Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

2017 Annual Report

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing 
treatments for life-threatening food allergies. The company’s Characterized Oral 
Desensitization ImmunoTherapy (CODIT™) approach is intended to achieve meaningful 
levels of protection by desensitizing patients with defined, precise amounts of key 
allergens. Aimmune’s first investigational biologic product using CODIT™, AR101 for the 
treatment of peanut allergy, has received the FDA’s Breakthrough Therapy Designation 
for the desensitization of peanut-allergic patients 4-17 years of age and is currently being 
evaluated in Phase 3 clinical trials.

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements contained in this report regarding matters that are not historical facts are ‘‘forward-looking statements’’ 
within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Because such statements are subject to 
risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-
looking statements. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding: Aimmune’s expectations 
regarding the potential benefits of AR101; Aimmune’s expectations regarding the sufficiency of its capital 
resources; Aimmune’s expectations for the RAMSES, ARTEMIS and ARC004 trials, including the expected timing of 
data readouts and data cuts for these trials; Aimmune’s expectations on regulatory submissions for marketing 
approval of AR101 in the United States and Europe, including the timing of these submissions; Aimmune’s 
expectations regarding the potential commercial launch of AR101, including the timing of a potential approval or 
AR101; Aimmune’s expectations regarding the timing of initiating additional clinical trials for AR101, including 
ARC005 and a trial exploring AR101 with adjunctive dupilumab; Aimmune’s expectations on the timing of 
submitting an IND and initiating phase 2 clinical trials for AR201 in egg allergy and AR301 in walnut allergy; 
Aimmune’s expectations regarding potential applications of the CODIT™ approach to treating life-threatening food 
allergies; and Aimmune’s expectations for its commercial manufacturing facility. Risks and uncertainties that 
contribute to the uncertain nature of the forward-looking statements include: the expectation that Aimmune will 
need additional funds to finance its operations; the company’s ability to initiate and/or complete clinical trials; the 
unpredictability of the regulatory process; the possibility that Aimmune’s clinical trials will not be successful; 
Aimmune’s dependence on the success of AR101; the company’s reliance on third parties for the manufacture of 
the company’s product candidates; possible regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries; 
and the company’s ability to attract and retain senior management personnel. These and other risks and 
uncertainties are described more fully in Aimmune’s most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended 2017 filed on February 20, 2018. All 
forward-looking statements contained in this report speak only as of the date on which they were made. Aimmune 
undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after 
the date on which they were made. AR101 is under clinical investigation and has not yet been approved for 
marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA). It is currently 
limited to investigational use, and no representation is made as to its safety or effectiveness for the purposes for 
which it is being investigated. 

 
 
Dear Stockholders,

At the end of 2017, we completed the international Phase 3 PALISADE trial of AR101, our investigational
biologic oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. With approximately 550 patients enrolled, PALISADE was the
largest peanut allergy trial ever conducted, and the first to accept participants with severe or life-threatening
reaction history. Just about two months later, in February 2018, we unblinded the data – the results were positive
and exceeded our expectations.

The PALISADE results are a significant milestone in the development of AR101 and will serve as the

clinical cornerstone of our planned regulatory submissions for marketing approval. PALISADE is also a
landmark achievement for the food allergy community.

Our company was founded through the commitment of food allergy parents, food allergy advocates, and

food allergy researchers. They all saw a future where a safe, reliable and accessible medicine could protect
people from frightening allergic reactions that occur because of innocent, inevitable mistakes. As custodians of
their mission, and for the first time in history, we could be in position to do something about that. AR101 for
peanut allergy is the first application of our CODIT™ (Characterized Oral Desensitization ImmunoTherapy)
platform, and we are making great progress in other important food allergies.

In this letter, I would like to provide a snapshot of our 2017 performance and lay out our plans for the year

ahead as we move towards regulatory submissions for approval of AR101, a potential U.S. commercial launch of
AR101 in 2019, and development of new CODIT product candidates.

Achievement of Key Milestones in 2017

Thanks to the dedication of our employees, investigators, patients and their families, we accomplished what

we laid out at the beginning of 2017 — not only completion of our pivotal Phase 3 PALISADE trial, but also
qualification of our new commercial manufacturing facility and initiation of the RAMSES and ARTEMIS
studies.

We also saw further confirmation of our position as a partner of choice, as we formed a clinical

collaboration with Regeneron and Sanofi to study AR101 treatment with dupilumab as an adjunctive treatment,
and we continued to benefit from our important relationships with Nestlé Health Science and Golden Peanut and
Tree Nuts.

Beyond peanut, we made significant progress in the characterization and formulation of two new CODIT

product candidates, namely AR201 for egg allergy and AR301 for walnut allergy.

Strong Pivotal Phase 3 Data Support Regulatory Submissions for Approval of AR101

PALISADE showed for the first time in the history of food allergy that a large-scale, late-stage clinical trial
of oral immunotherapy significantly increased the amount of peanut protein that a patient could consume with no
more than mild allergic symptoms. We set the efficacy bar high to show that the treatment effect is a clinically
meaningful one intended to cover virtually all levels of accidental exposures to peanut in real life because, for
people with peanut allergy, there is no room for a false sense of security.

Patients enrolled in PALISADE were highly sensitive to peanut; the median tolerated dose at entry was only
10 milligrams, or one-thirtieth of a peanut. After approximately one year of AR101 therapy, 67% of patients ages
4-17 tolerated at least 600 milligrams of peanut protein, which is equivalent to approximately two peanuts, in the
exit food challenge. In the same age group, more than 50% of the patients passed successfully through the exit
food challenge after eating a total of more than 2,000 milligrams of peanut protein, which is equivalent to
approximately eight peanuts. The safety and tolerability profile of AR101 in PALISADE was encouraging and
appears to be manageable by allergists in the community office setting.

While the primary analysis of PALISADE was conducted in the 4-17 age group, we observed consistent

efficacy across the entire age range of PALISADE and believe peanut-allergic adults may also benefit from
therapy.

We were gratified to hear accounts from PALISADE that the investment of time and energy into careful up-

dosing was well worth the peace of mind gained at the end of the trial, a sentiment that has been reflected in the
strong demand for participation in our studies. We are extremely pleased with the high level of continued
enthusiasm from patients and investigators in our trials.

With positive PALISADE data now in hand, we are excited to intensify our efforts to deliver potentially the

first-approved treatment for peanut allergy. We are laser focused on completing all the activities necessary to
submit a Biologics License Application (BLA) around the end of 2018 and a Market Authorisation Application
in Europe in the first half of 2019, with the goal of getting AR101 approved and successfully commercialized.

Preparing for a Potential 2019 Commercial Launch of AR101 in the United States

There are 1.6 million peanut-allergic children and adolescents, ages 4-17, in the United States, and about the

same number in Europe. Our market research shows that patients and their families want a peanut allergy
treatment that provides a high level of protection from allergic reactions that will have a rapid onset and be
reliable. We believe that AR101 is aligned with each one of these desires.

The remarkable similarity of AR101’s profile in moving from Phase 2 conducted at a small number of
highly expert academic study sites to Phase 3 conducted in the larger community setting reinforces our belief that
AR101 can have broad utility and widespread adoption. What we showed in Phase 2, and again in Phase 3, is that
about 80% of patients successfully complete treatment; and in those patients, we saw a remarkably reliable,
robust response.

Assuming approval, we intend to market AR101 ourselves in the United States where the approximately

5,000 board-certified allergists comprise a highly focused specialty call point. Our research shows that
approximately 70% of peanut allergic patients in the 4-17 age group are seen by allergists, suggesting that
AR101 can be efficiently commercialized with a relatively modest-sized sales force.

Community allergists tell us that they are eager to offer their food-allergic patients an FDA-approved
treatment for peanut allergy and have the capacity to establish a new line of business to their practices. We
believe that the AR101 treatment regimen is uniquely aligned with how allergists practice in a community setting
whereby they may have the opportunity to deepen relationships with their food allergy patients and be
reimbursed for their services.

As with any new medicine, the ability to make a strong case for payer policies that allow patient access is
important, and we believe that the data we are generating on AR101 from our clinical trials will allow us to do
this. Our early discussions with payers have been favorable as they recognize peanut allergy as a potentially life-
threatening condition for which approved treatments are lacking.

2017 was also a year in which we completed the build-out of a world-class commercial manufacturing

facility, which has the capacity to manufacture sufficient AR101 to treat more than 200,000 new patients per
year. We have since completed plant qualification, and activities are underway to establish commercial product
stability data in support of the BLA submission.

All of these accomplishments are a credit to the experienced commercial operations team in place at

Aimmune, and we are looking forward to the continued expansion of the organization as we prepare for potential
commercial launch in the United States next year.

Advancing Additional CODIT Product Candidates for Treating Food Allergies

Positive PALISADE results provide clear and compelling support of Aimmune’s mission to develop new,

approved medicines for people living with food allergies. We are incorporating the insights we have gained from
peanut to advancing additional CODIT product candidates to treat other food allergies.

While peanut is the most common type of food allergy affecting 25% of food-allergic children in the U.S.,

other common food allergies include milk (21%), shellfish (17%), tree nut (13%) and egg (10%). We plan to file
Investigational New Drug applications for AR201, our egg allergy product candidate, and AR301, our walnut
allergy product candidate, in 2018 and 2019, respectively, and advance both into Phase 2 development by the end
of 2019.

Custodians of an Important Mission

As we move forward, we keep the big picture top of mind. In the United States and Europe alone, there are
30 million people with food allergies and no approved treatments. Patients are anxiously waiting, and we share
their sense of urgency.

