—
Common stock, $0.001 par value, 100,000,000 shares authorized; 12,040,835 and 11,954,528 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively		12			12
Additional paid-in capital		326,810			323,279
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		34			(4	)
Accumulated deficit		(258,520	)		(203,342	)
Total stockholders’ equity		68,336			119,945
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	98,554		$	124,920

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

	Convertible Preferred Stock					Common Stock				Additional Paid-In		Accumulated Other Comprehensive			Accumulated			Total Stockholders’
	Shares			Amount		Shares		Amount		Capital		Income (Loss)			Deficit			Equity
Balance at December 31, 2017		3,680		$	—		6,081,230	$	6	$	204,262	$	—		$	(173,494	)	$	30,774
Opening balance adjustment - adoption of ASC 606		—			—		—		—		—		—			207			207
Balance at January 1, 2018		3,680			—		6,081,230		6		204,262		—			(173,287	)		30,981
Stock-based compensation expense		—			—		6,790		—		2,606		—			—			2,606
Issuance of common stock for follow-on offering, net of issuance costs		—			—		3,382,352		4		106,758		—			—			106,762
Issuance of common stock upon exercise of warrants		—			—		1,735,419		2		9,543		—			—			9,545
Conversion of preferred stock to common stock		(3,680	)		—		736,000		—		—		—			—			—
Issuance of common stock from stock grants and option exercises		—			—		12,716		—		107		—			—			107
Conversion of redeemable convertible notes to common stock		—			—		21		—		3		—			—			3
Unrealized loss on available-for-sale debt securities		—			—		—		—		—		(4	)		—			(4	)
Net loss		—			—		—		—		—		—			(30,055	)		(30,055	)
Balance at December 31, 2018		—		$	—		11,954,528	$	12	$	323,279	$	(4	)	$	(203,342	)	$	119,945
Stock-based compensation expense		—			—		24,235		—		3,204		—			—			3,204
Issuance of common stock from stock grants and option exercises		—			—		62,072		—		327		—			—			327
Unrealized gain on available-for-sale debt securities		—			—		—		—		—		38			—			38
Net loss		—			—		—		—		—		—			(55,178	)		(55,178	)
Balance at December 31, 2019		—		$	—		12,040,835	$	12	$	326,810	$	34		$	(258,520	)	$	68,336

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

	Year Ended December 31,
	2019			2018
Operating Activities
Net loss	$	(55,178	)	$	(30,055	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Stock-based compensation expense		3,204			2,606
Depreciation and amortization		146			149
Loss on disposal of property and equipment		—			116
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable		(15,000	)		—
Prepaid and other assets		(490	)		(2,895	)
Accounts payable		3,031			500
Accrued compensation and other accrued liabilities		5,599			850
Operating lease liability and right-of-use asset		75			—
Deferred revenue		15,000			(6	)
Deferred rent		—			182
Net cash flows used in operating activities		(43,613	)		(28,553	)
Investing Activities
Proceeds from maturities of short-term investments		157,433			127,967
Purchase of short-term investments		(129,977	)		(198,912	)
Purchases of property and equipment		(64	)		(376	)
Net cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities		27,392			(71,321	)
Financing Activities
Payments for the redemption of redeemable convertible notes		—			(5,082	)
Issuance of common stock for secondary public offering, net of issuance costs		—			106,762
Issuance of common stock from stock grants and option exercises		327			107
Proceeds from exercise of warrants		—			9,545
Net cash flows provided by financing activities		327			111,332
Net (decrease) increase in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash		(15,894	)		11,458
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of the period		31,263			19,805
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of the period^(a)	$	15,369		$	31,263

Supplemental Disclosure of Non-Cash Investing and Financing Activities:
Adoption of ASC 606	$	—		$	207
Conversion of redeemable convertible notes to common stock	$	—		$	3
Right-of-use asset and operating lease liability recorded upon the adoption of ASC 842	$	2,052		$	—

(a) The following table provides a reconciliation of cash and restricted cash to amounts reported within the consolidated balance sheets:

Cash and cash equivalents	$	15,369		$	31,213
Restricted cash		—			50
Total cash and restricted cash	$	15,369		$	31,263

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

Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. and its subsidiary (the “Company” or “Catalyst”) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel treatments for hemophilia and other rare bleeding disorders using its engineered subcutaneous (SQ) coagulation factors that promote blood clotting. The Company is located in South San Francisco, California and operates in one segment.

The Company had a net loss of $55.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 and an accumulated deficit of $258.5 million as of December 31, 2019. The Company expects to continue to incur losses for the next several years. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $76.9 million of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. Its primary uses of cash are to fund operating expenses, including research and development expenditures and general and administrative expenditures. Based on the current status of its research and development plans, the Company believes that its existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of December 31, 2019 will be sufficient to fund its cash requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of the filing of this report. If, at any time, the Company’s prospects for financing its research and development programs decline, the Company may decide to reduce research and development expenses by delaying, discontinuing or reducing its funding of one or more of its research or development programs. Alternatively, the Company might raise funds through strategic collaborations, public or private financings or other arrangements. Such funding, if needed, may not be available on favorable terms, or at all.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its subsidiary. Intercompany accounts and transactions, if applicable, have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company’s consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, convertible notes and related warrants up to the date of conversion, common stock and stock-based compensation. The Company bases its estimates on various assumptions that the Company believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), to enhance the transparency and comparability of financial reporting related to leasing arrangements. The Company adopted the standard effective January 1, 2019 using the optional transition method and applied the standard only to leases that existed at that date. Under the optional transition method, the Company does not need to restate the comparative periods in transition and will continue to present financial information and disclosures for periods before January 1, 2019 in accordance with ASC Topic 840. The Company also elected relevant optional practical expedients including that the Company did not (1) reassess whether expired or existing contracts are or contain a lease, (2) reassess the lease classifications or reassess the initial direct costs associated with expired or existing leases, and (3) separate lease and non-lease components of its operating leases in which it is the lessee. The adoption of the new lease accounting standard had an impact of approximately $2.1 million on the Company's assets and liabilities on January 1, 2019 and had no impact on cash provided by or used in operating, investing or financing activities on the Company's consolidated statements of cash flows. The adoption of the new lease accounting standard did not impact previously reported financial results.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, Financial Instruments – Overall (Topic 825-10), which updates certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of financial instruments. Subsequently, in February 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-03, Technical Corrections and Improvements to Financial Instruments - Overall (Topic 825-10), which clarifies certain aspects of ASU 2016-01, which includes provisions to accounting for equity investments, financial liabilities under the fair value option and presentation and disclosure requirements for financial instruments. The amended guidance requires equity securities, except for those accounted for under the equity method of accounting, with determinable fair values to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income (loss). The Company adopted ASU 2016-01 and 2018-03 effective January 1, 2018, and this guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, as the Company only has debt securities in its investment portfolio.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASC 606”), which amends the existing accounting standards for revenue recognition. ASU 2014-09 is based on principles that govern the recognition of revenue at an amount an entity expects to be entitled when products are transferred to customers. Subsequently, the FASB has issued the following related standards: ASU No. 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations; ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing; and ASU No. 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients, (collectively, the “new revenue standards”). The Company adopted ASU No. 2014-09 effective January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective method through a cumulative adjustment to equity. The Company identified one active collaboration arrangement with multiple deliverables at that time, see Note 12. Under the superseded guidance, deliverables and consideration under the collaboration agreement must be accounted for under a single unit of accounting along with other arrangement deliverables and consideration that does not have stand-alone value and are recognized as revenue over the estimated period that the performance obligations are to be performed. Under ASU No. 2014-09, however, the total arrangement consideration is allocated to each performance obligation based on its estimated stand-alone selling price and revenue is recognized as each performance obligation is satisfied. As a result, revenue from the collaboration arrangement of $0.2 million was adjusted to record in an early accounting period upon the adoption of ASU No. 2014-09 as an increase to the Company’s opening balance of accumulated deficit.

Classification of certain cash receipts and cash payments in the statement of cash flows

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments. The standard provides guidance on how certain cash receipts and payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The standard is intended to reduce current diversity in practice. The Company adopted ASU 2016-15 effective January 1, 2018, and this guidance did not have an impact on the Company’s financial statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, or ASU 2016-13. The main objective of ASU 2016-13 is to provide financial statement users with more decision-useful information about an entity's expected credit losses on financial instruments and other commitments to extend credit at each reporting date. To achieve this objective, the amendments in this update replace the incurred loss impairment methodology currently used today with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to develop credit loss estimates. Subsequent to issuing ASU 2016-13, the FASB issued ASU 2018-19, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses, for the purpose of clarifying certain aspects of ASU 2016-13. In May 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-05, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Targeted Transition Relief, to provide entities with more flexibility in applying the fair value option on adoption of the credit impairment standard. ASU 2018-19 and ASU 2019-05 have the same effective date and transition requirements as ASU 2016-13. ASU 2016-13 will be effective for all entities except public companies that are not smaller reporting companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, including interim periods within those fiscal years, using a modified retrospective approach. Early adoption is permitted. The Company plans to adopt ASU 2016-13 and related updates as of January 1, 2023. The Company will assess the impact of adoption of this standard on its consolidated financial statements.

