| Significant Accounting Policies | (3) Significant Accounting Policies Revenue Recognition The Company’s revenues are generated primarily through collaborative research, development and commercialization agreements. The terms of these agreements generally contain multiple promised goods and services, which may include (i) licenses, or options to obtain licenses, to the Company’s technology, (ii) research and development activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborative partner, and (iii) in certain cases, services in connection with the manufacturing of preclinical and clinical material. Payments to the Company under these arrangements typically include one or more of the following: non-refundable, upfront license fees; option exercise fees; funding of research and/or development efforts; milestone payments; and royalties on future product sales. Collaboration Arrangements Within the Scope of ASC 808, Collaborative Arrangements The Company analyzes its collaboration arrangements to assess 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 and are therefore within the scope of ASC Topic 808, Collaborative Arrangements (“ASC 808”). This assessment is performed throughout the life of the arrangement based on changes in the responsibilities of all parties in the arrangement. For collaboration arrangements that are deemed to be within the scope of ASC 808, the Company first determines which elements of the collaboration are deemed to be within the scope of ASC 808 and those that are more reflective of a vendor-customer relationship and therefore within the scope of ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASC 606”). The Company’s policy is generally to recognize amounts received from collaborators in connection with joint operating activities that are within the scope of ASC 808 as a reduction in research and development expense. Arrangements Within the Scope of ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers Effective January 1, 2018, the Company adopted ASC 606 using the modified retrospective transition method. Under this method, the Company has recognized the cumulative effect of the adoption as an adjustment to the opening balance of accumulated deficit in the current period consolidated balance sheet. Financial results for the year ended December 31, 2018 are presented under ASC 606, while prior period amounts are not adjusted and continue to be reported in accordance with the Company ’ Revenue Recognition Under ASC 606, the Company recognizes revenue when its customers obtain control of promised goods or services, in an amount that reflects the consideration which the Company determines it expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. To determine revenue recognition for arrangements that the Company determines are within the scope of ASC 606, the Company performs the following five steps: (i) identify the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligation(s) in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligation(s) in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the Company satisfies its performance obligation(s). As part of the accounting for these arrangements, the Company must make significant j Once a contract is determined to be within the scope of ASC 606, the Company assesses the goods or services promised within the contract and determines those that are performance obligations. Arrangements that include rights to additional goods or services that are exercisable at a customer’s discretion are generally considered options. The Company assesses if these options provide a material right to the customer and if so, they are considered performance obligations. The exercise of a material right is accounted for as a contract modification for accounting purposes. The Company assesses whether each promised good or service is distinct for the purpose of identifying the performance obligations in the contract. This assessment involves subjective determinations and requires management to make judgments about the individual promised goods or services and whether such are separable from the other aspects of the contractual relationship. Promised goods and services are considered distinct provided that: (i) the customer can benefit from the good or service either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer (that is, the good or service is capable of being distinct) and (ii) the entity’s promise to transfer the good or service to the customer is separately identifiable from other promises in the contract (that is, the promise to transfer the good or service is distinct within the context of the contract). In assessing whether a promised good or service is distinct, the Company considers factors such as the research, manufacturing and commercialization capabilities of the collaboration partner and the availability of the associated expertise in the general marketplace. The Company also considers the intended benefit of the contract in assessing whether a promised good or service is separately identifiable from other promises in the contract. If a promised good or service is not distinct, an entity is required to combine that good or service with other promised goods or services until it identifies a bundle of goods or services that is distinct. The transaction price is then determined and allocated to the identified performance obligations in proportion to their standalone selling prices (“SSP”) on a relative SSP basis. SSP is determined at contract inception and is not updated to reflect changes between contract inception and when the performance obligations are satisfied. Determining the SSP for performance obligations requires significant judgment. In developing the SSP for a performance obligation, the Company considers applicable market conditions and relevant entity-specific factors, including factors that were contemplated in negotiating the agreement with the customer and estimated costs. The Company validates the SSP for performance obligations by evaluating whether changes in the key assumptions used to determine the SSP will have a significant effect on the allocation of arrangement consideration between multiple performance obligations. If the consideration promised in a contract includes a variable amount, the Company estimates the amount of consideration to which it will be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services to a customer. The Company determines the amount of variable consideration by using the expected value method or the most likely amount method. The Company includes the unconstrained amount of estimated variable consideration in the transaction price. The amount included in the transaction price is constrained to the amount for which it is probable that a significant reversal of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur. At the end of each subsequent reporting period, the Company re-evaluates the estimated variable consideration included in the transaction price and any related constraint, and if necessary, adjusts its estimate of the overall transaction price. Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis in the period of adjustment. In determining the transaction price, the Company adjusts consideration for the effects of the time value of money if the timing of payments provides the Company with a significant benefit of financing. The Company does not assess whether a contract has a significant financing component if the expectation at contract inception is such that the period between payment by the licensees and the transfer of the promised goods or services to the licensees will be one year or less. The Company assessed each of its revenue generating arrangements in order to determine whether a significant financing component exists and concluded that a significant financing component does not exist in any of its arrangements. The Company then recognizes as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when (or as) each performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time or over time, and if over time based on the use of an output or input method. Licenses of intellectual property: The terms of the Company’s license agreements include the license of functional intellectual property, given the functionality of the intellectual property is not expected to change substantially as a result of the Company’s ongoing activities. If the 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 from the portion of the transaction price allocated to the license when the license is transferred to the licensee and the licensee is able to use and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promises (that is, for licenses that are not distinct from other promised goods and services in an arrangement), the Company utilizes judgment 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 and, if over time, the appropriate method of measuring progress for purposes of recognizing revenue. The Company evaluates the measure of progress each reporting period and, if necessary, adjusts the measure of performance and related revenue recognition. Research and development funding: Arrangements that include payment for research and development services are generally considered to have variable consideration. If and when the Company assesses the payment for these services is no longer subject to the constraint on variable consideration, the related revenue is included in the transaction price. Milestone payments: At the inception of each arrangement that includes non-refundable payments for contingent milestones, including preclinical research and development, clinical development and regulatory , the Company evaluates whether the milestones are considered probable of being achieved 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 considered probable of being achieved until those approvals are received. At the end of each reporting period, the Company re-evaluates the probability of the achievement of contingent milestones and the likelihood of a significant reversal of such milestone revenue, and if necessary, adjusts its estimate of the overall transaction price. Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect collaboration and licensing revenue in the period of adjustment. This quarterly assessment may result in the recognition of revenue related to a contingent milestone payment before the milestone event has been achieved. Royalties: For arrangements that include sales-based royalties, including milestone payments based on the level of sales, and the license is deemed to be the predominant item to which the royalties relate, the Company recognizes revenue at the later of (i) when the related sales occur, or (ii) when the performance obligation to which some or all of the royalty has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied). The following table summarizes the total revenues earned in the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively, by partner (in thousands). Refer to Note 4 Collaborations and License Agreements regarding specific details.
Years Ended December 31,
2018
2017
2016
Strategic Partner:
($ in thousands)
EUSA
$
3,409
$
4,414
$
395
CANbridge
2,000
1,000
1,028
Novartis
—
1,800
—
Biogen Idec
—
—
38
Pharmstandard
—
—
939
Ophthotech
—
115
115
Other
—
250
—
Total revenues
$
5,409
$
7,579
$
2,515
Research and Development Expenses Research and development expenses are charged to expense as incurred. Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred in performing research and development activities, including internal costs for salaries, bonuses, benefits, stock-based compensation, facilities, and research-related overhead, and external costs for clinical trials, drug manufacturing and distribution, license fees, consultants and other contracted services. Warrants Issued in Connection with Private Placement In May 2016, the Company issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 17,642,482 shares of common stock in connection with a private placement financing and recorded the warrants as a liability (the “PIPE Warrants”). The Company accounts for warrant instruments that either conditionally or unconditionally obligate the issuer to transfer assets as liabilities regardless of the timing of the redemption feature or price, even though the underlying shares may be classified as permanent or temporary equity. As of December 31, 2018, PIPE Warrants exercisable for 803,108 shares of common stock had been exercised, for approximately $0.8 million in cash proceeds, and PIPE Warrants exercisable for 16,839,375 shares of common stock were outstanding. In July 2017, Hercules Capital Inc. exercised its PIPE Warrants with respect to all 259,067 shares of common stock underlying such PIPE Warrants, and the Company issued Hercules Capital Inc. 259,067 shares of its common stock and received approximately $0.3 million in cash proceeds. In 2018, PIPE Warrants with respect to 544,041 shares of common stock underlying such PIPE Warrants were exercised, and the Company issued 544,041 shares of its common stock and received approximately $0.5 million in cash proceeds. Refer to Note 7, “ Common Stock—Private Placement / PIPE Warrants” The PIPE Warrants contain a provision giving the warrant holder the option to receive cash, equal to the fair value of the remaining unexercised portion of the warrant, as cash settlement in the event that there is a fundamental transaction (contractually defined to include various merger, acquisition or stock transfer activities). Due to this provision, ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity The Company recorded a non-cash gain of approximately $19.