With proceeds from our recently completed public offering, we are well financed to deliver on our goals for
AR101 and to drive our pipeline of CODIT medicines forward for additional food allergies. We are hopeful that
we can move quickly toward a potential approval of AR101 and deliver on our commitment to offer the food
allergy community a reliable means to help protect peanut-allergic children and adolescents from the chronic
threat of allergic reactions that can have devastating consequences.

Again, I would like to thank the food allergy community for spearheading the effort to create these potential
treatments, the investors who make it possible, and the patients, families and investigators who have helped us to
reach this significant point in our company’s history.

Sincerely,

Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
8000 Marina Blvd., Suite 300
Brisbane, California 94005

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD ON MAY 23, 2018

To the Stockholders of Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), will be held on May 23, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. local time,
at 8000 Marina Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005 for the following purposes:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

To elect two directors to hold office until the 2021 annual meeting of stockholders or until their
successors are elected;

To ratify the selection, by the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, of KPMG LLP,
as the independent registered public accounting firm of the Company for its fiscal year ending
December 31, 2018;

To approve, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive
officers as disclosed in the Proxy Statement accompanying this Notice of Annual Meeting of
Stockholders;

To hold a non-binding advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory votes by stockholders on the
compensation of the Company’s named executive officers; and

To transact such other business as may properly come before the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or
postponement thereof.

The foregoing items of business are more fully described in the Proxy Statement accompanying this Notice of

Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Only stockholders who owned common stock of the Company at the close of
business on March 29, 2018 (the “Record Date”) can vote at this meeting or any adjournments that take place.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote as follows on the matters to be presented to stockholders at

the Annual Meeting:

1.

2.

3.

4.

FOR the election of the director nominees named in Proposal No. 1 of the Proxy Statement;

FOR the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP, as the independent registered public accounting
firm, as described in Proposal No. 2 of the Proxy Statement;

FOR the advisory vote to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as
described in Proposal No. 3 of the Proxy Statement; and

1 YEAR for the non-binding advisory vote regarding the frequency of future advisory votes by
stockholders on the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as described in Proposal
No. 4 of the Proxy Statement.

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING IN
PERSON, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE ACCOMPANYING PROXY STATEMENT AND OUR
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017, AND SUBMIT YOUR
PROXY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE USING ONE OF THE THREE CONVENIENT VOTING METHODS
DESCRIBED IN THE “INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROXY PROCESS AND VOTING” SECTION IN THE
PROXY STATEMENT. IF YOU RECEIVE MORE THAN ONE SET OF PROXY MATERIALS OR NOTICE OF
INTERNET AVAILABILITY BECAUSE YOUR SHARES ARE REGISTERED IN DIFFERENT NAMES OR
ADDRESSES, EACH PROXY SHOULD BE SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF YOUR
SHARES WILL BE VOTED.

By Order of the Board of Directors
//s/ STEPHEN G. DILLY
Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer

Brisbane, California
April 11, 2018

P
r
o
x
y

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOR THE 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS ...............................................................................
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROXY PROCESS AND VOTING ......................................................................
PROPOSAL NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS ...................................................................................................
PROPOSAL NO. 2 RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC

1
2
7

ACCOUNTING FIRM .......................................................................................................................................... 11
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS..................................................... 12
PROPOSAL NO. 3 ADVISORY VOTE ON THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE

OFFICERS ............................................................................................................................................................. 13

PROPOSAL NO. 4 ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF FUTURE ADVISORY (“SAY-ON-
PAY”) VOTES BY STOCKHOLDERS ON THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ................................................................................................................................ 15
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS......................................................... 20
REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.................................. 22
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ................................................................................................................................ 23
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS .......................................................................................................................................... 25
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 27
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES.............................................................................................................. 36
INFORMATION ABOUT STOCK OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 43
SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE ....................................................... 46
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION............................................................................................................................... 46

P
r
o
x
y

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
8000 Marina Blvd, Suite 300
Brisbane, California 94005

PROXY STATEMENT

FOR THE 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
MAY 23, 2018

We have sent you this Proxy Statement and the enclosed Proxy Card because the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) of Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (referred to herein as the “Company”, “Aimmune”, “we”, “us” or “our”) is
soliciting your proxy to vote at our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) to be held on
Wednesday, May 23, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. local time, at 8000 Marina Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005.

•

•

This Proxy Statement summarizes information about the proposals to be considered at the Annual
Meeting and other information you may find useful in determining how to vote.

The Proxy Card is the means by which you actually authorize another person to vote your shares in
accordance with your instructions.

In addition to solicitations by mail, our directors, officers and regular employees, without additional

remuneration, may solicit proxies by telephone, e-mail and personal interviews. We may retain outside consultants
to solicit proxies on our behalf as well. All costs of solicitation of proxies will be borne by us. Brokers, custodians
and fiduciaries will be requested to forward proxy soliciting material to the owners of stock held in their names, and
we will reimburse them for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of
proxy materials.

P
r
o
x
y

Pursuant to the rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), we have elected to
provide access to our Annual Meeting materials, which include this Proxy Statement and our Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Form 10-K”), over the internet in lieu of mailing printed
copies. We will begin mailing the Notice of Internet Availability to our stockholders of record as of March 29, 2018
(the “Record Date”) for the first time on or about April 13, 2018. The Notice of Internet Availability will contain
instructions on how to access and review the Annual Meeting materials, and will also contain instructions on how to
request a printed copy of the Annual Meeting materials. In addition, we have provided brokers, dealers, banks,
voting trustees and their nominees, at our expense, with additional copies of our proxy materials and the Form 10-K
so that our record holders can supply these materials to the beneficial owners of shares of our common stock as of
the Record Date. The Form 10-K is also available in the “Financial Information” section of our website at
http://ir.aimmune.com.

The only outstanding voting securities of Aimmune are shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share

(the “common stock”), of which there were 58,024,282 shares outstanding as of the Record Date (excluding any
treasury shares). The holders of a majority in voting power of the shares of common stock issued and outstanding
and entitled to vote, present in person or represented by proxy, are required to hold the Annual Meeting.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROXY PROCESS AND VOTING

Why am I receiving these materials?

We have made this Proxy Statement and Proxy Card available to you on the internet or, upon your request,

have delivered printed proxy materials to you, because the Board is soliciting your proxy to vote at the Annual
Meeting, including at any adjournments or postponements of the Annual Meeting. You are invited to attend the
Annual Meeting to vote on the proposals described in this Proxy Statement. However, you do not need to attend the
Annual Meeting to vote your shares. Instead, you may simply complete, sign and return the Proxy Card, or follow
the instructions below to submit your proxy over the telephone or on the internet.

This Proxy Statement, the Notice of Internet Availability, the Notice of Annual Meeting and accompanying
Proxy Card will be first made available for access by our stockholders on or about April 13, 2018 to all stockholders
of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.

Who can vote at the Annual Meeting?

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on the Record Date will be entitled to vote at the Annual

Meeting. At the close of business on the Record Date, there were 58,024,282 shares of common stock issued and
outstanding and entitled to vote.

Stockholder of Record: Shares Registered in Your Name

If, on the Record Date, your shares were registered directly in your name with the transfer agent for our
common stock, EQ Shareowner Services, then you are a stockholder of record. As a stockholder of record, you may
vote in person at the Annual Meeting or vote by proxy. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we
encourage you to fill out and return the Proxy Card or vote by proxy over the telephone or on the internet as
instructed below to ensure your vote is counted.

Beneficial Owner: Shares Registered in the Name of a Broker, Bank or Other Agent

If, on the Record Date, your shares were held in an account at a brokerage firm, bank, dealer or other similar
organization, then you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name” and these proxy materials are being
forwarded to you by that organization. The organization holding your account is considered the stockholder of
record for purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker
or other agent on how to vote the shares in your account. You are also invited to attend the Annual Meeting.
However, since you are not the stockholder of record, you may not vote your shares in person at the Annual Meeting
unless you request and obtain a valid Proxy Card from your broker or other agent.

What am I being asked to vote on?

You are being asked to vote on four proposals:

•

•

•

•

Proposal 1—the election of two Class III directors to hold office until our 2021 annual meeting of
stockholders;

Proposal 2—the ratification of the selection, by the Audit Committee of our Board, of KPMG LLP, as
our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2018;

Proposal 3—a non-binding, advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers; and

Proposal 4—a non-binding advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory votes by stockholders on
the compensation of our named executive officers.

In addition, you are entitled to vote on any other matters that are properly brought before the Annual Meeting.

2

How do I vote?

•

•

•

•

For Proposal 1, you may either vote “For” all the nominees to the Board or you may “Withhold” your
vote for any nominee you specify.

For Proposal 2, you may either vote “For” or “Against” or abstain from voting.

For Proposal 3, you may either vote “For” or “Against” or abstain from voting.

For Proposal 4, you may vote for “1 Year,” “2 Years” or “3 Years” or abstain from voting.

Please note that by casting your vote by proxy you are authorizing the individuals listed on the Proxy Card to

vote your shares in accordance with your instructions and in their discretion with respect to any other matter that
properly comes before the Annual Meeting or any adjournments or postponements thereof.

The procedures for voting are as follows:

Stockholder of Record: Shares Registered in Your Name

If you are a stockholder of record, you may vote in person at the Annual Meeting. Alternatively, you may vote

by proxy by using the accompanying Proxy Card, over the internet or by telephone. Whether or not you plan to
attend the Annual Meeting, we encourage you to vote by proxy to ensure your vote is counted. Even if you have
submitted a proxy before the Annual Meeting, you may still attend the Annual Meeting and vote in person. In such
case, your previously submitted proxy will be disregarded.