In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-18, Collaborative Arrangements (Topic 808) (“ASC 808”): Clarifying the Interaction Between Topic 808 and Topic 606. The amended guidance precludes presenting consideration from a transaction in a collaborative arrangement as revenue from contracts with customers if the counterparty is not a customer for that transaction. The new guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company plans to adopt ASU 2018-18 as of January 1, 2020. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2018-18 to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

The Company invests its excess cash in bank deposits, consisting primarily of money market mutual funds. The Company considers all highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of purchase to be cash equivalents.

The Company applies fair value accounting for all financial assets and liabilities and non-financial assets and liabilities that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the consolidated financial statements on a recurring basis. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or an exit price that would be paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date.

The fair value hierarchy requires that an entity maximize the use of observable inputs when estimating fair value. The fair value hierarchy includes the following three-level classification which is based on the market observability of the inputs used for estimating the fair value of the assets or liabilities being measured:

Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 – Observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in inactive markets, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 – Inputs that are generally unobservable and typically reflect management’s estimate of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.

Property and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets, which are three years for computer equipment and software, and three to seven years for furniture and leasehold improvements.

The Company invests its excess cash in investment grade, short to intermediate-term, fixed income securities and recognizes purchased securities on the settlement date. All investments have been classified as “available-for-sale” and are carried at estimated fair value based upon quoted market prices or pricing models for similar securities. Management determines the appropriate classification of its investments at the time of purchase and reevaluates such designation as of each balance sheet date. Unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale debt securities are excluded from earnings and are reported as a component of comprehensive loss. Realized gains and losses and declines in fair value determined to be other-than-temporary, if any, on available-for-sale debt securities are included in interest and other income, net. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific-identification method. Interest on short-term investments is included in interest and other income, net.

Effective January 1, 2018, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 606 using the modified retrospective method and applied the standard only to contracts that were still active or in place at that date.

The Company may enter into collaboration arrangements that fall under the scope Collaborative Arrangements (Topic 808). The Company analyzes its collaboration arrangements to assess whether they are within the scope of ASC 808 to determine whether such arrangements involve joint operating activities performed by parties that are both active participants in the activities and exposed to significant risks and rewards dependent on the commercial success of such activities. This assessment is performed throughout the life of the arrangement based on changes in the responsibilities of all parties in the arrangement. The accounting for some of the activities under collaboration arrangements may be analogized to ASC 606 for distinct units of account that are reflective of a vendor-customer relationship.

Under ASC 606, in determining the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized as it fulfills its obligations under its agreements, the Company performs the following steps: (i) identification of the promised goods or services in the contract; (ii) determination of whether the promised goods or services are performance obligations including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) measurement of the transaction price, including the constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations based on estimated selling prices; and (v) recognition of revenue when the Company satisfies each performance obligation.

If a license to the Company’s intellectual property is determined to be distinct from the other performance obligations identified in the arrangement, the Company recognizes revenues attributed to the license when the license is transferred to the customer and the customer is able to use and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promises, the Company utilizes judgement to assess the nature of the combined performance obligation to determine whether the combined performance obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time.

At the inception of each arrangement that contain development milestones, the Company evaluates whether the development milestones included are considered probable of being reached and estimates the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. If it is probable that a significant revenue reversal would not occur, the associated milestone value is included in the transaction price. Milestone payments that are not within the control of the Company or the licensee, such as regulatory approvals, are not generally considered probable of being achieved until those approvals are received.

At the end of each reporting period, the Company re-evaluates the probability of achievement of any development milestones, and if necessary, adjusts its estimate of the transaction price. Any such adjustments would be recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect revenues and earnings in the period of adjustment. For research and development services, the Company elected the practical expedient to recognize revenue as the research and development services are invoiced.

The transaction price is allocated to each performance obligation on a relative stand-alone selling price (“SSP”) basis. The Company recognizes revenue as or when the performance obligations under the contract are satisfied. As part of the accounting for these arrangements, the Company must develop assumptions that require judgment to determine the timing of recognition and the SSP for each performance obligation identified in the contract.

The SSP for licenses are calculated using the residual approach if the Company has not yet established a price for such license and the license has not previously been sold on a standalone basis. Otherwise, selling prices for licenses are determined using an income approach model and include key assumptions such as: development timeline, revenue forecast, commercialization expenses, discount rate and probabilities of technical and regulatory success. To estimate the SSP for research and development services, the Company uses a cost-plus margin approach. As of December 31, 2019, the Company recorded $15.0 million of deferred revenue from a license and collaboration agreement that was executed on December 18, 2019. See Note 12.

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development costs consist of payroll and other personnel-related expenses, laboratory supplies and reagents, contract research and development services, and consulting costs, as well as allocations of facilities and other overhead costs. Under the Company’s collaboration agreements, certain specific expenditures are reimbursed by third parties. During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company recorded a reduction to research and development expenses of $0.0 million and $0.05 million, respectively related to these reimbursements.

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, investments and restricted cash. The Company’s investment policy restricts cash investments to high credit quality, investment grade investments. The Company believes that it has established guidelines for investment of its excess cash that maintain safety and liquidity through its policies on high quality of investment and investment duration. The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of default by the institutions holding the cash and cash equivalents to the extent of the amounts recorded on the balance sheets. The Company’s accounts receivable as of December 31, 2019 of $15.0 million was due from one party, see Note 12. The amount was subsequently received in full.

Amounts payable to the Company are recorded as accounts receivable when the Company’s right to consideration is unconditional. Customer payments are recorded as deferred revenue upon receipt or when due and may require deferral of revenue recognition to a future period until the Company performs its obligations under the arrangements. The Company regularly reviews the outstanding accounts receivable, including consideration of factors such as the age of the receivable balance. As of December 31, there was no allowance for doubtful accounts deemed necessary.

Income taxes are computed using the liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the financial reporting and tax basis of assets and liabilities and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse.

The Company follows the authoritative guidance on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes. This guidance prescribes a more-likely-than-not threshold for financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken in the Company’s income tax returns. This interpretation also provides guidance on accounting for interest and penalties and associated with tax positions, accounting for income taxes in interim periods and income tax disclosures.

The Company’s policy is to include penalties and interest expense related to income taxes as a component of other expense and interest expense, respectively, as necessary.

The Company measures the cost of employee, non-employee and director services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the fair value of the award on the date of grant and recognizes the related expense over the period during which the employee, non-employee or director is required to provide service in exchange for the award on a straight-line basis.

The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing valuation model to estimate the grant-date fair value of stock-based awards. The determination of fair value for stock-based awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model requires management to make certain assumptions regarding a number of variables. Upon adoption of ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, the Company elected to account for forfeitures when they occur. As such, the Company recognizes stock-based compensation expense, over their requisite service period, based on the vesting provisions of the individual grants.

At the inception of an arrangement, the Company determines whether the arrangement is or contains a lease based on the unique facts and circumstances present. Operating lease liabilities and their corresponding right-of-use assets are recorded based on the present value of lease payments over the expected lease term. The interest rate implicit in lease contracts is typically not readily determinable. As such, the Company utilizes its incremental borrowing rate, which is the rate incurred to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment. Certain adjustments to the right-of-use asset may be required for items such as initial direct costs paid or incentives received.

The Company has elected to combine lease and non-lease components as a single component. The lease expense is recognized over the expected term on a straight-line basis. Operating leases are recognized on the balance sheet as right-of-use assets, operating lease liabilities, current and operating lease liabilities, non-current.

Basic net loss per share is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period, without consideration for common stock equivalents. Diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share, since the effects of potentially dilutive securities are antidilutive given the net loss of the Company for all periods presented.

Certain amounts for the year ended December 31, 2018 have been reclassified, to be consistent with the current year's presentation.

For a description of the fair value hierarchy and fair value methodology, see “Note 3 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company’s highly liquid money market funds included within cash equivalents, restricted cash and U.S. Treasury securities are valued using Level 1 inputs. The Company classifies its federal agency securities as Level 2. There were no transfers in or out of Level 1 and Level 2 during the periods presented. U.S. Treasury securities are bonds issued by the U.S. government and are fully backed by the U.S. government. Given the frequency at which U.S. Treasury securities trade and the accessibility of observable, quoted prices for such assets in active markets, they are recognized as Level 1 assets. Federal agency securities are bonds and notes issued by government-sponsored enterprises, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank. Since federal agency securities typically do not trade as U.S. Treasury securities and no exchange exists to price such investments, they are recognized as Level 2 assets.

The following tables present the fair value hierarchy for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 (in thousands):

	December 31, 2018
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Financial assets:
Money market funds⁽¹⁾	$	29,090	$	—	$	—	$	29,090
Federal agency securities⁽¹⁾		—		999		—		999
Restricted cash ⁽²⁾		50		—		—		50
U.S. government agency securities⁽³⁾		74,139		—		—		74,139
Federal agency securities⁽³⁾		—		14,775		—		14,775
Total financial assets	$	103,279	$	15,774	$	—	$	119,053

Cash equivalents, restricted cash and short-term investments, which are classified as available-for-sale securities, consisted of the following (in thousands):

December 31, 2019	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gains			Gross Unrealized Losses		Estimated Fair Value
Money market funds (cash equivalents)	$	15,369	$	—	��	$	—	$	15,369
U.S. government agency securities		51,467		23			—		51,490
Federal agency securities		9,995		11			—		10,006
Total financial assets	$	76,831	$	34		$	—	$	76,865
Classified as:
Cash and cash equivalents								$	15,369
Short-term investments									61,496
								$	76,865

December 31, 2018	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses			Estimated Fair Value
Money market funds (cash equivalents)	$	29,090	$	—	$	—		$	29,090
Federal agency securities (cash equivalents)		999		—	$	—			999
Restricted cash		50		—		—			50
U.S. government agency securities		74,144		1		(6	)		74,139
Federal agency securities		14,774		1		—			14,775
Total financial assets	$	119,057	$	2	$	(6	)	$	119,053
Classified as:
Cash and cash equivalents								$	30,089
Short-term investments									88,914
Restricted cash									50
								$	119,053

As of December 31, 2019, the remaining contractual maturities of available-for-sale debt securities was less than one year. There have been no material realized gains or losses on available-for-sale debt securities for the periods presented. The carrying amounts of cash, other assets, accounts receivable, accounts payable and other payables approximate their fair values due to the short-term maturity of these instruments.