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2018, a non-cash loss of $33.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2017 and a non-cash gain of approximately $4.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2016 in its Statement of Operations attributable to the increases and decreases in the fair value of the warrant liability that resulted from lower stock prices as of December 31, 2018, higher stock prices as of December 31, 2017 and lower stock prices as of December 31, 2016, relative to prior periods. The Company recorded a reduction in the warrant liability attributable to warrant exercises, with a corresponding increase to additional paid-in capital, of approximately $1.2 million, $0.6 million and $0 in the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The following table rolls forward the fair value of the Company’s PIPE warrant liability, the fair value of which is determined by Level 3 inputs for the year ended December 31, 2018 (in thousands):
Issuance of Warrants on May 13, 2016
$
9,344
Decrease in fair value
(4,751
)
Fair value at December 31, 2016
$
4,593
Increase in fair value
33,740
Reduction in warrant liability for PIPE Warrant exercises
(587
)
Fair value at December 31, 2017
$
37,746
Decrease in fair value
(19,919
)
Reduction in warrant liability for PIPE Warrant exercises
(1,153
)
Fair value at December 31, 2018
$
16,674
The key assumptions used to value the PIPE Warrants were as follows:
Original Issuance
December 31, 2016
December 31, 2017
December 31, 2018
Expected price volatility
76.25
%
78.18
%
84.86
%
82.64
%
Expected term (in years)
5.00
4.50
3.50
2.50
Risk-free interest rates
1.22
%
1.93
%
2.09
%
2.47
%
Stock price
$
0.89
$
0.54
$
2.79
$
1.60
Dividend yield
—
—
—
—
Prior Class Action Settlement and Settlement Warrants In December 2017, the Company entered into a binding memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) with class representatives Bob Levine and William Windham (the “Plaintiffs”), regarding the settlement of a securities class action lawsuit (the “Class Action”) that had been filed in 2013 and was pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “District Court”) against the Company and certain of the Company’s former officers (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David Johnston, and William Slichenmyer, together, the “Individual Defendants”), In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al. In December 2017, upon entering into the MOU, the Company’s liability related to this settlement became estimable and probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated $17.1 million contingent liability, including $15.0 million for the cash portion of the settlement with a corresponding insurance recovery for the 100% portion to be paid directly by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers, and an approximate $2.1 million estimate for the fair value on December 31, 2017 of 2.0 million warrants to purchase shares of its common stock that the Company agreed to issue the Class (the “Settlement Warrants”), with a corresponding non-cash charge to the Statement of Operations as a component of operating expense. The Settlement Warrants are exercisable for a one-year period from their date of issue at an exercise price equal to the closing price on December 22, 2017, the trading day prior to the execution of the MOU, which was $3.00 per share. The settlement was subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the Class, and final approval of the District Court and became effective on the date (the “Effective Date”) on which all of the following conditions occurred: (a) a final judgment containing the requisite release of claims had been entered by the District Court; (b) no appeal was pending with respect to the final judgment; (c) the final judgment had not been reversed, modified, vacated or amended; (d) the time to file any appeal from the final judgment had expired without the filing of an appeal or an order dismissing the appeal or affirming the final judgment had been entered, and any time to file a further appeal (including a writ of certiorari or for reconsideration of the appeal) had expired; and (e) the MOU and any settlement agreement with respect to the claims released in the final judgment had not expired or been terminated. In January 2018, the Company entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement agreement (the “Stipulation”). In February 2018, the District Court preliminarily approved the Stipulation, following which the insurance carriers funded the settlement escrow account related to the $15.0 million cash portion of the settlement. On May 30, 2018, the District Court approved the Stipulation in its order of final approval and final judgment (the “Final Judgment”). Upon the conclusion of a 30-day appeal period, the Effective Date was deemed to be June 29, 2018. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, all claims against the Company were released upon the Effective Date. In addition, pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company had no interest in the settlement escrow account subsequent to the Effective Date. Accordingly, the $15.0 million contingent liability associated with the cash portion of the settlement and the corresponding insurance recovery was eliminated on the Effective Date. The Company had agreed to use its best efforts to issue and deliver the Settlement Warrants within ten business days following the Effective Date. On July 16, 2018, the Company issued and delivered the Settlement Warrants in accordance with the Stipulation and filed a corresponding shelf registration statement, File No. (333-226190) to register the shares of common stock underlying the Settlement Warrants which was declared effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018. Refer to Note 13, “ Legal Proceedings The estimated fair value of the Settlement Warrants was determined using the Black-Scholes pricing model. The estimated fair value of the Settlement Warrants was subject to revaluation at each balance sheet date and any changes in fair value were recorded as a non-cash gain or (loss) in the Statement of Operations as a component of operating expenses until the Settlement Warrants were issued. The Company recorded a non-cash gain of approximately $0.