•

•

•

•

To vote in person, come to the Annual Meeting and we will give you a ballot when you arrive.

To vote using the Proxy Card, simply complete, sign and date the accompanying Proxy Card and return
it promptly in the envelope provided. If you return your signed Proxy Card to us before the Annual
Meeting, we will vote your shares in accordance with the Proxy Card.

To vote by proxy over the internet, follow the instructions provided on the Notice of Internet
Availability.

To vote by telephone, you may vote by proxy by calling the toll free number found on the Notice of
Internet Availability.

P
r
o
x
y

Beneficial Owner: Shares Registered in the Name of Broker, Bank or Other Agent

If you are a beneficial owner of shares registered in the name of your broker, bank or other agent, you should

have received a voting instruction card and voting instructions with these proxy materials from that organization
rather than from us. Simply complete and mail the voting instruction card to ensure that your vote is counted. To
vote in person at the Annual Meeting, you must obtain a valid proxy from your broker, bank or other agent. Follow
the instructions from your broker, bank or other agent included with these proxy materials, or contact your broker,
bank or other agent to request a proxy form.

We provide internet proxy voting to allow you to vote your shares online, with procedures designed to ensure
the authenticity and correctness of your proxy vote instructions. However, please be aware that you must bear any
costs associated with your internet access, such as usage charges from internet access providers and telephone
companies.

Who counts the votes?

Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”) has been engaged as our independent agent to tabulate
stockholder votes, or Inspector of Election. If you are a stockholder of record, your executed Proxy Card is returned
directly to Broadridge for tabulation. As noted above, if you hold your shares through a broker, your broker returns
one Proxy Card to Broadridge on behalf of all its clients.

3

How are votes counted?

Votes will be counted by the Inspector of Election appointed for the Annual Meeting. With respect to

Proposal 4, the Inspector of Election will separately count “1 Year,” “2 Years” and “3 Years” votes, abstentions and
broker non-votes. For all other proposals, the Inspector of Election will separately count “For” and, with respect to
Proposals 2 and 3, “Against” votes, abstentions and broker non-votes. In addition, with respect to Proposal 1, the
election of directors, the Inspector of Election will count the number of “Withheld” votes received for each of the
nominees. If your shares are held by your broker as your nominee (that is, in “street name”), you will need to obtain
a proxy form from the institution that holds your shares and follow the instructions included on that form regarding
how to instruct your broker to vote your shares. If you do not give instructions to your broker, your broker can vote
your shares with respect to “routine” items, but not with respect to “non-routine” items. See below for more
information regarding: “What are “broker non-votes”?” and “Which ballot measures are considered “routine”
or “non-routine”?”

What are “broker non-votes”?

Broker non-votes occur when a beneficial owner of shares held in “street name” does not give instructions to
the broker or nominee holding the shares as to how to vote on matters deemed “non-routine.” Generally, if shares
are held in street name, the beneficial owner of the shares is entitled to give voting instructions to the broker or
nominee holding the shares. If the beneficial owner does not provide voting instructions, the broker or nominee can
still vote the shares with respect to matters that are considered to be “routine,” but not with respect to “non-routine”
matters. In the event that a broker, bank, custodian, nominee or other record holder of common stock indicates on a
proxy that it does not have discretionary authority to vote certain shares on a particular proposal, then those shares
will be treated as broker non-votes with respect to that proposal. Accordingly, if you own shares through a nominee,
such as a broker or bank, please be sure to instruct your nominee how to vote to ensure that your vote is counted on
each of the proposals.

Which ballot measures are considered “routine” or “non-routine?”

The ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP, as our independent registered public accounting firm for

the year ending December 31, 2018 (Proposal 2) is considered routine under applicable rules. A broker or other
nominee may generally vote on routine matters, and therefore no broker non-votes are expected to exist in
connection with Proposal 2. The election of directors (Proposal 1), non-binding advisory vote on the compensation
of our named executive officers (Proposal 3) and non-binding advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory
votes on executive compensation (Proposal 4) are considered non-routine under applicable rules. A broker or other
nominee cannot vote without instructions on non-routine matters, and therefore there may be broker non-votes on
Proposal 1, 3 and 4.

How many votes are needed to approve the proposal?

With respect to Proposal 1, the election of directors, the two nominees receiving the highest number of “For”

votes will be elected.

With respect to Proposal 2, the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker
non-votes) is required for approval. This is a routine proposal and therefore we do not expect any broker non-votes.

With respect to Proposal 3, the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker

non-votes) is required for approval. While the vote on this resolution is advisory and not binding on us, our
Compensation Committee and our Board will consider the outcome of the vote on this resolution when considering
future executive compensation decisions.

With respect to Proposal 4, the advisory vote frequency alternative (1 Year, 2 Years or 3 Years) receiving the
highest number of votes will be approved. If none of the frequency alternatives receives a majority of the votes cast
(excluding abstentions and broker non-votes), we will consider the highest number of votes cast by the stockholders
to be the frequency that has been selected by the stockholders. However, this proposal is advisory and non-binding
upon us.

4

How many votes do I have?

On each matter to be voted upon, you have one vote for each share of common stock you own as of the Record

Date.

What if I return a Proxy Card but do not make specific choices?

If we receive a signed and dated Proxy Card and the Proxy Card does not specify how your shares are to be

voted, your shares will be voted as follows:

•

•

•

•

“For” the election of each of the two nominees for director;

“For” the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP, as our independent registered public
accounting firm for our fiscal year ending December 31, 2018;

“For” the non-binding, advisory vote regarding the compensation of our named executive officers; and

“1 Year” for the non-binding advisory vote regarding the future advisory votes by the stockholders on
the compensation of our named executive officers.

If any other matter is properly presented at the Annual Meeting, your proxy (one of the individuals named on

your Proxy Card) will vote your shares in his or her discretion.

Who is paying for this proxy solicitation?

We will pay for the entire cost of soliciting proxies. In addition to these mailed proxy materials, our directors,

officers and employees may also solicit proxies in person, by telephone or by other means of communication.
Directors, officers and employees will not be paid any additional compensation for soliciting proxies. We may also
reimburse brokerage firms, banks and other agents for the cost of forwarding proxy materials to beneficial owners.

P
r
o
x
y

What does it mean if I receive more than one set of materials?

If you receive more than one set of materials, your shares are registered in more than one name or are
registered in different accounts. In order to vote all the shares you own, you must either sign and return all of the
Proxy Cards or follow the instructions for any alternative voting procedure on each of the Proxy Cards.

Can I change my vote after submitting my proxy?

Yes. You can revoke your proxy at any time before the final vote at the Annual Meeting. If you are the record

holder of your shares, you may revoke your proxy in any one of three ways:

•

•

•

You may submit another properly completed proxy with a later date.

You may send a written notice that you are revoking your proxy to our Corporate Secretary at 8000
Marina Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005.

You may attend the Annual Meeting and vote in person. Simply attending the Annual Meeting will not,
by itself, revoke your proxy.

If your shares are held by your broker, bank or other agent, you should follow the instructions provided by

them.

When are stockholder proposals due for next year’s Annual Meeting?

To be considered for inclusion in next year’s proxy materials, your proposal must be submitted in writing by

December 13, 2018, to our Corporate Secretary at 8000 Marina Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005;
provided that if the date of the annual meeting is more than 30 days from May 23, 2018, the deadline is a reasonable
time before we begin to print and send our proxy materials for next year’s annual meeting. Pursuant to the bylaws,
in order for a stockholder to present a proposal for next year’s annual meeting, other than proposals to be included in
the proxy statement as described above, or to nominate a director, you must do so between January 22, 2019 and

5

February 21, 2019; provided that if the date of that annual meeting is more than 30 days before or more than 60 days
after May 23, 2018, you must give notice not later than the 90th day prior to the annual meeting date or, if later, the
10th day following the day on which public disclosure of the annual meeting date is first made. You are also advised
to review our bylaws, which contain additional requirements about advance notice of stockholder proposals and
director nominations.

What is the quorum requirement?

A quorum of stockholders is necessary to hold a valid meeting. A quorum will be present if the holders of a
majority in voting power of the shares of common stock issued and outstanding and entitled to vote are present in
person or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting. On the Record Date, there were 58,024,282 shares
outstanding and entitled to vote. Accordingly, 29,012,142 shares must be represented by stockholders present at the
Annual Meeting or by proxy to have a quorum.

Your shares will be counted toward the quorum only if you submit a valid proxy or vote at the Annual
Meeting. Abstentions will be counted toward the quorum requirement. If there is no quorum, either the chair of the
Annual Meeting or a majority in voting power of the stockholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting, present in
person or represented by proxy, may adjourn the Annual Meeting to another time or place.

How can I find out the results of the voting at the Annual Meeting?

Voting results will be announced by the filing of a Current Report on Form 8-K within four business days after

the Annual Meeting. If final voting results are unavailable at that time, we will file an amended Current Report on
Form 8-K within four business days of the day the final results are available.

Directions to Annual Meeting

Directions to our Annual Meeting, to be held at 8000 Marina Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005 are

available at: http://ir.aimmune.com/.

6

PROPOSAL NO. 1
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Our Board is divided into three classes. Each class consists, as nearly as possible, of one-third of the total

number of directors, and each class has a staggered, three-year term. Unless the Board determines that vacancies
(including vacancies created by increases in the number of directors) shall be filled by the stockholders, and except
as otherwise provided by law, vacancies on the Board may be filled only by the affirmative vote of a majority of the
remaining directors. A director elected by the Board to fill a vacancy (including a vacancy created by an increase in
the number of directors) shall serve for the remainder of the full term of the class of directors in which the vacancy
occurred and until such director’s successor is elected and qualified.