On May 20, 2016, the Company signed a development and manufacturing services agreement with AGC Biologics, Inc. (“AGC”), formerly known as CMC ICOS Biologics, Inc., pursuant to which AGC will conduct manufacturing development of agreed upon product candidates. The Company had firm work orders with AGC to manufacture MarzAA and DalcA to support its clinical trials totaling $12.4 million at December 31, 2019 and the payment obligations remaining was $4.6 million.

On October 9, 2019, the Company and Catalent Indiana, LLC (“Catalent”) signed a clinical supply services agreement, effective October 4, 2019, pursuant to which Catalent will conduct drug product development of agreed upon product candidates. The Company currently has firm work orders with Catalent to manufacture DalcA to support its clinical trial totaling $0.5 million and the payment obligations remaining at December 31, 2019 was $0.4 million.

The Company has committed to make potential future sublicense, milestone, and royalty payments to collaborative partners as part of licensing and development programs. The Company is unable to determine precisely when and if its payment obligations under the agreements will become due as these obligations are based on uncertain events, the achievement of which is subject to a significant number of risks and uncertainties. Because it is uncertain if and when these milestones will be achieved, such contingencies are not recorded until become probable. See Note 8.

On October 24, 2017, the Company announced a strategic research collaboration with Mosaic Biosciences, Inc. (“Mosaic”) to develop intravitreal anti-complement factor 3 (C3) products for the treatment of dry Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) and other retinal diseases. Dr. Usman, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Company’s board of directors, and Mr. Lawlor, a member of the Company’s board of directors, are also members of the board of directors of Mosaic. On December 21, 2018, the Company amended its collaboration agreement with Mosaic to, among other things, include certain additional products. According to the Mosaic collaboration agreement, as amended, the Company and Mosaic co-funded certain research. Expenses related to the co-funded research were $1.1 million and $1.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

On December 18, 2019, the Company entered into the second amendment to the Mosaic collaboration agreement, which added future fees for services upon completion of the co-funded research. Also, Mosaic will perform all future services for a fee. Mosaic is entitled to a low double-digit percentage of funds the Company receives from any C3 collaboration. Mosaic is also entitled to sublicense fees and/or research and development and commercial milestones and royalties on one non-C3 complement product. In connection with the Biogen collaboration, the Company received a $15.0 million upfront license fee on January 10, 2020, see Note 12, and Mosaic is entitled to a $3 million payment from the Company.

The Company leases office space for its corporate headquarters, located in South San Francisco, CA. The lease term is through April 30, 2023 and there are no stated renewal options. Operating lease liabilities are recognized based on the present value of the future minimum lease payments over the lease term. In calculating the present value of the lease payments, the Company has elected to utilize its incremental borrowing rate based on the original lease term and not the remaining lease term. The lease includes non-lease components (e.g., common area maintenance) that are paid separately from rent based on actual costs incurred and therefore were not included in the right-of-use asset and lease liability but are reflected as an expense in the period incurred.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company’s operating lease expense was $0.6 million. The present value assumptions used in calculating the present value of the lease payments were as follows:

The maturity of the Company’s operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2019 were as follows (in thousands):

Supplemental cash flow information for the year ended December 31, 2019 related to operating leases was as follows (in thousands):

In June 2018, stockholders of the Company approved the Company’s 2018 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2018 Plan”). The 2018 Plan had previously been approved by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) and the Compensation Committee of the Board, subject to stockholder approval. The 2018 Plan became effective on June 13, 2018 and provided an additional 1,500,000 stock options, following receipt of the requisite stockholder approval. The 2018 Plan replaces the Company’s 2015 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “2015 Plan”). All awards outstanding under the 2015 Plan will remain in effect in accordance with their respective terms.

The following table summarizes stock option activity under the Company’s equity incentive plans and related information:

	Number of Shares Underlying Outstanding Options			Weighted- Average Exercise Price		Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value (thousands)
Outstanding — December 31, 2017		821,741		$	13.69		9.17	$	6,376
Options granted		612,050		$	13.13
Options exercised		(12,716	)	$	4.17			$	213
Options canceled/forfeited		(43,315	)	$	7.76
Options expired		(15,783	)	$	158.81
Outstanding — December 31, 2018		1,361,977		$	12.04		8.71	$	2,294
Options granted		450,900		$	7.85
Options exercised		(41,219	)	$	4.57			$	159
Options forfeited		(182,722	)	$	8.36
Options expired		(11,395	)	$	96.49
Outstanding — December 31, 2019		1,577,541		$	10.85		8.15	$	1,350
Exercisable — December 31, 2019		740,356		$	13.30
Shares available to be granted — December 31, 2019		1,014,126

The Company estimated the fair value of stock options granted using the Black-Scholes option-pricing formula and a single option award approach. Due to its limited history as a public company and limited number of sales of its common stock, the Company estimated its volatility considering a number of factors including the use of the volatility of comparable public companies. The expected term of options granted under the Plan, all of which qualify as “plain vanilla” per SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 107, is determined based on the simplified method due to the Company’s limited operating history and is 5.98 years based on the average between the vesting period and the contractual life of the option. The risk-free rate is based on the yield of a U.S. Treasury security with a term consistent with the option. This fair value is being amortized ratably over the requisite service periods of the awards, which is generally the vesting period.

The fair value of employee stock options was estimated using the following weighted-average assumptions for the year ended December 31, 2019 and 2018:

Also included in general and administrative stock-based compensation for the year ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 is expense related to 24,235 and 6,790 shares of common stock issued to certain board members in lieu of their cash compensation, respectively.

As of December 31, 2019, 1,014,126 shares of common stock were available for future grant and 1,577,541 options to purchase shares of common stock were outstanding. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had unrecognized employee stock-based compensation expense of $5.3 million, related to unvested stock option awards, which is expected to be recognized over an estimated weighted-average period of 2.41 years.

In June 2018, the Company’s stockholders approved the 2018 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “ESPP”). The ESPP had previously been approved by the Board and the Compensation Committee of the Board, subject to stockholder approval which became effective as of June 13, 2018. Under the ESPP, employees meeting certain specific employment qualifications are eligible to participate and can purchase shares of common stock semi-annually on February 9^th and August 9^th of each year, through payroll deductions. The purchase price is 85% of the lower of the fair market value of the stock at the commencement or end of the offering period. The ESPP permits eligible employees to purchase shares of common stock through payroll deductions for up to 15% of qualified compensation.

The Company’s ESPP is subject to an Evergreen provision which shares may be added to the pool as needed. As of December 31, 2019, a total of 239,545 shares of common stock may be granted in accordance with the terms of the ESPP. As of December 31, 2019, 20,853 shares of common stock have been issued to employees participating in the ESPP and 218,692 shares are available for issuance under the ESPP. Compensation expense, using Black-Scholes, for the ESPP was $0.1 million and $0.03 million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, and is included in stock-based compensation expense.

The Company has incurred cumulative net operating losses since inception and, consequently, has not recorded any income tax expense for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 due to its net operating loss position.

The reconciliation of the federal statutory income tax rate to the Company’s effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 are as follows:

Significant components of the Company’s deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 consist of the following (in thousands):

Based on the available objective evidence at December 31, 2019, the Company does not believe it is more likely than not that the net deferred tax assets will be realizable. Accordingly, the Company has provided a full valuation allowance against its net deferred tax assets at December 31, 2019 and 2018.

As of December 31, 2019, after consideration of certain limitations (see below), the Company had approximately $163.8 million federal and $64.6 million state net operating loss carryforwards (“NOL”) available to reduce future taxable income which, if unused, will begin to expire in 2032 for federal and 2028 for state tax purposes. The federal net operating loss carryforward includes $80.1 million that have an indefinite life.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company also had tax credit carry forwards available to offset future tax liabilities of approximately $6.2 million for federal and $4.7 million for state. If unused, the federal credit will begin to expire in 2037 and the state tax credit does not expire.

If the Company experiences a greater than 50 percent aggregate change in ownership over a three-year period (a Section 382 ownership change), utilization of its pre-change NOL carryforwards are subject to annual limitation under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (California has similar provisions). The annual limitation is determined by multiplying the value of the Company's stock at the time of such ownership change by the applicable long-term tax-exempt rate. Such limitations may result in expiration of a portion of the NOL carryforwards before utilization. The Company determined that ownership changes occurred December 31, 2007, August 20, 2015, April 13, 2017, and February 15, 2018. Approximately $80.1 million and $14.2 million of the NOLs will expire unutilized for federal and California purposes, respectively. The Company has derecognized NOL related deferred tax assets in the tax affected amounts of $16.8 million and $0.0 million for federal and California purposes, respectively.