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2018 in its Statement of Operations attributable to the decrease in the fair value of the Settlement Warrants from December 31, 2017 to the date the Settlement Warrants were issued that principally resulted from a lower volatility rate relative to prior periods. In July 2018, upon the issuance of the Settlement Warrants, the Company reclassified the approximate $1.4 million value of the Settlement Warrants from a liability to stockholders equity as a component of additional paid-in-capital based upon the terms of the warrant agreement and, accordingly, the approximate $1.4 million contingent liability on the Company’s balance sheet associated with the warrant portion of the settlement was eliminated. The key assumptions used to estimate the fair value the Settlement Warrants were as follows:
December 31, 2017
June 30, 2018
Expected price volatility
101.52
%
62.74
%
Expected term (in years)
1.00
1.00
Risk-free interest rates
1.76
%
2.37
%
Stock price
$
2.79
$
2.90
Dividend yield
—
—
Cash and Cash Equivalents The Company considers all highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase and an investment in a U.S. government money market fund to be cash equivalents. Changes in the balance of cash and cash equivalents may be affected by changes in investment portfolio maturities, as well as actual cash disbursements to fund operations. The Company’s cash is deposited in highly-rated financial institutions in the United States. The Company invests in U.S. government money market funds, high-grade, short-term commercial paper, corporate bonds and other U.S. government agency securities, which management believes are subject to minimal credit and market risk. The carrying values of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents approximate fair value due to their short-term maturities. The Company does not have any restricted cash balances. Marketable Securities Marketable securities consist primarily of investments which have expected average maturity dates in excess of three months, but not longer than 24 months. The Company invests in high-grade corporate obligations, including commercial paper, and U.S. government and government agency obligations that are classified as available-for-sale. Since these securities are available to fund current operations they are classified as current assets on the consolidated balance sheets. Marketable securities are stated at fair value, including accrued interest, with their unrealized gains and losses included as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income or loss, which is a separate component of stockholders’ equity. The fair value of these securities is based on quoted prices and observable inputs on a recurring basis. The cost of marketable securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity, with such amortization and accretion recorded as a component of interest expense, net. Realized gains and losses are determined on the specific identification method. Unrealized gains and losses are included in other comprehensive loss until realized, at which point they would be recorded as a component of interest expense, net. Below is a summary of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities at December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017:
Amortized Cost
Unrealized Gains
Unrealized Losses
Fair Value
December 31, 2018
Cash and cash equivalents:
Cash and money market funds
$
16,211
$
—
$
—
$
16,211
Corporate debt securities
8,215
1
—
8,216
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities
$
24,426
$
1
$
—
$
24,427
December 31, 2017
Cash and cash equivalents:
Cash and money market funds
$
14,949
$
—
$
—
$
14,949
Corporate debt securities
—
—
—
—
Total cash and cash equivalents
14,949
—
—
14,949
Marketable securities:
Corporate debt securities due within 1 year
$
17,074
$
1
$
(5
)
$
17,070
U.S. government agency securities due within 1 year
1,506
—
—
1,506
Total marketable securities
18,580
1
(5
)
18,576
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities
$
33,529
$
1
$
(5
)
$
33,525
Concentrations of Credit Risk Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to credit risk primarily consist of cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities and accounts receivable. The Company maintains deposits in highly-rated, federally-insured financial institutions in excess of federally insured limits. The Company’s investment strategy is focused on capital preservation. The Company invests in instruments that meet the high credit quality standards outlined in the Company’s investment policy. This policy also limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issue or type of instrument. The Company’s accounts receivable primarily consists of amounts due to the Company from licensees and collaborators. The Company has not experienced any material losses related to accounts receivable from individual licensees or collaborators. Fair Value Measurements The fair value of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities reflects the Company’s estimate of amounts that it would have received in connection with the sale of the assets or paid in connection with the transfer of the liabilities in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. In connection with measuring the fair value of its assets and liabilities, the Company seeks to maximize the use of observable inputs (market data obtained from sources independent from the Company) and to minimize the use of unobservable inputs (the Company’s assumptions about how market participants would price assets and liabilities). The following fair value hierarchy is used to classify assets and liabilities based on the observable inputs and unobservable inputs used in order to value the assets and liabilities:
Level 1:
Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. An active market for an asset or liability is a market in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.