The Board currently consists of seven seated directors, divided into the three following classes:

•

•

•

Class I directors: Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D., Mark T. Iwicki and Gregory Behar, whose current
terms will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2019;

Class II directors: Mark D. McDade and Stacey D. Seltzer, whose current terms will expire at the
annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2020; and

Class III directors: Patrick G. Enright and Kathryn E. Falberg, whose current terms will expire at the
Annual Meeting.

At each annual meeting of stockholders, the successors to directors whose terms will then expire will be

elected to serve from the time of election and qualification until the third subsequent annual meeting of
stockholders.

P
r
o
x
y

Mr. Enright and Ms. Falberg have been nominated to serve as Class III directors and have each elected to stand
for reelection. Each director to be elected will hold office from the date of their election by the stockholders until the
third subsequent annual meeting of stockholders or until his or her successor is elected and has been qualified, or
until such director’s earlier death, resignation or removal.

Shares represented by executed proxies will be voted, if authority to do so is not withheld, for the election of
the two nominees named below. In the event that any nominee should be unavailable for election as a result of an
unexpected occurrence, such shares will be voted for the election of such substitute nominee as the Board may
propose. Each person nominated for election has agreed to serve if elected, and management has no reason to
believe that any nominee will be unable to serve. Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast at the meeting.

7

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE

FOR THE ELECTION OF EACH NAMED NOMINEE.

The following table sets forth, for the Class III nominees (who are currently standing for re-election) and for
our other current directors who will continue in office after the Annual Meeting, information with respect to their
ages as of April 1, 2018 and position/office held within the Company:

Age

Position/Office Held With the Company

Name
Class I Directors whose terms expire at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D. ............................. 58 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Mark T. Iwicki(1) ......................................................... 51 Director
Gregory Behar ............................................................ 48 Director
Class II Directors whose terms expire at the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
Mark D. McDade(2)(3)................................................... 62 Chair of the Board
Stacey D. Seltzer(1)(3).................................................... 41 Director
Class III Directors whose terms expire at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders
Patrick G. Enright(2)(3) .................................................. 56 Director
Kathryn E. Falberg(1)(2) ................................................ 57 Director

Director
Since

2013
2015
2016

2015
2015

2013
2015

(1) Member of the Audit Committee.
(2) Member of the Compensation Committee.
(3) Member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Set forth below is biographical information for the nominees and each person whose term of office as a
director will continue after the Annual Meeting. The following includes certain information regarding our directors’
individual experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that led the Board to conclude that they should serve as
directors.

Nominees for Election to a Three-Year Term Expiring at the 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

Patrick G. Enright has served as a member of our Board since April 2013. Mr. Enright is a founder of
Longitude Capital, a venture capital firm focused on investments in pharmaceutical and medical technology
companies, and has served as its Managing Director since 2006. From 2002 through 2006, Mr. Enright was a
Managing Director of Pequot Ventures, a venture capital investment firm, where he co-led the life sciences
investment practice. He currently serves on the board of directors and as a member of the audit and compensation
committees of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, a pharmaceutical company. Mr. Enright previously served on the board of
directors and as a member of the audit committee of Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, a pharmaceutical company,
and as a member of the board of directors and as chair of the audit committee of Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a
pharmaceutical company. Mr. Enright is also on the board of several privately-held companies. Mr. Enright received
a B.S. in Biological Sciences from Stanford University and an M.B.A. from the Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania. We believe that Mr. Enright is qualified to serve on our Board due to his experience serving on the
board of directors of clinical-stage biotechnology companies and his investment experience in the life sciences
industry.

Kathryn E. Falberg has served as a member of our Board since May 2015. She previously served as Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, a biopharmaceutical company, from March
2012 to March 2014, after serving as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since December 2009. From
2001 to 2009, Ms. Falberg worked with several smaller companies while serving as a corporate director and audit
committee chair for several companies. From 1995 to 2001, Ms. Falberg was with Amgen Inc., a biotechnology
company, where she served as Senior Vice President, Finance and Strategy and Chief Financial Officer, and prior to
that as Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Vice President, Treasurer. Ms. Falberg also serves as a
member of the board of directors for biopharmaceutical companies UroGen Pharma Ltd. and Arcus Biosciences, and
The Trade Desk, a technology company. She previously served on the board of directors of biotechnology
companies Axovant Sciences Ltd., BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., aTyr Pharma, Inc., Medivation, Inc., and

8

P
r
o
x
y

Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. Ms. Falberg received a B.A. in Economics and M.B.A. from the University of
California, Los Angeles and is a certified public accountant (inactive). We believe that Ms. Falberg is qualified to
serve on our Board due to her extensive background in financial and accounting matters for public companies and
her leadership experience in the biotechnology industry.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE

FOR THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE ABOVE NAMED NOMINEES

Directors Continuing in Office Until the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D. has served as our Chief Executive Officer since April 2014 and as a
member of our Board since April 2013. Dr. Dilly was Chief Executive Officer of PhotoThera, Inc., a medical device
company, from January 2012 to December 2012. Since 2010, Dr. Dilly has served as an independent director of
Sangamo Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, where he also currently serves as chair of the clinical
review committee. From 2006 to 2011, Dr. Dilly served as President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of
the board of directors of APT Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a drug development company. From 2007 to 2009, he was a
member of the board of directors of Avigen, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, which merged with MediciNova,
Inc. in December 2009. From 2003 to 2006, he served as Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of
Development of Chiron BioPharma, a biotechnology company which was later acquired by Novartis International
AG. From 1998 to 2003, Dr. Dilly held various management positions at Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”), a
biotechnology company, including Vice President of Development Sciences from 2002 to 2003 and Vice President
of Medical Affairs from 1998 to 2001. From 1988 to 1998, Dr. Dilly held various management positions in drug
development with SmithKline Beecham, PLC, a healthcare company in the U.K. During his career, Dr. Dilly has
been closely associated with the development and launch of marketed drugs for many therapeutic areas, including
Kytril, Paxil, Kredex, Requip, TNKase, Xolair, Avastin, Raptiva, Tarceva, Lucentis and Cubicin. Dr. Dilly received
an M.B.B.S., the equivalent of an M.D., from the University of London in the U.K. and a Ph.D. in cardiac
physiology from University of London. We believe that Dr. Dilly is qualified to serve on our Board due to his
extensive management experience in the life science industry and drug development experience.

Mark T. Iwicki has served as a member of our Board since May 2015. Mr. Iwicki currently serves as the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kala Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, which he
joined in April 2015. Mr. Iwicki also currently serves as the Chairman of the board of directors and a member of the
compensation committee of Pulmatrix, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, Chairman of the board of directors and
member of the compensation committee of Merus B.V., a biopharmaceutical company, and a member of the board
of directors of Nimbus Therapeutics LLC and Taris Biomedical, LLC, biotechnology companies. Previously, Mr.
Iwicki served as President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Civitas
Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from January 2014 until its acquisition by Acorda Therapeutics,
Inc., a biotechnology company, in September 2014. From December 2012 to January 2014, Mr. Iwicki served as
President and Chief Executive Officer and director at Blend Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company. From
2007 to June 2012, Mr. Iwicki served in several roles, including Chief Commercial Officer, President and Chief
Operating Officer and Director and Chief Executive Officer at Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly Sepracor,
Inc., a pharmaceutical company. From 1998 to 2007, Mr. Iwicki held executive positions, including Vice President
and Business Unit Head, at Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a pharmaceuticals company. Mr. Iwicki has also
held management positions at Astra Merck Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc., pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Iwicki
received a B.A. in Business Administration from Ball State University and an M.B.A. from Loyola University. We
believe that Mr. Iwicki is qualified to serve on our Board due to his executive management and operational
experience in the life science industry.

Gregory Behar joined our board of directors in November 2016 in connection with the equity investment in

Aimmune by Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc. Mr. Behar currently serves as President and Chief Executive
Officer of Nestlé Health Science S.A., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nestlé S.A. (“Nestlé”), a nutrition, health and
wellness company, which he joined in July 2014. Previously, Mr. Behar was President and Chief Executive Officer
of Boehringer lngelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. (USA), a pharmaceutical company, from 2011 to June 2014 and
Corporate Vice President Region NECAR (North European Union, Canada and Australasia) for
BoehringerIngelheim GmbH, a pharmaceutical company, from 2010 to 2011. He also spent seven years in

9

marketing and sales leadership in various roles at Novartis AG, a healthcare company, following earlier work at
Nestlé. Mr. Behar also serves on the boards of Seres Therapeutics, Inc., a microbiome therapeutics platform
company, Accera, Inc., a clinical development company, Axcella Health, Inc., an amino acids therapeutics company,
and Nestlé Health Science S.A. Mr. Behar is Chairman of the Board of Nutrition Science Partners and a member of
the Steering Committee of Nestlé Institute of Health Sciences. Mr. Behar received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering
from the University of California, Los Angeles, an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from EPFL in Switzerland and
an M.B.A. from INSEAD in France. We believe that Mr. Behar is qualified to serve on our Board due to his
extensive global management and leadership experience in the life science industry.