All of the federal R&D credits could expire unutilized, whereas none of the California R&D credits are subject to expiration. Approximately $6.1 million of gross federal R&D credit-related deferred tax assets were derecognized due to the Section 383 limitation. The ability of the Company to use its remaining NOL carryforwards may be further limited if the Company experiences a Section 382 ownership change as a result of future changes in its stock ownership.

The Company only recognizes tax benefits if it is more likely than not that they will be sustained upon audit by the relevant tax authority based upon their technical merits. An uncertain tax position will not be recognized if it has less than a 50% likelihood of being sustained.

The Company had approximately $1.9 million and $1.6 million of unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. As the Company has a full valuation allowance on its deferred tax assets, the unrecognized tax benefits have reduced the deferred tax assets and the valuation allowance in the same amount. The Company does not expect the amount of unrecognized tax benefits to materially change in the next twelve months.

A reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of the unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands):

Interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits would be included as income tax expense in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company had not recognized any tax-related penalties or interest in its consolidated financial statements.

The Company files income tax returns in the United States federal, California, and New Jersey state jurisdictions. The Company is not currently under examination by income tax authorities in federal, state or other jurisdictions. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company had no uncertain tax positions which affected its financial position as its results of operations or its cash flow, and will continue to evaluate for uncertain tax positions in the future. The Company is subject to United States federal and state income tax examinations by authorities for all tax years due to accumulated net operating losses that are being carried forward for tax purposes.

In 2009, the Company licensed MarzAA to Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Wyeth). Wyeth was subsequently acquired by Pfizer who terminated the license and collaboration agreement after completing an IV Phase 1 trial. Pursuant to the collaboration termination agreement entered on December 8, 2016, in exchange for the rights to certain Pfizer technology, the Company agreed to make contingent cash payments to Pfizer in an aggregate amount equal to up to $17.5 million, payable upon the achievement of clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones. Following commercialization of any covered product, Pfizer would also receive a single-digit royalty on net product sales on a country-by-country basis for a predefined royalty term. In February 2018, the Company paid Pfizer a $1.0 million milestone payment based on the dosing of the first patient in the ongoing Phase 2 study; the amount was recorded as a research and development expense for the year ended December 31, 2018. No additional payments were made to Pfizer for the year ended December 31, 2019.

The Company collaborated with ISU Abxis (ISU), in the early development of DalcA. Under the collaboration agreement, ISU conducted the Phase I clinical trial of DalcA and was responsible for all manufacturing activities for the Phase 1 clinical trial. In December 2018, the Company entered into an amended and restated license agreement with ISU (the “A&R ISU Abxis Agreement”), which amended and restated its previous license and collaboration agreement with ISU previously entered into in September 2013, as subsequently amended in October 2014 and December 2016 (the “Original ISU Abxis Agreement”). Under the A&R ISU Abxis Agreement, ISU will receive commercialization rights in South Korea to the Company’s engineered Factor IX dalcinonacog alfa - DalcA and the Company will receive clinical development and commercialization rights in the rest of world (excluding South Korea) and manufacturing development and manufacturing rights worldwide (including South Korea). The A&R ISU Abxis Agreement eliminates the profit-sharing arrangement in the Original ISU Abxis Agreement and provides for a low single-digit royalty payment to ISU, on a country-by-country basis, for net product sales of DalcA by the Company or its affiliates in each country other than South Korea. Pursuant to the A&R ISU Abxis Agreement, the Company will also pay up to an aggregate of $19.5 million in milestone payments to ISU, inclusive of $2.5 million in regulatory and development milestone payments and up to $17.0 million in commercial milestone payments, if the applicable milestones are met. As of December 31, 2019, the milestones have not been met.

On December 18, 2019, the Company and Biogen International GmbH (“Biogen”) entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement (the “Biogen Agreement”), under which the Company granted Biogen a worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive, sublicenseable license (“Exclusive License”) to develop and commercialize CB 2782-PEG and other anti-C3 proteases for potential treatment of dry AMD and other retinal disorders. Pursuant to the Biogen Agreement, the Company will perform certain pre-clinical and manufacturing activities (“Research Services”), and Biogen will be solely responsible for funding the pre-clinical and manufacturing activities and performing IND-enabling activities, worldwide clinical development, and commercialization. The Company will provide the Research Services over a term of thirty months with Biogen having the option to extend the term for two additional twelve-month periods.

Under the terms of the Biogen Agreement, the Company received an up-front payment for the transfer of the Exclusive License (inclusive of certain know-how) of $15.0 million in January 2020. The Company is eligible to receive development milestones and sales milestones of up to $340.0 million. In addition, the Company is eligible to receive royalties in the range of single-digit to low double-digit percentage rates of annual net sales on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis. The Company will also receive reimbursements for costs associated with the performance of the Research Services.

The Company determined that the performance obligations under the Biogen Agreement were the Exclusive License and the Research Services. For the Exclusive License, the Company used the residual approach in determining the standalone selling price SSP, which includes the upfront payments, milestones and royalties. For the Research Services, the Company used the historical pricing approach for determining the SSP, which includes the reimbursement of personnel and out-of-pocket costs.

The Biogen Agreement will continue on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of the first product in a country, unless being early terminated by either party as specified under the agreement.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company recorded $15.0 million in accounts receivable and deferred revenue for the Exclusive License. The deferred revenue has been recognized in revenue in 2020 upon the transfer of the Exclusive License and the related know-how.

The following table shows the detail of interest and other income, net for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 (in thousands):

In connection with the closing of an underwritten public offering on April 12, 2017, the Company issued Series A Preferred Stock. During the year ended December 31, 2018, 3,680 shares of the Series A Preferred Stock were converted into 736,000 shares of common stock of the Company. As of December 31, 2018, there were no shares of Series A Preferred stock issued and outstanding.

On February 13, 2018, the Company entered into an underwriting agreement with JonesTrading, in connection with a registered firm commitment underwritten public offering of 2,941,176 shares of common stock, pursuant to a shelf registration statement that was declared effective by the SEC on February 6, 2018. On February 15, 2018 the Company sold 3,382,352 shares of common stock (including 441,176 shares of common stock sold pursuant to the exercise of the underwriters’ overallotment option) at a price to the public of $34.00 per share. The net proceeds to the Company, after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by the Company were approximately $106.8 million.

In connection with the closing of the underwritten public offering on April 12, 2017, the Company also issued warrants to purchase 2,070,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $5.50 per share. Upon their issuance, the common stock warrants were determined to be equity instruments under ASC 480 and ASC 815-40. The net proceeds allocated to the warrants based on a relative fair value basis resulted in $5.0 million being allocated to the warrants. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had no warrants outstanding associated with this offering.

The following is a summary of warrant activity for the year ended December 31, 2019 and 2018:

The following table sets forth the computation of the basic and diluted net loss per common share during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 (in thousands, except share and per share data):

Since the Company was in a loss position for all periods presented, diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share for all periods as the inclusion of all potential common shares outstanding would have been anti-dilutive. Potentially dilutive securities on an as-if converted basis that were not included in the diluted per share calculations because they would be anti-dilutive were as follows:

In February 2020, the Company sold an aggregate of 5,307,692 registered shares of common stock at $6.50 per share, for net proceeds, after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses, of approximately $32.0 million.

Our management maintains disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is processed, recorded, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer (our principal executive officer and principal financial officer), as appropriate, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Our management, including the Chief Executive Officer, carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that the information required to be disclosed in the reports filed or submitted by us under the Exchange Act was recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the requisite time periods and that such information was accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer, as appropriate to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect all misstatements. Our internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to our management and board of directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements.

Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2019. Our assessment was based on the framework in the updated Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on our assessment we believe that as of December 31, 2019, our internal control over financial reporting is effective based on those criteria.

EisnerAmper, LLP our independent registered public accounting firm, which audited our consolidated financial statements, has issued an attestation report on our internal control over financial reporting, which is included in this Item 9A below.

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer, evaluated our “internal control over financial reporting” as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) to determine whether any changes in our internal control over financial reporting occurred during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2019 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. Based on that evaluation, there were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2019 that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting.

We have audited Catalyst Biosciences, Inc.’s (the “Company") internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2019, based on criteria established in the Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”). In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2019, based on criteria established in the Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB"), the consolidated balance sheets of Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, and stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years then ended, and the related notes and our report dated February 20, 2020 expressed an unqualified opinion.

The Company’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 Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting 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.

An entity’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. An entity’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the entity; (ii) 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 entity are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the entity; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the entity’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.

On February 19, 2020, our board of directors appointed Nassim Usman, Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, to serve as our Principal Financial Officer and Veronica Cai, our Controller, to serve as our Principal Accounting Officer.