Level 2:
Observable inputs other than Level 1 inputs. Examples of Level 2 inputs include quoted prices in active markets for similar assets or liabilities and quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active.
Level 3:
Unobservable inputs based on the Company’s assessment of the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety within the fair value hierarchy based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Company measures the fair value of its marketable securities by taking into consideration valuations obtained from third-party pricing sources. The pricing services utilize industry standard valuation models, including both income and market-based approaches, for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly, to estimate fair value. These inputs include reported trades of and broker-dealer quotes on the same or similar securities, issuer credit spreads, benchmark securities and other observable inputs. As of December 31, 2018, the Company’s financial assets valued based on Level 1 inputs consisted of cash and cash equivalents in a U.S. government money market fund and its financial assets valued based on Level 2 inputs consisted of high-grade corporate debt securities, including commercial paper. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company did not have any transfers of financial assets between Levels 1 and 2. As of December 31, 2018, the Company’s financial liability that was recorded at fair value consisted of the PIPE Warrant liability. The fair value of the Company’s loans payable at December 31, 2018 approximates its carrying value, computed pursuant to a discounted cash flow technique using a market interest rate and is considered a Level 3 fair value measurement. The effective interest rate, which reflects the current market rate, considers the fair value of the warrants issued in connection with the loan, loan issuance costs and the deferred financing charge. The following table summarizes the assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017:
Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2018
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Total
(in thousands)
Financial assets carried at fair value:
Cash and money market funds
$
16,211
$
—
$
—
$
16,211
Corporate debt securities
—
8,216
—
8,216
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities
$
16,211
$
8,216
$
—
$
24,427
Financial liabilities carried at fair value:
Total PIPE Warrant liability
$
—
$
—
$
16,674
$
16,674
Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2017
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Total
(in thousands)
Financial assets carried at fair value:
Cash and money market funds
$
14,949
$
—
$
—
$
14,949
Corporate debt securities
—
—
—
—
Total cash and cash equivalents
$
14,949
$
—
$
—
$
14,949
Marketable securities:
Corporate debt securities due within 1 year
$
—
$
17,070
$
—
$
17,070
U.S. government agency securities due within 1 year
—
1,506
—
1,506
Total marketable securities
$
—
$
18,576
$
—
$
18,576
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities
$
14,949
$
18,576
$
—
$
33,525
Financial liabilities carried at fair value:
PIPE Warrant liability
$
—
$
—
$
37,746
$
37,746
Settlement Warrant liability
—
—
2,073
2,073
Total warrant liabilities
$
—
$
—
$
39,819
$
39,819
Property and Equipment Property and equipment are stated at cost and are depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets. Maintenance and repair costs are charged to expense as incurred. Depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 was $0, $0 and $30 thousand, respectively. Long-lived Assets The Company reviews long-lived assets, including property and equipment, for impairment whenever changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be fully recoverable. The Company recognized $0 in impairment losses during each of the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Basic and Diluted Net Loss per Common Share Basic net loss per share attributable to AVEO common stockholders is based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share attributable to AVEO common stockholders is based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period plus additional weighted-average common equivalent shares outstanding during the period when the effect is dilutive. For the year ended December 31, 2018, common equivalent shares include the incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of the PIPE Warrants, as determined using the treasury stock method, and exclude the incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of the Settlement Warrants as the corresponding exercise price exceeds the average fair value of the Company’s common stock during the period and their effect would be anti-dilutive. For the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share as the inclusion of weighted-average shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants would be anti-dilutive. The following tables summarizes the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively (in thousands except per share amounts):
Year Ended December 31,
2018
2017
2016
Basic net loss attributable to Aveo common stockholders
$
(5,329
)
$
(65,025
)
$
(26,887
)
Less: non-cash gains attributable to the change in fair value of the PIPE warrant liability
(19,919
)
—
—
Diluted net loss attributable to Aveo common stockholders
$
(25, |