Directors Continuing in Office Until the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

Mark D. McDade has served as the Chair of our Board since May 2015. Since January 2017, Mr. McDade has

served as Managing Partner of the Qiming US Healthcare Fund, a venture capital firm. He previously served as
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of UCB S.A., a Belgian biopharmaceutical company, from
2009 until his retirement from UCB S.A. in October 2016, after serving as Executive Vice President, Corporate
Development since 2008. From 2002 to 2007, Mr. McDade served as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the
board of directors of PDL BioPharma, Inc., a biotechnology company. From 2000 to 2002, Mr. McDade was Chief
Executive Officer of Signature BioScience, Inc., a drug discovery company. From 1994 to 2000, Mr. McDade
served as Chief Operating Officer and a director of Corixa Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company he co-
founded. At Corixa, Mr. McDade also served as President from 1998 to 2000. Mr. McDade has served on the board
of directors of Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, since 2006, where he has also served on the
compensation committee since 2009. He has served on the board of directors of Dermira, Inc., biopharmaceutical
company, since August 2014. Mr. McDade also serves on the board of directors of ZappRx, since April 2017,
MyHealthTeams, Inc., since June 2017, Platelet Biogenesis, since June 2017, and TwineHealth, Inc., since
November 2017. Mr. McDade serves as a member of the board of directors and as a member of the audit and
conflicts committees for Phillips Edison Grocery Center REIT II, Inc., a non-traded real estate investment company.
Mr. McDade received a B.A. in History from Dartmouth College and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. We
believe that Mr. McDade is qualified to serve on our Board due to his executive management and leadership
experience in the life science industry, as well as extensive experience as a director of public companies.

Stacey D. Seltzer has served as a member of our Board since January 2015. Ms. Seltzer is currently a partner at

Aisling Capital, where she previously served as principal since joining in September 2008. From 2004 to 2008, Ms.
Seltzer held various positions at Schering-Plough Corporation, a pharmaceutical company, including U.S. Schering-
Plough Brand Lead for Zetia, Associate Director, U.S. Marketing, Senior Manager, Global Licensing and
Management Associate. From 2001 to 2002, Ms. Seltzer served as Director of Business Development for Akceli,
Inc., a biotechnology company. Ms. Seltzer has served on the board of directors of Promentis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a biopharmaceutical company, since November 2016. Ms. Seltzer is currently a board observer for Prolacta
Bioscience Inc. and AVROBIO, Inc, biopharmaceutical companies. She previously served on the board of directors
of Miramar Labs, Inc., and as a board observer for Agile Therapeutics, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, Durata
Therapeutics, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, and Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. a medical equipment supplier. Ms. Seltzer
received a B.S. and M.S. in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry from Yale University and an M.B.A. from the
Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. We believe that Ms. Seltzer is qualified to serve on our Board
due to her investment and management experience in the life science industry.

10

PROPOSAL NO. 2
RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee of our Board has engaged KPMG LLP (“KPMG”), as our independent registered public

accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2018, and is seeking ratification of such selection by our
stockholders at the Annual Meeting. KPMG has audited our financial statements for each of our fiscal years since
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. Representatives of KPMG are expected to be present at the Annual
Meeting. They will have an opportunity to make a statement if they so desire and will be available to respond to
appropriate questions.

Neither our bylaws nor other governing documents or law require stockholder ratification of the selection of

KPMG as our independent registered public accounting firm. However, the Audit Committee is submitting the
selection of KPMG to our stockholders for ratification as a matter of good corporate practice. If our stockholders fail
to ratify the selection, the Audit Committee will reconsider whether or not to retain KPMG. Even if the selection is
ratified, the Audit Committee in its discretion may direct the appointment of a different independent registered
public accounting firm at any time during the year if they determine that such a change would be in the best interests
of the Company and our stockholders.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The following table provides information regarding the fees incurred to KPMG during the years ended
December 31, 2017 and 2016. The Audit Committee approved all of the fees described below incurred since our
initial public offering in August 2015.

P
r
o
x
y

Year Ended
December 31,
2016
2017
(In thousands)

Audit Fees(1) ................................................................................. $ 627 $ 412
—
Tax Fees .......................................................................................
—
Audit-Related Fees .......................................................................
All Other Fees ..............................................................................
—
Total Fees ..................................................................................... $ 627 $ 412

—
—
—

(1) Audit fees of KPMG for the years ending December 31, 2017 and 2016 were for professional services

rendered for the audits of our financial statements, including accounting consultation, reviews of quarterly
financial statements and professional services rendered in connection with our registration statements. Fees for
2017 include services associated with our automatic shelf registration statement, which we filed with the SEC
in December 2017, and fees for 2016 include services associated with our shelf registration statement, which
we filed with the SEC in September 2016.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

The Audit Committee or a delegate of the Audit Committee pre-approves, or provides pursuant to pre-

approvals policies and procedures for the pre-approval of, all audit and non-audit services provided by its
independent registered public accounting firm. This policy is set forth in the charter of the Audit Committee and is
available at http://ir.aimmune.com.

The Audit Committee approved all of the audit, audit-related, tax and other services provided by KPMG for

2017 and all of the audit, audit-related, tax and other services provided by KPMG in 2016 following our initial
public offering in August 2015 and, in each case, the estimated costs of those services. Actual amounts billed, to the
extent in excess of the estimated amounts, are periodically reviewed and approved by the Audit Committee.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR RATIFICATION OF OUR
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM.

11

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The material in this report is not “soliciting material,” is not deemed “filed” with the SEC, and is not to be

incorporated by reference into any filing of Aimmune under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The primary purpose of the Audit Committee is to oversee our financial reporting processes on behalf of our

Board. The Audit Committee’s functions are more fully described in its charter, which is available on our website at
http://ir.aimmune.com. Management has the primary responsibility for our financial statements and reporting
processes, including our systems of internal controls. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee
reviewed and discussed with management Aimmune’s audited financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Audit Committee has discussed with KPMG LLP, the Company’s independent registered public
accounting firm, the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards 61, as amended,
“Communications with Audit Committees,” as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the
“PCAOB”). In addition, the Audit Committee discussed with KPMG LLP their independence, and received from
KPMG LLP the written disclosures and the letter required by Ethics and Independence Rule 3526 of the PCAOB.
Finally, the Audit Committee discussed with KPMG LLP, with and without management present, the scope and
results of KPMG LLP’s audit of such financial statements.

Based on these reviews and discussions, the Audit Committee has recommended to our Board that such
audited financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017
for filing with the SEC. The Audit Committee also has engaged KPMG LLP as our independent registered public
accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2018 and is seeking ratification of such selection by the
stockholders.

Audit Committee
Kathryn E. Falberg, Chair
Mark T. Iwicki
Stacey D. Seltzer

12

PROPOSAL NO. 3
NON-BINDING, ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Summary

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 enables our stockholders to vote to

approve, on an advisory, non-binding basis, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this
Proxy Statement in accordance with the SEC’s rules, commonly known as a “Say-on-Pay” vote. Accordingly, we
are seeking a non-binding, advisory vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers as described
in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement and the compensation tables and
accompanying narrative disclosures that follow.

Board Recommendation

Our Compensation Committee and the Board believe that the information provided in the “Compensation

Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement, compensation tables and accompanying narrative
disclosures demonstrates that our executive compensation program is designed appropriately, emphasizes pay for
performance and aligns management’s interests with our stockholders’ interests to support long-term value creation.

Accordingly, our Board recommends that stockholders vote “FOR” the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that stockholders of Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) approve, on an
advisory basis,
the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed in
“Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” compensation tables and the accompanying narrative
disclosures of this Proxy Statement.

P
r
o
x
y

While the vote on this resolution is advisory and not binding on us, the Compensation Committee, or our
Board, the Compensation Committee and our Board values thoughtful input from stockholders and will consider the
outcome of the vote on this resolution when considering future executive compensation decisions. The Board will
determine when the next Say-on-Pay advisory vote will be held following consideration of the outcome of the
advisory vote on the frequency of future Say-on-Pay votes, included in this Proxy Statement as Proposal No. 4.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE, ON A
NON-BINDING ADVISORY BASIS, FOR THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.

13

PROPOSAL NO. 4
ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF FUTURE ADVISORY (“SAY-ON-PAY”) VOTES BY
STOCKHOLDERS ON THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Summary

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) enables

our stockholders to indicate how frequently they believe we should seek a non-binding advisory vote from
stockholders on the compensation of our named executive officers (our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial
Officer and our other three most highly compensated executive officers, collectively the “NEOs”) i.e., how
frequently to request future “Say-on-Pay” votes from stockholders. We are accordingly seeking a non-binding
advisory vote from stockholders as to the frequency with which our stockholders should have an opportunity to
provide an advisory approval - a “Say-on-Pay” - of our NEO compensation. We are providing our stockholders with
the choice of selecting a frequency of 1 year, 2 years or 3 years or abstaining from this advisory vote.

The Board is also seeking an advisory “Say-on-Pay” vote from stockholders at the 2018 annual meeting and

expects to seek such vote every year. We believe that this frequency is appropriate because it will enable our
stockholders to vote, on an advisory basis, on the most recent executive compensation information that is presented
in each of our proxy statements, leading to a more meaningful and coherent communication between the Company
and our stockholders on the compensation of our NEOs.

The Board’s current plan is further based on the premise that this recommendation could be modified if it
becomes apparent that an annual frequency vote is not meaningful, is burdensome or is more frequent than indicated
by best corporate governance practices.

Board Recommendation

Based on these factors, the Board recommends that future advisory votes by stockholders on named executive
officer compensation occur every year, until the next advisory vote on the frequency of future “Say-on-Pay” votes.
Stockholders are not being asked to approve or disapprove the Board’s recommendation, but rather to indicate their
choice among the following frequency options: one year, two years or three years, or to abstain from voting on this
item. If none of the frequency alternatives - one year, two years or three years - receives a majority of the votes cast,
we will consider the highest number of votes cast by stockholders to be the frequency that has been selected by
stockholders. Accordingly, we are asking stockholders to approve the following non-binding advisory resolution at
the Annual Meeting:

RESOLVED, that the compensation of named executive officers of Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (the
“Company”) be submitted to an advisory vote by the Company’s stockholders every (a) 1 year, (b) 2
years, or (c) 3 years, with such alternative that receives the highest number of votes cast representing
the vote of stockholders.