The members of our Board of Directors as of February 7, 2020, their class, positions and their respective ages on that date are:

Nassim Usman, Ph.D. served as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Catalyst Bio from February 2006 until the completion of the merger in August 2015. Since the merger, Dr. Usman has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer and as a Class III director. Dr. Usman is currently a Venture Partner at Morgenthaler Ventures. Prior to joining Morgenthaler in 2005, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at Sirna Therapeutics Inc., which was subsequently acquired by Merck, from 2004 to 2005, and held various R&D positions at both Sirna and Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, including Vice President of R&D and Chief Scientific Officer, from 1992 to 2004. During his industrial career, Dr. Usman has overseen the entry of several drugs into clinical development, completion of multiple licensing deals with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and raised capital in both private and public financings. Prior to moving into the private sector in 1992, Dr. Usman was an NIH Fogarty and NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow and Scientist in the Departments of Biology and Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1987 to 1992. He has authored more than 70 scientific articles and is the named inventor in 130 issued patents and patent applications. Dr. Usman serves on the board of directors of Mosaic Biosciences, is a past director of Principia Biopharma, Osprey Pharmaceuticals, Archemix Corporation and atugen AG (now Silence Therapeutics) and served on the science advisory boards of RXi Pharmaceuticals and Noxxon Pharma AG. He received his B.Sc. (Honours) and Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from McGill University. In his doctoral dissertation, he developed a method for the solid-phase synthesis of RNA that is widely used in science and in two marketed RNA products (Macugen™& Onpattro™).

Dr. Usman’s role as our President and Chief Executive Officer and extensive experience and innovations in the field of biotechnology, particularly with companies engaged in clinical drug development, enable him to bring a unique perspective to the Board. In addition, Dr. Usman’s academic expertise and accomplishments provide the Board with in-depth product and field knowledge.

Errol B. De Souza, Ph.D. served as a member of the board of directors of Targacept from 2004 until the completion of the merger in 2015. Since the completion of the merger, Dr. De Souza has served on our Board as a Class III director. Dr. De Souza is currently the Executive Chairman and a member of the board of directors of Bionomics Ltd, a biopharmaceutical company. Dr. De Souza has substantial experience as an executive in the biopharmaceutical industry. From March 2010 until January 2016, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Biodel Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, and from January 2017 until December 2019, he served as President, CEO and a member of the board of directors of Neuropore Therapies, Inc., a biotechnology company. Previously, Dr. De Souza also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Archemix Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Synaptic Pharmaceutical Corp. until its sale to H. LundbeckA/S. Over Dr. De Souza’s career, he has served in a number of high-ranking research and

development roles, including Senior Vice President and U.S. head of Research and Development for Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis), Co-Founder, Executive Vice President of Research and Development and Director at Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., and head of CNS Disease Research at DuPont Merck.Dr. De Souza received his B.A. (Honors) in Physiology and his Ph.D. in Neuroendocrinology from the University of Toronto and was postdoctoral fellow in Neuroscience at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

These experiences, together with his service as a director for other biopharmaceutical companies, enable Dr. De Souza to contribute valuable insight to the Board regarding pharmaceutical portfolio development and management from both large company and emerging company perspectives.

Jeff Himawan, Ph.D. served as a member of the board of directors of Catalyst Bio from December 2008 until the completion of the merger in August 2015. Since the merger, Dr. Himawan has served as a member of the Board as a Class II director. Dr. Himawan is a Managing Director at Essex Woodlands Health Ventures, a healthcare focused venture capital firm, where he previously served as a Partner from 2001 to 2004 and as an Adjunct Partner from 1999 to 2001. Since 2016, Dr. Himawan has served as a managing director of Park Lane Ventures. He has over 20 years of experience as a scientist, entrepreneur and venture capitalist. Dr. Himawan was a co-founder and Managing Director of Seed-One Ventures, LLC, a venture capital firm that specializes in the initial formation, financing and early operational development of technology-based companies, from 1996 to 2001. From 1983 to 1996, Dr. Himawan was a scientist in academic and industrial settings. He currently serves as a director of MediciNova, a biopharmaceutical company, and Horizon Pharma, a biopharmaceutical company. Dr. Himawan received his B.S. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Dr. Himawan’s extensive experience in the biotechnology industry, considerable service on both public and private boards of directors, and background in corporate finance and raising capital will enable him to contribute important strategic insight to the Board.

Andrea Hunt has served on our Board as a Class II director since October 2017. Ms. Hunt served as the Vice President of New Product Gene Therapy, Neuroscience, Oncology and Ophthalmology with Shire from June 2016 until June 2017, where she developed and integrated disease area strategies for Shire’s gene therapy platform, Neuroscience, Oncology and Ophthalmology franchises. She previously served as the Vice President — Global Franchise Head for Blood Disorders with Baxalta from June 2015 to June 2016 before it was acquired by Shire. From 1988 to 2015, Ms. Hunt served in various roles with Baxter Healthcare, most recently as Vice President — Lead BAX855 and Gene Therapy in the Biosciences division from 2014 to June 2015. Ms. Hunt serves on the board of OX2 Therapeutics, Ryan Banks Academy and is an advisor to Cell One Partners. She previously served as a board member of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine and was an advisor to the Angiogenesis Foundation. Ms. Hunt received her M.B.A. from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and her B.S. in Hospital Dietetics and B.A. in Foods & Nutrition from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Ms. Hunt’s breadth of experience with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, together with her service as a director for another biopharmaceutical company, make her suited to serve on the Board.

Augustine Lawlor has served as a member of our Board since February 2006 and as Chairman of the Board since February 2018. Since August 2015, Mr. Lawlor has served on our Board as a Class I director. Since January 2016, Mr. Lawlor has served as Chief Operating Officer of Leap Therapeutics, Inc., an oncology company. He has been a Managing Director of HealthCare Ventures since 2000. From 1997 to 2000, he served as Chief Operating Officer of LeukoSite, Inc., a biotechnology company acquired by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 1999. Prior to joining LeukoSite, Mr. Lawlor was Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Corporate Development for Alpha-Beta Technologies, Inc., a company that specializes in electronics design, development, manufacturing and system obsolescence issues. He has held similar positions at both BioSurface Technologies Corporation, a company that provides products for biofilm investigations, and Armstrong Pharmaceuticals, a division of Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company. Mr. Lawlor was previously a management consultant with KPMG. He is currently a director of biopharmaceutical companies Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., which is listed on Nasdaq, and Mosaic Biosciences, Inc. Mr. Lawlor received his Master’s in Public and Private Management from Yale University.

Mr. Lawlor brings an important insight and knowledge to the Board based on his experience as a successful venture capitalist, service on the boards of public and private companies, and roles in commercial and business development in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

Geoffrey Ling, M.D., Ph.D. has served as a member of our Board since January 15, 2020 as a Class I director. Dr. Ling has been Professor of Neurology and Attending Neuro Critical Care Physician at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions since 2000 and the Emeritus Professor of Neurology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Science since 2017. He has also been Vice-Chair of Research in the Department of Clinical Neurosciences at Inova Fairfax Medical Center, Fairfax, Virginia since 2017. In September 2016, he co-founded Predigen, Inc., a molecular diagnostics company, and since January 2016, he has served as the Chief Executive Officer of On Demand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a company that he founded in 2016. Dr. Ling served as the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Biological Technologies Office from 2004 to 2015. Dr. Ling received a B.S. in Biology and History from Washington University, a Ph.D. in Pharmacology from Cornell University – Graduate School of Medical Sciences and an M.D. from Georgetown University School of Medicine.

Dr. Ling’s experience in the healthcare industry as an executive in the pharmaceutical industry, drug development and research work for both medical and academic institutions qualify him to serve on the Board.

John P. Richard has served as a member of our Board since November 2002, and he served as Chairman of the Board from January 2014 until August 2015. Since August 2015, Mr. Richard has served as a member of the Board as a Class II director. Mr. Richard is the co-founder and head of corporate development at Mereo BioPharma Group plc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, and previously served as an Operating Partner and Venture Partner at Phase4 Partners, a life science investment firm. From 2005 until 2015 he was also a Managing Director of Georgia Venture Partners, a seed venture capital firm that focuses on the biotechnology industry. In addition, Mr. Richard has served as a senior business advisor to a number of biotechnology companies as well as a consultant to portfolio companies of Georgia Venture Partners and Phase4 Ventures. Mr. Richard brings to the Board extensive business development experience, having led that function at three separate life science companies and played a primary role in establishing numerous pharmaceutical alliances. Mr. Richard received his B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Stanford University and his M.B.A. from Harvard University.

In addition, the breadth of Mr. Richard’s current roles will enable him to view issues that the combined company faces from a variety of perspectives, including as an executive, investor, director and business development professional.

Sharon Tetlow has served as a member of our Board since January 15, 2020 as a Class III director. She has served as Managing Partner of Potrero Hill Advisors since January 2016. Potrero Hill Advisors provides strategic and operational financial support to life science companies through its team of chief financial officers and controllers. Ms. Tetlow was previously the Managing Director of Danforth Advisors, a firm that provides service offerings for life science companies, from April 2013 to January 2016. She served as Chief Financial Officer of Pathwork Diagnostics, Inc., a biotechnology company, from 2011 to 2013. From 2005 to 2009, she served as Chief Financial Officer of Cell Genesys, Inc., a biotechnology company acquired by BioSante, another life sciences company. In connection with her role as managing partner of Potrero Hill Advisors, Ms. Tetlow and her team have led the finance function at numerous biotechnology companies. Ms. Tetlow received her B.A. in Psychology from University of Delaware and her M.B.A. from Stanford University.

Ms. Tetlow’s significant experience in corporate finance and strategic planning in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including her experience as chief financial officer of various publicly traded companies, qualify her to serve on the Board.

Eddie Williamshas served on our Board as a Class I director since January 2018. From 2006 to January 2017, Mr. Williams served as Senior Vice President of biopharmaceuticals at Novo Nordisk Inc., a global healthcare company, where he was responsible for the general management of all aspects of the biotechnology business for the U.S. in three therapeutic areas, including hemophilia. From 2003 to 2006, Mr. Williams was Vice President of sales in the Respiratory and Dermatology Business Unit at Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., a global healthcare company, where he ran all sales aspects of the respiratory and dermatology businesses. Prior to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Mr. Williams held numerous sales and marketing positions of increasing responsibility at Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, aglobal pharmaceutical company that was acquired by Pfizer in 2002. Mr. Williams has also been recognized as Industry Leader of the Year by the National Hemophilia Foundation and chaired fundraising for the Boys & Girls Club of Trenton/Mercer County. Mr. Williams received his B.S. in biology and chemistry from Marshall University.

Mr. Williams brings valuable experience and insight into the hemophilia market and the pharmaceutical business.

Our executive officers as of February 7, 2020, their positions and their respective ages on that date are:

Our executive officers serve at the discretion of the board of directors, subject to rights, if any, under contracts of employment. There are no family relationships among any of our current directors and executive officers. Biographical information for Dr. Usman is provided above under the heading “Board of Directors.”

Howard Levy, M.B. B.Ch., Ph.D., M.M.M., joined us as our Chief Medical Officer in April 2016. Prior to joining us, from 2010 through April 2016, Dr. Levy had served as either a Chief Medical Officer or a consultant with various public and private biotechnology companies on clinical and drug development strategy and execution. In addition, Dr. Levy was the Senior Global Medical Program Director at the global biotechnology company CSL Behring in 2013, and he was the Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer at Inspiration Biopharmaceuticals, a company solely focused on innovation in hemophilia, in 2012. From 2008 to 2011, he served as Chief Medical Officer at Sangart, Inc., which was developing pegylated hemoglobin as an oxygen therapeutic agent and a treatment for sickle cell crisis. Prior to Sangart, from 2006 to 2008, Dr. Levy was Associate Vice President, Clinical Research, Medical and Regulatory Affairs at Novo Nordisk, aglobal healthcare company, and was responsible for a number of clinical research programs, including recombinant Factor VIIa. Earlier in his career, Dr. Levy was Clinical Research Physician and Medical Director, Acute Care in the U.S. Medical Division of Eli Lilly and Company, a pharmaceutical company, supporting post-marketing clinical trials and medical affairs for recombinant Activated Protein C (Xigris) in severe sepsis and antiplatelet agents ReoPro and prasugrel. He was also Chief of Critical Care Medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque for 11 years. Dr. Levy received his M.B. B.Ch and Ph.D. degrees from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa and his M.M.M. from Carnegie Mellon University’s H. John Heinz III College.

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 requires our directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than ten percent of a registered class of our equity securities, to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of common stock and other equity securities of Catalyst. Officers, directors and greater than ten percent stockholders are required by SEC regulation to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

To our knowledge, other than a late Form 3 and a late Form 4 for Ms. Cai, our Controller, that became due upon the resignation of our former Chief Financial Officer, there were no delinquent Section 16(a) reports, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to us and written representations that no other reports were required, during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all officers, directors and employees. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available on the investors section of our website (at www.catalystbiosciences.com) under the heading “Governance Highlights.” If we make any substantive amendments to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics or grant any waiver from a provision of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics to any executive officer or director, we will promptly disclose the nature of the amendment or waiver on the investors section of our website at www.catalystbiosciences.com under the heading “Governance Highlights.” We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirements under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K regarding amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics by posting such information on our website at the address and location specified above.

There have been no material changes to the procedures by which stockholders may recommend individuals for consideration by the Governance and Nominating Committee as potential nominees for director since such procedures were last described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 8, 2017.

We have a separately designated standing Audit Committee established in accordance with section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. Our Audit Committee generally assists the Board in its oversight of Catalyst’s accounting, financial reporting and internal control functions. The Audit Committee currently consists of Mr. Richard, who serves as Chairman, Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Williams. As required by Nasdaq rules, the members of the Audit Committee each qualify as “independent” under special standards established for members of audit committees. To qualify as “independent” to serve on the Audit Committee, the Nasdaq rules and the applicable rules of the SEC require that a director does not accept any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fee from Catalyst, other than for service as a director, or be an affiliated person of the Company. The Board has concluded that the current composition of the Audit Committee meets the requirements for independence under the rules and regulations of Nasdaq and of the SEC. In accordance with SEC rules, the Audit Committee also includes at least one member who is determined by the Board to meet the qualifications of an “audit committee financial expert.” Mr. Richard is the director who has been determined by the Board to be the audit committee financial expert. The designation does not impose upon Mr. Lawlor or Mr. Richard any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than are generally imposed on each of them as members of the Audit Committee and the Board, and each of their designations as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to this SEC requirement does not affect the duties, obligations or liability of any other member of the Audit Committee or the Board.

Nasdaq’s listing standards and Catalyst’s Corporate Governance Guidelines require that the Board consist of a majority of independent directors, as determined under the applicable Nasdaq listing standard. The Board, consistent with the determination of its Governance and Nominating Committee, has determined that, as of February 7, 2020 each of Mr. Lawlor, Ms. Hunt, Mr. Williams, Dr. De Souza, Dr. Himawan, Mr. Richard, Ms. Tetlow and Dr. Ling qualify as an independent director. In addition, as further required by Nasdaq rules, the Board, consistent with the determination of its Governance and Nominating Committee, has made a subjective determination as to each independent director that no relationships exist which, in the opinion of the Board, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. In making these determinations, our directors reviewed and discussed information provided by our directors and us with regard to each director’s business and personal activities as they may relate to us and our management.

In this Executive Compensation section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we refer to Dr. Usman, Dr. Levy and Mr. Payne, collectively, as our Named Executive Officers. Dr. Usman was our Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Levy was our next highest compensated executive officer serving as of December 31, 2019. Mr. Payne voluntarily resigned from his position as our Chief Financial Officer, effective as of August 30, 2019.

The following table shows for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 compensation awarded to or paid to our Named Executive Officers.

Name and principal position	Year	Salary ($)		Option Awards ($)(1)		Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)(2)		All Other Compensation ($)(3)		Total ($)
Nassim Usman, Ph.D.	2019		524,832		455,364		211,560		7,109		1,198,865
President and Chief Executive Officer	2018		480,800		1,715,742		240,400		5,372		2,442,314
Fletcher Payne(4)	2019		252,800		216,361	—			2,047		471,208
Former Chief Financial Officer	2018		345,301		501,228		120,855		2,092		969,476
Howard Levy, M.B.B.Ch., Ph.D., M.M.M Chief Medical Officer	2019		419,500		199,279		110,000		4,239		733,018
	2018		397,838		658,462		139,230		3,317		1,198,847

Each of our currently serving Named Executive Officers is party to an amended and restated employment agreement with us (as described below), as well as a standard confidential information and/or inventions assignment agreement, under which each of Dr. Usman and Dr. Levy agreed not to disclose our confidential information. In August 2018, we entered into amended and restated employment agreements with Dr. Usman and Dr. Levy. The employment agreements were amended and restated in order to, among other things, harmonize the provisions relating to: (i) severance without cause or as a result of constructive termination during the applicable change in control protection periods; and (ii) severance without cause or as a result of constructive termination during the applicable post-change in control severance periods. Other than as described herein, the material terms of the employment agreements, as previously disclosed by us, have not been revised.

Our board of directors or the compensation committee reviews each Named Executive Officer’s base salary and target bonus opportunity from time to time to ensure compensation adequately reflects the Named Executive Officer’s qualifications, experience, role and responsibilities.

Under our amended and restated employment agreement with Dr. Nassim Usman, our President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Usman is entitled to an annual base salary, which is $550,000 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020, and will also have the opportunity to earn an annual performance-based bonus of 50% of his base salary. Dr. Usman is eligible for our employee benefit plans including, but not limited to, life, disability insurance, medical, dental and vision insurance, and a 401(k) and Section 125 Flexible Spending Accounts.

The amended and restated employment agreement provides that if Dr. Usman’s employment is terminated without “cause” (as defined in the agreement) or as a result of “constructive termination,” (as defined in the agreement), in each case outside of the “Change in Control Protection Period” (as defined below), he shall be entitled to receive, subject to certain conditions described in Dr. Usman’s amended and restated employment agreement, the following:

In addition, if Dr. Usman’s employment is terminated without “cause” or as a result of “constructive termination,” in each case during the six (6) month period prior to or the eighteen (18) month period following a “change in control” (as defined in the Company’s 2018 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time, the “Change in Control Protection Period”), Dr. Usman would be eligible to receive, subject to certain conditions described in Dr. Usman’s amended and restated employment agreement, the following:

Under our offer letter with Dr. Levy, our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Levy is entitled to an annual base salary, which is $432,085 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020. Dr. Levy will also have the opportunity to earn an annual performance-based bonus of 40% of his base salary. Dr. Levy is eligible for our employee benefit plans including, but not limited to, life, disability insurance, medical, dental and vision insurance, and a 401(k) and Section 125 Flexible Spending Accounts.