The vote on this resolution is advisory, and therefore not binding on the Company, the Board or its

Compensation Committee. The Board may decide that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders
to hold future advisory “Say-on-Pay” votes more or less frequently than the frequency indicated by stockholders in
voting on this proposal.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS APPROVE,
IN A NON-BINDING ADVISORY VOTE, THAT FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES BY
STOCKHOLDERS ON THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS BE REQUESTED EVERY 1 YEAR.

14

P
r
o
x
y

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all of our employees, officers and
directors, including those officers responsible for financial reporting. The code of business conduct and ethics is
available on our website at http://ir.aimmune.com. We expect that any amendments to the code, or any waivers of its
requirements, will be disclosed on our website. The reference to our web address does not constitute incorporation
by reference of the information contained at or available through our website.

Corporate Governance Guidelines

We believe in sound corporate governance practices and have adopted formal Corporate Governance
Guidelines to enhance our effectiveness. Our Board adopted these Corporate Governance Guidelines in order to
ensure that it has the necessary practices in place to review and evaluate our business operations as needed and to
make decisions that are independent of our management. The Corporate Governance Guidelines are also intended to
align the interests of directors and management with those of our stockholders. The Corporate Governance
Guidelines set forth the practices our Board follows with respect to Board and committee composition and selection,
Board meetings, Chief Executive Officer performance evaluation and succession planning. A copy of our Corporate
Governance Guidelines is available on our website at http://ir.aimmune.com.

Independence of the Board of Directors

As required under the Nasdaq Global Select Market (“Nasdaq”) rules and regulations, a majority of the
members of a listed company’s board of directors must qualify as “independent,” as affirmatively determined by
such board. The Board consults with the Company’s counsel to ensure that the Board’s determinations are consistent
with all relevant securities and other laws and regulations regarding the definition of “independent,” including those
set forth in pertinent Nasdaq listing standards, as in effect from time to time.

Consistent with these considerations, our Board has determined that all of our directors, other than Dr. Dilly,
qualify as “independent” directors in accordance with the Nasdaq listing requirements. Dr. Dilly is not considered
independent because he is an employee of Aimmune. The Nasdaq independence definition includes a series of
objective tests, such as that the director is not, and has not been for at least three years, one of our employees and
that neither the director nor any of his or her family members has engaged in various types of business dealings with
us. In addition, as required by Nasdaq rules, our Board has made a subjective determination as to each independent
director that no relationships exist, which, in the opinion of our Board, would interfere with the exercise of
independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. In making these determinations, our Board
considered information provided by the directors and us with regard to each director’s business and personal
activities and relationships as they may relate to us and our management. There are no family relationships among
any of our directors or executive officers.

As required under Nasdaq rules and regulations, our independent directors meet in regularly scheduled

executive sessions at which only independent directors are present. All of the committees of our Board are
comprised entirely of directors determined by the Board to be independent within the meaning of Nasdaq and SEC
rules and regulations applicable to the members of such committees.

Leadership Structure of the Board

Our bylaws and Corporate Governance Guidelines provide our Board with flexibility to combine or separate

the positions of Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and/or the implementation of a lead director in
accordance with its determination that utilizing one or the other structure would be in the best interests of the
Company. Mr. McDade currently serves as the Chair of our Board. In that role, Mr. McDade presides over the
executive sessions of the Board in which Dr. Dilly does not participate, serves as a liaison to Dr. Dilly and
management on behalf of the Board and performs such other duties and exercises such other powers as may from
time to time be assigned by the bylaws or the Board.

15

Our Board has concluded that our current leadership structure is appropriate at this time. However, our Board

will continue to periodically review our leadership structure and may make such changes in the future as it deems
appropriate.

Role of Board in Risk Oversight Process

Risk assessment and oversight are an integral part of our governance and management processes. Our Board

encourages management to promote a culture that incorporates risk management into our corporate strategy and day-
to-day business operations. Management discusses strategic and operational risks at regular management meetings,
and conducts specific strategic planning and review sessions during the year that include a focused discussion and
analysis of the risks facing us. Throughout the year, senior management reviews these risks with the Board at
regular Board meetings as part of management presentations that focus on particular business functions, operations
or strategies and presents the steps taken by management to mitigate or eliminate such risks.

Our Board does not have a standing risk management committee, but rather administers this oversight function

directly through our Board as a whole, as well as through various standing committees of our Board that address
risks inherent in their respective areas of oversight. In particular, our Board is responsible for monitoring and
assessing strategic risk exposure and our Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing our major financial risk
exposures and the steps our management has taken to monitor and control these exposures. The Audit Committee
also monitors compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee monitors the effectiveness of our corporate governance guidelines and considers and approves or
disapproves any related-person transactions. Our Compensation Committee assesses and monitors whether any of
our compensation policies and programs has the potential to encourage excessive risk-taking.

Board Committees

Audit Committee

Our Audit Committee oversees our corporate accounting and financial reporting process. Among other

matters, the Audit Committee:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

appoints our independent registered public accounting firm;

evaluates the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications, independence and
performance;

determines the engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm;

reviews and approves the scope of the annual audit and the audit fee;

discusses with management and the independent registered public accounting firm the results of the
annual audit and the review of our quarterly financial statements;

approves the retention of the independent registered public accounting firm to perform any proposed
permissible non-audit services;

monitors the rotation of partners of the independent registered public accounting firm on our
engagement team in accordance with requirements established by the SEC;

is responsible for reviewing our financial statements and our management’s discussion and analysis of
financial condition and results of operations to be included in our annual and quarterly reports to be
filed with the SEC;

reviews our critical accounting policies and estimates; and

reviews the Audit Committee charter and the committee’s performance at least annually.

The current members of our Audit Committee are Kathryn E. Falberg, Mark T. Iwicki and Stacey D. Seltzer.
Ms. Falberg serves as the chair of the committee. All members of our Audit Committee meet the requirements for
financial literacy under the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC and Nasdaq. Our Board has determined that
Ms. Falberg is an Audit Committee financial expert as defined under the applicable rules of the SEC and has the
requisite financial sophistication as defined under the applicable rules and regulations of Nasdaq. Under the rules of
the SEC, members of the Audit Committee must also meet heightened independence standards. Our Board has

16

determined that each of Ms. Falberg, Mr. Iwicki and Ms. Seltzer are independent under the applicable rules of the
SEC and Nasdaq.

The Audit Committee operates under a written charter that satisfies the applicable standards of the SEC and

Nasdaq. A copy of the Audit Committee charter is available to security holders on the Company’s website at
http://ir.aimmune.com.

Compensation Committee

Our Compensation Committee oversees policies relating to compensation and benefits of our officers and
employees. The Compensation Committee reviews and determines or, if applicable, recommends to our Board
corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our executive officers, evaluates the performance of
these officers in light of those goals and objectives and approves the compensation of these officers based on such
evaluations. Our Compensation Committee also has the authority to determine and approve the compensation of the
Chief Executive Officer. The Compensation Committee also recommends to our Board the issuance of stock options
and other awards under our stock plans. The Compensation Committee will review and evaluate, at least annually,
the performance of the Compensation Committee and its members, including compliance by the Compensation
Committee with its charter.

The current members of our Compensation Committee are Patrick G. Enright, Kathryn E. Falberg and Mark D.
McDade. Mr. Enright serves as the chair of the committee. Each of the members of our Compensation Committee is
independent under the applicable rules and regulations of Nasdaq, is a “non-employee director” as defined in Rule
16b-3 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and is an “outside
director” as that term is defined in Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or
Section 162(m).

P
r
o
x
y

Our executive officers submit proposals to the board and the Compensation Committee regarding our
executive compensation. Our Chief Executive Officer also annually reviews the performance of each executive
officer and makes recommendations regarding their compensation. The Compensation Committee considers those
recommendations in determining base salaries, adjustments to base salaries, annual cash bonus program targets and
awards and equity awards, if any, for the executive officers and other members of senior management.

Our Compensation Committee has retained Radford, Inc. (“Radford”), a nationally-recognized compensation

consulting firm, to serve as its independent compensation consultant and to conduct market research and analysis on
our various executive positions, to assist the committee in developing appropriate incentive plans for our executives
on an annual basis, to provide the committee with advice and ongoing recommendations regarding material
executive compensation decisions, and to review compensation proposals of management. Radford reports directly
to the Compensation Committee and does not provide any non-compensation related services to the Company. The
Compensation Committee reviewed the independence of Radford, employing the independence factors specified in
the listing requirements of Nasdaq. Based on this assessment, the Compensation Committee determined that the
engagement of Radford does not raise any conflicts of interest or similar concerns. In addition, the Compensation
Committee evaluated the independence of its other outside advisors to the Compensation Committee, including
outside legal counsel, considering the same independence factors and concluded their work for the Compensation
Committee does not raise any conflicts of interest.

The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter that satisfies the applicable standards of the

SEC and Nasdaq rules. A copy of the Compensation Committee charter is available to security holders on the
Company’s website at http://ir.aimmune.com.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for making recommendations to our
Board regarding candidates for directorships and the size and composition of our Board. In addition, the Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for overseeing our corporate governance policies and reporting
and making recommendations to our Board concerning governance matters.