The amended and restated employment agreement provides that if Dr. Levy’s employment is terminated without “cause” (as defined in the agreement) or as a result of “constructive termination,” (as defined in the agreement), in each case outside of the Change in Control Protection Period, Dr. Levy would be eligible to receive, subject to certain conditions described in the amended and restated employment agreement, the following:

In addition, if Dr. Levy’s employment is terminated without “cause” or as a result of “constructive termination,” in each case during the Change in Control Protection Period, Dr. Levy would be eligible to receive, subject to certain conditions described in the amended and restated employment agreement, the following:

The following table provides information regarding unexercised stock options held by each of the Named Executive Officers as of the end of fiscal year 2019.

Name	Grant Date	FN			Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Option Exercisable(#)		Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Option Unexercisable(#)		FN			Option Exercise Price($)		Option Expiration Date
Nassim Usman, Ph.D.	8/20/2015		(1	)		1,500	0			(3	)		172.80	1/3/2023
	10/22/2015		(1	)		4,761	0			(2	)		66.00	10/22/2025
	10/22/2015		(1	)		10,238		0		(2	)		66.00	10/22/2025
	7/11/2017					161,658		103,125		(5	)		4.63	7/11/2027
	1/12/2018					35,625		59,375		(6	)		15.13	1/12/2028
	7/30/2018					28,125		46,875		(7	)		9.68	7/30/2028
	1/24/2019					18,333		61,667		(8	)		7.97	1/24/2029
Fletcher Payne	1/22/2015		(1	)		488	0						114.00	1/22/2025
	1/22/2015		(1	)		162	0						114.00	1/22/2025
	5/8/2015		(1	)		955	0						90.45	5/8/2025
	10/22/2015					4,662	0						66.00	10/22/2025
	10/22/2015					1,870		0					66.00	10/22/2025
	7/11/2017					39,063		0					4.63	7/11/2027
	1/12/2018					10,292		0					15.13	1/12/2028
	7/30/2018					7,292		0					9.68	7/30/2028
	1/24/2019					5,542		0					7.97	1/24/2029
Howard Levy M.B.B.Ch, Ph.D., M.M.M.	4/18/2016					6,113	553			(4	)		22.80	4/18/2026
	7/11/2017					45,593		35,625		(5	)		4.63	7/11/2027
	1/12/2018					15,812		17,188		(6	)		15.13	1/12/2028
	7/30/2018					13,125		21,875		(7	)		9.68	7/30/2028
	1/24/2019					8,021		26,979		(8	)		7.97	1/24/2029

Pursuant to our non-employee directors’ compensation policy (directors who are employees of the Company will not receive any compensation for their service on the board of directors), our non-employee directors are eligible to receive the following:

Pursuant to a policy approved by our Board of Directors, each director may elect annually to receive some or all of his or her retainer service fees in the form of fully vested shares of Company common stock.

The following table shows for the year ended December 31, 2019 certain information with respect to the compensation of our non-employee directors serving during 2019. For information regarding compensation paid to Dr. Usman, see the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 96.

Name	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(4)		Option Awards ($)(1)(2)		Stock Grants ($)(3)		Total ($)
Augustine Lawlor	—			29,609		86,232		115,841
Andrea Hunt		22,813		29,609		28,708		81,130
Eddie Williams	—			29,609		48,106		77,715
Errol B. De Souza	—			29,609		51,853		81,462
Jeff Himawan, Ph.D.⁽⁴⁾	—		—		—		—
John P. Richard		57,812		29,609	—			87,421
Stephen A. Hill⁽⁵⁾		35,625	—		—			35,625

None of the directors who served on our Compensation Committee during 2018 was an officer within the meaning of Rule 3b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or an employee of the Company during or prior to fiscal year 2018 nor did any of such directors have any relationship during the past year that would have been required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 of Regulation S-K. None of our executive officers currently serve, or in the past year have served, as a member of the board of directors or compensation committee, or other committee serving an equivalent function, of any other entity that has one or more executive officer serving on our Board or Compensation Committee.

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of February 7, 2020, for:

Applicable percentage ownership is based on 12,076,777 shares of common stock outstanding at February 7, 2020. We have determined beneficial ownership in accordance with SEC rules. The information does not necessarily indicate beneficial ownership for any other purpose. Under these rules, the number of shares of common stock deemed outstanding includes shares issuable upon exercise of options or warrants, or the conversion of convertible notes, held by the respective person or group that may be exercised or converted within 60 days after February 7, 2020. For purposes of calculating each person’s or group’s percentage ownership, stock options and warrants exercisable, and notes convertible, within 60 days after February 7, 2020 are included for that person or group, but not the stock options of any other person or group.

Unless otherwise indicated and subject to applicable community property laws, to our knowledge, each stockholder named in the following table possesses sole voting and investment power over the shares listed. Unless otherwise noted below, the address of each person listed in the table is c/o Catalyst Biosciences, Inc., 611 Gateway Blvd., Suite 710, S. San Francisco, CA 94080.

	Number of Shares
	Owned and Nature
Name	of Beneficial Ownership			Percent of Class
5% or Greater Stockholders
22NW Fund, LP
1455 NW Leary Way, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98107		735,841	(1)	6.1
Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Julian Singer
		821,378	(2)	6.8
Entities Affiliated with Integrated Core Strategies (US) LLC
c/o Millennium Management LLC, 666 Fifth Avenue, 8th Floor, New York Ny 10103		717,365	(3)	5.9
JFL Capital Management, LLC
2110 Ranch Road 620 S, #341732, Lakeway, TX 78734		839,070	(4)		7.0
Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.
		599,519	(5)		5.0
Nantahala Capital Management, LLC
19 Old Kings Highway S, Suite 200, Darien, CT 06820		855,243	(6)		7.1
Directors and Named Executive Officers
Nassim Usman, Ph.D.		314,048	(7)		2.5
Howard Levy, M.B.B.Ch., Ph.D., M.M.M.		119,422	(8)	*
Augustine Lawlor		105,259	(9)(10)	*
Andrea Hunt		21,932	(11)	*
Eddie Williams		25,089	(12)	*
Errol B. De Souza		31,467	(13)	*
Jeff Himawan, Ph.D.		81,538	(14)	*
John P. Richard		23,543	(15)	*
All Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (10 persons)		722,298	(16)		5.9	%

The Company’s equity compensation plans consist of the Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (as adopted on June 13, 2018) (the “2018 Plan”), the Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. 2015 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended and restated effective October 14, 2015), as amended (the “2015 Plan”), the Targacept, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2006 Plan”) and the Targacept, Inc. 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2000 Plan”), each of which was approved by the Company’s stockholders, as well as the Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. 2004 Stock Plan (the “2004 Plan”), which was approved by Catalyst Bio’s stockholders and assumed in connection with the merger, and a plan that relates solely to an inducement stock option grant for 100,000 shares that was awarded in 2016. No further grants may be made under any of these plans, other than the 2018 Plan. The Company also granted a standalone inducement stock option to Dr. Howard Levy in April 2016, another standalone inducement stock option in December 2012, and assumed in connection with the merger, standalone options granted to certain service providers of Catalyst Bio in February 2014, February 2015 and May 2015. The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2019 with respect to the Company’s equity compensation plans and standalone options.

As of December 31, 2019, the maximum aggregate number of shares available for future grants under all the Company-administered equity compensation plans was 1,014,126 shares. In addition, at that time, the aggregate number of shares subject to unvested outstanding full value awards was zero, and the aggregate number of shares subject to outstanding options, including standalone options, was 1,577,541 shares. The weighted average exercise price of these options was $10.85, and the weighted average remaining term was 8.147 years as of December 31, 2019. On December 31, 2019, the closing sales price of the common stock as reported on Nasdaq was $6.81 per share.

Described below are the transactions and series of similar transactions since January 1, 2018 in which:

Please see “Executive Compensation” for information on compensation arrangements with our executive officers and agreements with, and offer letters to, our executive officers containing compensation and termination provisions, among others.

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors and with each executive officer. Pursuant to the indemnification agreements, the Company has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless these directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law. The agreements generally cover expenses that a director or officer incurs or amounts that a director or officer becomes obligated to pay because of any proceeding to which he or she is made or threatened to be made a party or participant by reason of his or her service as a current or former director, officer, employee or agent of the Company. The agreements also provide for the advancement of expenses to the directors and officers subject to specified conditions. There are certain exceptions to the Company’s obligation to indemnify the directors and officers, including any intentional malfeasance or act where the director or officer did not in good faith believe he or she was acting in the Company’s best interests, with respect to “short-swing” profit claims under Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act and, with certain exceptions, with respect to proceedings that he or she initiates.

The Board has adopted a written policy pursuant to which each actual or proposed financial transaction, arrangement or relationship (including any indebtedness or guarantee of indebtedness) or series of similar financial transactions, arrangements or relationships, other than specified employment and compensatory matters, in which (i) the Company was or would be a participant, (ii) the amount involved exceeds $120,000 and (iii) a “related person” (as defined under Item 404 of Regulation S-K) has a direct or indirect material interest, is submitted to the Audit Committee for its review and approval or, if applicable, ratification. These transactions, arrangements or relationships are known as “related person transactions.”

Under the policy, our Chief Financial Officer and outside counsel consult regarding any proposed transaction, arrangement or relationship that is identified as a possible related person transaction. If they determine the Company desires to proceed with the proposed transaction, arrangement or relationship and the outside counsel determines, based on available information, that the proposed transaction may constitute a related person transaction, it is submitted to the Audit Committee for its consideration. The Audit Committee is to consider all available relevant facts and circumstances, including the benefits to the Company, the impact on a director’s independence in the event the related person is a director (or a family member or entity affiliated with a director), the availability of other sources for comparable products or services, the proposed terms and the terms available to or from parties that are not related persons. Absent special circumstances, the Audit Committee may approve only those related person transactions that it determines to be in or not contrary to the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. No member of the Audit Committee may participate in any review, consideration or approval of any related person transaction with respect to which the member or any of his or her immediate family members is the related person.