The current members of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are Patrick G. Enright, Mark

D. McDade and Stacey D. Seltzer. Mr. McDade serves as the chair of the committee. Each of the members of our

17

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is an independent director under the applicable rules and
regulations of Nasdaq relating to Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee independence.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee operates under a written charter that satisfies the
applicable standards of the SEC and Nasdaq rules. A copy of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
charter is available to security holders on the Company’s website at http://ir.aimmune.com.

Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for reviewing with the Board, on an

annual basis, the appropriate characteristics, skills and experience required for the Board as a whole and its
individual members. In evaluating the suitability of individual candidates (both new candidates and current
members), the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, in recommending candidates for election, and the
Board, in approving (and, in the case of vacancies, appointing) such candidates, may take into account many factors,
including but not limited to the following: diversity of personal and professional background, perspective and
experience; personal and professional integrity, ethics and values; experience in corporate management, operations
or finance, such as serving as an officer or former officer of a publicly held company, and a general understanding
of marketing, finance and other elements relevant to the success of a publicly-traded company in today’s business
environment; experience relevant to our industry and with relevant social policy concerns; experience as a board
member or executive officer of another publicly held company; relevant academic expertise or other proficiency in
an area of our operations; practical and mature business judgment, including ability to make independent analytical
inquiries; promotion of a diversity of business or career experience relevant to the success of our company; and any
other relevant qualifications, attributes or skills.

The Board evaluates each individual in the context of the Board as a whole, with the objective of assembling a
group that can best maximize the success of the business and represent stockholder interests through the exercise of
sound judgment using its diversity of experience in these various areas.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidates recommended by

stockholders. For a stockholder to make any nomination for election to the Board at an annual meeting, the
stockholder must provide notice to the Company, which notice must be delivered to, or mailed and received at, the
Company’s principal executive offices not less than 90 days and not more than 120 days prior to the one-year
anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting; provided, that if the date of the annual meeting is more than 30
days before or more than 60 days after such anniversary date, the stockholder’s notice must be delivered, or mailed
and received, not later than 90 days prior to the date of the annual meeting or, if later, the 10th day following the date
on which public disclosure of the date of such annual meeting is made. Further updates and supplements to such
notice may be required at the times, and in the forms, required under our bylaws. As set forth in our bylaws,
submissions must include the name and address of the proposed nominee, information regarding the proposed
nominee that is required to be disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings in a contested election pursuant to
Section 14(a) under the Exchange Act, information regarding the proposed nominee’s indirect and direct interests in
shares of the Company’s common stock, and a completed and signed questionnaire, representation and agreement of
the proposed nominee. Our bylaws also specify further requirements as to the form and content of a stockholder’s
notice. We recommend that any stockholder wishing to make a nomination for director review a copy of our bylaws,
as amended and restated to date, which is available, without charge, from our Corporate Secretary, at 8000 Marina
Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005.

Meetings of the Board of Directors, Board and Committee Member Attendance and Annual Meeting
Attendance

Our Board met eleven times and acted by unanimous written consent two times during 2017. The Audit
Committee met five times and did not act by unanimous written consent. The Compensation Committee met seven
times and acted by unanimous written consent seven times. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
met three times and did not act by unanimous written consent. During 2017, each Board member attended at least
75% of the meetings of the Board and of the committees of the Board on which he or she served, in each case, to the
extent appointed as a Board member at the relevant time of each meeting. We encourage all of our directors and
nominees for director to attend our annual meeting of stockholders; however, attendance is not mandatory. Among
the directors then serving on our board, Dr. Dilly attended our annual meeting of stockholders in 2017.

18

Stockholder Communications with the Board of Directors

Should stockholders wish to communicate with the Board or any specified individual directors, such

correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Corporate Secretary, at 8000 Marina Blvd., Suite 300,
Brisbane, California 94005. The Corporate Secretary will forward the communication to the Board members.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

During 2017, our Compensation Committee consisted of Mr. Enright, Mr. McDade and Ms. Falberg. None of

the members of our Compensation Committee has at any time been one of our officers or employees. None of our
executive officers currently serves, or in the past fiscal year has served, as a member of the board of directors or
compensation committee of any entity that has one or more executive officers on our Board or Compensation
Committee.

P
r
o
x
y

19

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

We describe below transactions and series of similar transactions, since January 1, 2017, to which we were a

party or will be a party, in which:

•

•

the amounts involved exceeded or will exceed $120,000; and

any of our directors, executive officers or holders of more than 5% of our common stock, or an affiliate
or immediate family member thereof, had or will have a direct or indirect material interest.

Sales and Purchases of Securities

Participation in Public Offering

In February 2018, we issued and sold an aggregate of 6,325,000 shares of our common stock in an

underwritten public offering at a price to the public of $32.00 per share for aggregate net proceeds of approximately
$190.0 million.

The table below sets forth the aggregate number of shares of common stock sold to our directors, executive

officers or owners of more than 5% of a class of our capital stock, or an affiliate or immediate family member
thereof:

Name
Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc.(1)...........
Patrick G. Enright(2)...............................................
Kathryn E. Falberg(3) .............................................
Mark T. Iwicki(4)....................................................

Number of Shares
of Common Stock
(#)
937,500
15,593
30,000
9,375

Aggregate
Purchase Price
($)

30,000,000
498,976
960,000
300,000

(1) Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. (“Nestle Health Science”) and its affiliates owned (in the aggregate)
more than 5% of our outstanding capital stock at the time of the offering. Gregory Behar is currently, and was
at the time of the offering, a member of our Board and is affiliated with Nestle Health Science.
(2)
Patrick G. Enright is currently, and was at the time of the offering, a member of our Board.
(3) Kathryn E. Falberg is currently, and was at the time of the offering, a member of our Board.
(4) Mark T. Iwicki is currently, and was at the time of the offering, a member of our Board.

Indemnification Agreements and Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance

We have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our directors and executive officers. These
agreements, among other things, require us to indemnify each director and executive officer to the fullest extent
permitted by Delaware law, including indemnification of expenses such as attorneys’ fees, judgments, penalties,
fines and settlement amounts incurred by the director or executive officer in any action or proceeding, including any
action or proceeding by or in right of us, arising out of the person’s services as a director or executive officer.

Investor Rights Agreement

We entered into an amended and restated investor rights agreement with certain of our investors, including

entities with which certain of our directors are or were affiliated, prior to our initial public offering in August 2015.
As of December 31, 2017, the holders of approximately 6.0 million shares of our common stock, including the
shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding options, are entitled to rights with respect to the
registration of their shares under the Securities Act.

Collaboration with Nestle Health Science

In November 2016, we entered into a two-year strategic collaboration with Nestec, Ltd. (“Nestec”), an affiliate

of Nestle Health Science for the advancement of food allergy therapeutics and issued and sold to Nestle Health
Science 7,552,084 shares of common stock in a private placement at $19.20 per share, which represented
approximately 15.1% of our outstanding shares at the time of the transaction. In connection with the transactions, we

20

entered into (i) a Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 3, 2016, with Nestle Health Science, (ii) a
Strategic Collaboration Agreement (the “Strategic Collaboration Agreement”), dated as of November 3, 2016, with
Nestec, (iii) a Standstill Agreement (the “Standstill Agreement”), dated November 23, 2016, with Nestle Health
Science and (iv) a Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”), dated November 23, 2016,
with Nestle Health Science. In addition to and in connection with the transactions, Greg Behar joined our Board in
November 2016. Under the Standstill Agreement, Nestle Health Science agreed to (i) a two-year market standoff
provision under which it agreed not to sell or transfer any of our common stock or other securities and (ii) a two-
year standstill agreement under which Nestle Health Science agreed not to acquire us through any means, in each
case, subject to certain limitations. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, we agreed to register the resale of the
shares that Nestle Health Science purchased on a registration statement to be filed with the SEC upon the request of
Nestle Health Science. The investment and the collaboration do not include any development milestones, product
marketing rights or royalties.

Policies and Procedures for Related Party Transactions

Our Board has adopted a written related person transaction policy setting forth the policies and procedures for
the review and approval or ratification of related person transactions. This policy covers, with certain exceptions set
forth in Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, any transaction, arrangement or
relationship, or any series of similar transactions, arrangements or relationships in which we were or are to be a
participant, where the amount involved exceeds $120,000 and a related person had or will have a direct or indirect
material interest, including, without limitation, purchases of goods or services by or from the related person or
entities in which the related person has a material interest, indebtedness, guarantees of indebtedness and
employment by us of a related person. In reviewing and approving any such transactions, our Audit Committee is
tasked to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether the transaction is on
terms comparable to those that could be obtained in an arm’s length transaction with an unrelated third party and the
extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction.

P
r
o
x
y

21

REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The material in this report is not “soliciting material,” is not deemed “filed” with the SEC, and is not to be

incorporated by reference into any filing of Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed with management the “Compensation Discussion and
Analysis” included in this Proxy Statement. Based on those reviews and discussions, the Compensation Committee
recommended to the Board that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” be included in this Proxy Statement.

Compensation Committee
Mark D. McDade
Kathryn E. Falberg
Patrick G. Enright

22

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

In connection with our initial public offering in August 2015, we implemented a compensation policy for our
non-employee directors (the “Director Compensation Program”). Pursuant to the Director Compensation Program,
each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $35,000 and a non-employee director serving as Chair of
the Board receives an additional annual retainer of $30,000. Non-employee directors who serve on one or more
committees are eligible to receive the following annual committee fees:

Committee
Audit Committee................................................................ $ 20,000
12,000
Compensation Committee..................................................
8,000
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee..........