On October 24, 2017, the Company announced a strategic research collaboration with Mosaic to develop intravitreal anti-complement factor 3 (C3) products for the treatment of dry AMD and other retinal diseases. On December 21, 2018, we amended our collaboration agreement with Mosaic to, among other things, include certain additional products. On December 18, 2019, the Company entered into the second amendment to the collaboration agreement, which added fees for future services upon completion of the co-funded research. Mosaic is entitled to sublicense fees and/or research and development and commercial milestones and royalties on C3 and one non-C3 complement product. In connection with the Biogen collaboration for dry AMD and other retinal products, the Company received a $15.0 million upfront fee in January 2020, and Mosaic is entitled to receive a double-digit percentage of the amount the Company received from Biogen. Dr. Usman, our Chief Executive Officer and a member of our board of directors, and Mr. Lawlor, a managing director of HealthCare Ventures VIII, L.P. and a member of our board of directors, are members of the board of directors of Mosaic. Mr. Lawlor may be deemed to indirectly beneficially own all of the shares of Mosaic held by Healthcare Ventures VIII, L.P. The transaction was reviewed by disinterested members of our board of directors and approved by our Audit Committee.

For a discussion of the independence of our directors, please see Part III-Item 10-“Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—Director Independence” above.

The following table sets forth the fees for professional services rendered by EisnerAmper LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, in connection with the audits of our annual financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 and for other services rendered by EisnerAmper LLP during those periods. All fees described below were approved by the Audit Committee.

The Audit Committee has adopted a policy that requires the Audit Committee to approve all audit and permissible non-audit services to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm prior to its engagement to provide such services. The Audit Committee has established a pre-approval policy for certain audit and non-audit services, up to a specified amount for each identified service that may be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee, or any member of the Audit Committee designated by the Chairman, may specifically approve any service that is not a prohibited non-audit service if the fees for such service are not reasonably expected to exceed $10,000. Any such approval by the Chairman or his designee must be reported to the Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting. The pre-approved services of the independent registered public accounting firm, and corresponding maximum fees, are reviewed annually by the Audit Committee.

See Index to Consolidated Financial Statements inat Item 8 ~~of the Form 10-K.~~herein.

~~See index to Consolidated Financial~~All schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown under Item 8. “Financial Statements ~~in Item 8 of the Form 10‑K.~~and Supplementary Data.”

~~++ Pursuant to Item 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K, certain confidential portions of this exhibit were omitted by means of marking such portions with~~

~~an asterisk~~SIGNAT ~~because the identified confidential portions (i) are not material and (ii) would be competitively harmful if publicly disclosed.~~

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

Each person whose individual signature appears below hereby authorizes and appoints Nassim Usman and Veronica Cai, and each of them, with full power of substitution and resubstitution and full power to act without the other, as his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent to act in his or her name, place and stead and to execute in the name and on behalf of each person, individually and in each capacity stated below, and to file any and all amendments to this annual report on Form 10-K and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing, ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them or their or his substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

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

Signature	~~/s/ Fletcher Payne~~	Title	Date
	~~Fletcher Payne~~
/s/ Nassim Usman, Ph.D.		President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)	February 20, 2020
Nassim Usman, Ph.D.
	~~Chief Financial~~
/s/ Veronica Cai		Principal Accounting Officer	February 20, 2020
Veronica Cai		Principal Accounting Officer
	~~(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)~~
/s/ Augustine Lawlor		Chairman of the Board of Directors	February 20, 2020
Augustine Lawlor

/s/ Errol B. De Souza, Ph.D.		Director	February 20, 2020
Errol B. De Souza, Ph.D.

/s/ Jeff Himawan, Ph.D.		Director	February 20, 2020
Jeff Himawan, Ph.D.

/s/ Andrea Hunt		Director	February 20, 2020
Andrea Hunt

/s/ Geoffrey Ling, M.D., Ph.D.		Director	February 20, 2020
Geoffrey Ling, M.D., Ph.D.

/s/ John P. Richard		Director	February 20, 2020
John P. Richard

/s/ Sharon Tetlow		Director	February 20, 2020
Sharon Tetlow

/s/ Eddie Williams		Director	February 20, 2020
Eddie Williams


Delaware	56-2020050
(State or ~~other jurisdiction~~Other Jurisdiction of	~~(I.R.S. Employer~~
Incorporation or Organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

611 Gateway Blvd. Suite 710
South San Francisco, California	94080
(Address of ~~principal executive offices)~~Principal Executive Offices)	(Zip Code)


Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common stock, par value $0.001 per share	CBIO	The Nasdaq Capital Market

		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	6
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	28
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	52
Item 2.	Properties	52
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	52
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	52

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	53
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	53
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	54
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	63
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	64
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	87
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	87
Item 9B.	Other Information	90

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	91
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	96
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management	100
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	105
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	106

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	107
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	107

LIST OF EXHIBITS		108

SIGNATURES		112

	Year Ended December 31,
	2019		2018
Personnel costs	$	8,284	$	4,366
Preclinical research ⁽¹⁾		8,484		4,549
Clinical manufacturing ⁽¹⁾		26,137		12,184
Facility and overhead ⁽¹⁾		954		375
Total research and development expenses	$	43,859	$	21,474


Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☒

Non-accelerated filer	☐	Smaller reporting company	☒

		Emerging growth company	☐

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	65
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Balance Sheets	66
Consolidated Statements of Operations	67
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss	68
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity	69
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	70
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements	71

Weighted-average remaining lease term				3.33 years
Weighted-average discount rate					6.0	%

Undiscounted lease payments	Operating Leases
2020	$	578
2021		596
2022		613
2023		209
Total undiscounted lease payments	$	1,996
Less: imputed interest		(194	)
Total operating lease liability		1,802
Less: current portion of operating lease liability		483
Operating lease liability, noncurrent	$	1,319

Beginning Balance at January 1, 2018	$	1,475
Increase/(Decrease) of unrecognized tax benefits taken in prior years		13
Increase/(Decrease) of unrecognized tax benefits related to current year		85
Ending Balance at December 31, 2018	$	1,573
Increase/(Decrease) of unrecognized tax benefits taken in prior years		45
Increase/(Decrease) of unrecognized tax benefits related to current year		253
Ending Balance at December 31, 2019	$	1,871

	Number of Shares			Weighted Average
	Underlying Warrants			Exercise Price
Outstanding — December 31, 2017		1,751,708		$	6.46
Issued		—
Exercised		(1,735,419	)	$	5.50
Forfeited/Cancelled⁽¹⁾		(6,095	)	$	5.50
Outstanding — December 31, 2018		10,194		$	155.73
Issued		—
Exercised		—
Forfeited/Cancelled		(2,337	)	$	499.50
Outstanding — December 31, 2019		7,857		$	53.61

Name	Age	Class	Position
Nassim Usman, Ph.D.	60	III	President and Chief Executive Officer
Errol B. De Souza, Ph.D.	66	III	Compensation Committee Chair
Jeff Himawan, Ph.D.	54	II	Governance and Nominating Committee Chair
Andrea Hunt	60	II	Compensation Committee Member and Governance and Nominating Committee Member
Augustine Lawlor	66	I	Chairman of the Board, Audit Committee Member, Compensation Committee Member and Governance and Nominating Committee Member
Geoffrey Ling, M.D. Ph.D.	63	I	Board of Directors
John P. Richard	62	II	Governance and Nominating Committee Member and Audit Committee Chair
Sharon Tetlow	60	III	Board of Directors
Eddie Williams	64	I	Audit Committee Member

Additional annual retainer fees for service as member or chair of	Member		Chair
Board of Directors	$	40,000	$	70,000
Audit Committee	$	7,500	$	15,000
Compensation Committee	$	5,000	$	10,000
Governance and Nominating Committee	$	3,750	$	7,500

NAME	Aggregate Number of Option Awards
Augustine Lawlor		21,500
Andrea Hunt		20,000
Eddie Williams		20,000
Errol B. De Souza		23,079
Jeff Himawan, Ph.D.	—
John P. Richard		23,577
Stephen A. Hill	—

Plan Category	Number of Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options Warrants and Rights (A)		Weighted- Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options (B)		Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans (Excluding Securities Reflected in Column (A)) (C)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders⁽¹⁾		1,564,913	$	10.29		1,014,126
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders⁽²⁾		12,628	$	74.91	—
Total		1,577,541	$	10.85		1,014,126

	Fiscal 2019		Fiscal 2018
Audit Fees⁽¹⁾:	$	369,671	$	339,600
Audit-Related Fees:	—		—
Tax Fees:	—		—
All Other Fees:	—		—
Total Fees:	$	369,671	$	339,600


CATALYST BIOSCIENCES, INC.

By:	~~CATALYST BIOSCIENCES, INC~~./s/ Nassim Usman, Ph.D.
	~~(Registrant)~~
~~Date: April 26, 2019~~	~~/s/ Nassim Usman~~
	Nassim Usman, Ph.D.
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	~~(Principal Executive Officer)~~
Date: ~~April 26, 2019~~February 20, 2020