Chair

Other
Member
$ 10,000
6,000
4,000

Under the Director Compensation Program, each non-employee director who is elected or appointed to our

Board will automatically be granted an option to purchase 39,510 shares of our common stock upon the director’s
initial appointment or election to our Board, referred to as the Initial Grant. In addition, each non-employee director
who is serving on our Board immediately following an annual stockholder’s meeting will automatically be granted
an annual option to purchase 19,755 shares of our common stock on the date of such annual stockholder’s meeting,
referred to as the Annual Grant. The Initial Grant will vest as to 1/36th of the shares subject to the Initial Grant each
month following the applicable grant date, subject to continued service through each applicable vesting date. The
Annual Grant will vest as to all of the shares subject to the Annual Grant on the earlier of the first anniversary of the
applicable grant date or the next annual stockholders’ meeting, subject to continued service through the vesting date.
All equity awards, including any Initial Grants and Annual Grants, held by our non-employee directors will vest in
full immediately prior to the occurrence of a change in control.

P
P
r
r
o
o
x
x
y
y

In May 2017, following its review of an analysis prepared by Radford, our independent compensation
consultant, regarding the compensation of our non-employee directors as compared to our peers, our Board
approved a modification to the equity portion of our Director Compensation Program in order to position the equity
award grant sizes closer to the median of our peer group. Pursuant to the modified Director Compensation Program,
the shares subject to the Initial Grant would be reduced to 30,000 and the shares subject to the Annual Grant would
be reduced to 17,500. Our non-employee directors received Annual Grants pursuant to the revised Director
Compensation Program at our 2017 annual meeting of stockholders.

Director Compensation Table

The following table sets forth information concerning the compensation earned by our non-employee directors

during the year ended December 31, 2017.

Fees Earned or Paid
in Cash(1)

Name
Gregory Behar ............................................... $
Patrick G. Enright..........................................
Kathryn E. Falberg ........................................
Mark T. Iwicki...............................................
Mark D. McDade...........................................
Stacey D. Seltzer ...........................................

Option Awards(2)

Total

35,000 $
51,000
61,000
45,000
79,000
49,000

201,789 $236,789
252,789
201,789
262,789
201,789
246,789
201,789
280,789
201,789
250,789
201,789

(1)

(2)

The amounts reported in this column represent the aggregate dollar amount of all fees earned or paid in cash to
each non-employee director in fiscal 2017 for their service as a director, including any annual retainer fees,
committee and/or chair fees.
The amounts reported in this column represent the grant date fair value calculated in accordance with the
provisions of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation.
The valuation assumptions used in determining such amounts are described in Note 7 to our consolidated
financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017.

23

At December 31, 2017, our non-employee directors held the following outstanding options:

Name
Gregory Behar ....................................................
Patrick G. Enright ...............................................
Kathryn E. Falberg..............................................
Mark T. Iwicki ....................................................
Mark D. McDade ................................................
Stacey D. Seltzer.................................................

Shares Subject to
Outstanding Options (#)
57,010
155,525
37,255
177,044
142,097
89,676

24

The following is biographical information for our executive officers, including their ages as of April 1, 2018.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Age

Name
Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D................. 58 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Eric H. Bjerkholt ........................................... 58 Chief Financial Officer
Daniel C. Adelman, M.D............................... 60 Chief Medical Officer
Susan E. Barrowcliffe.................................... 60 General Manager, Europe
Jeffrey H. Knapp ........................................... 52 Chief Operating Officer
Mary M. Rozenman, Ph.D............................. 37 Senior Vice President, Corporate & Strategy Development
Douglas T. Sheehy......................................... 51 General Counsel and Secretary

Position(s)

Executive Officers

Dr. Stephen G. Dilly’s biographical information is included above under “Proposal No. 1 Election of

Directors.”

Eric H. Bjerkholt has served as our Chief Financial Officer since April 2017. Prior to joining Aimmune, he
was CFO at Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where, over 13 years with the company, his role expanded to oversee
business development and multiple aspects of governance and corporate relations. Prior to Sunesis, Mr. Bjerkholt
was CFO at IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and LifeSpring Nutrition, Inc. He began his healthcare career at J.P.
Morgan & Co. as an investment banker in New York and then launched the company’s Western U.S. healthcare
practice. Mr. Bjerkholt holds a Cand. Oecon. (master’s) degree in economics from the University of Oslo and an
MBA from Harvard Business School. He has served on the boards of directors of several publicly traded companies
and is currently a member of the board of directors and chair of the audit committee for Corium International, Inc., a
biopharmaceutical company.

P
r
o
x
y

Daniel C. Adelman, M.D. has served as our Chief Medical Officer since June 2016. From 2009 to September

2015, Dr. Adelman served as Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Development of Alvine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company. Additionally, Dr. Adelman was a member of the Research
Advisory Board of Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE), Inc., a nonprofit organization, from 2011 to June
2016. From 2003 to 2008, Dr. Adelman served as Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Development
at Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a pharmaceutical company. From 1998 to 2003, Dr. Adelman held various
positions at Pharmacyclics, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, including Vice President of Clinical Operations and
Biometrics. From 1994 to 1998, Dr. Adelman served as Clinical Scientist at Genentech. Dr. Adelman is also
currently an Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, where he has taught and
practiced for more than 25 years. Dr. Adelman received an A.B. degree in Biology from the University of
California, Berkeley, and an M.D. from the University of California, Davis.

Susan E. Barrowcliffe has served as our General Manager of Europe since January 2016. From May 2015 to

January 2015, she served as our Senior Vice President, Head of Worldwide Regulatory Affairs and General
Manager Europe. From 2007 to May 2015, Ms. Barrowcliffe was sole director and consultant of Right Track
Regulatory Ltd, a consultancy firm for biotech companies. From April 2013 to May 2015, she was a non-executive
board director for Idis, a pharmaceutical company now a part of Clinigen Group. From 2004 to 2006,
Ms. Barrowcliffe was VP of Regulatory Affairs Europe for Chiron BioPharmaceuticals, a pharmaceutical company.
From 1990 to 2003, she served as VP Development for British Biotech, VP of Worldwide Product Registration for
SmithKline Beecham, and Director of European Regulatory Affairs for Marion Merrell Dow. Ms. Barrowcliffe has a
first class honours degree in Biochemistry from the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Jeffrey H. Knapp has served as our Chief Operating Officer since February 2016. Mr. Knapp previously
served as Chief Operating Officer of Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, from August 2014
to January 2016. Prior to serving as Chief Operating Officer of Adamas, Mr. Knapp served as its Chief Commercial
Officer from February 2014 to August 2014. From 2006 to March 2013, Mr. Knapp served as Chief Commercial
Officer at Affymax Inc., a pharmaceutical company. Mr. Knapp served as Senior Vice President, Sales and

25

Marketing at Abgenix, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, from 2005 to 2006. Prior to 2005, Mr. Knapp served in a
variety of commercial leadership positions within the pharmaceutical industry, including with Schering-Plough
Corporation (now Merck & Co. Inc.) and Eli Lilly & Company. Mr. Knapp received a B.A. in Biology from
Wittenberg University.

Mary M. Rozenman, Ph.D. has served as our Senior Vice President, Corporate & Strategy Development since

February 2016. From February 2015 to February 2016, Dr. Rozenman served as our Senior Vice President,
Corporate and Commercial Development. From February 2013 to January 2015, Dr. Rozenman was Vice President
at Longitude Capital Management Co., LLC, a venture investment company, where she focused on biotechnology
investments in therapeutics and diagnostics. From February 2008 to January 2013, Dr. Rozenman was at
McKinsey & Company, a management-consulting company, where she most recently served as Associate Principal
in the Healthcare and Corporate Finance practices. Dr. Rozenman previously served as an observer on the boards of
directors of Allergen Research Corporation (now Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.), Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a
biopharmaceutical company, and CardioDx, Inc., a molecular diagnostics company. Dr. Rozenman received a B.A.
in Biochemistry and Russian Literature from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry and Chemical
Biology from Harvard University.

Douglas T. Sheehy has served as our General Counsel and Secretary since April 2016. Prior to joining

Aimmune, Mr. Sheehy served as Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel and
Secretary of Codexis, Inc., a protein engineering company that develops biocatalysts for the pharmaceutical and fine
chemical industries, from February 2014 to April 2016, as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
from 2009 to February 2014 and as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary from 2007 to 2009. Prior to
Codexis, Mr. Sheehy spent five years in key legal roles at CV Therapeutics, Inc., a publicly-held biopharmaceutical
company that was subsequently acquired by Gilead Sciences, Inc. in 2009. He began his legal career as a corporate
attorney at Gunderson Dettmer LLP. Mr. Sheehy holds a B.A. in history from Dartmouth College and a J.D. from
American University, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the American University Law Review.

26

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

General

The following Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) provides information on the compensation

arrangements for our Named Executive Officers (our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, our other
three most highly compensated executive officers serving at the end of fiscal 2017 and our former Chief Financial
Officer, collectively our “NEOs”) and is intended to provide context for the decisions underlying the compensation
paid to our NEOs in 2017. This CD&A should be read together with the compensation tables and related disclosures
set forth below. Our NEOs for 2017 and their positions with the Company were as follows:

•

•

•

•

•

•

Dr. Stephen G. Dilly, Chief Executive Officer;

Eric H. Bjerkholt, Chief Financial Officer;

Dr. Daniel C. Adelman, Chief Medical Officer;

Jeffrey H. Knapp, Chief Operating Officer;

Douglas T. Sheehy, General Counsel and Secretary; and

Warren L. DeSouza, former Chief Financial Officer.

Mr. DeSouza ceased to be employed by us in April 2017 and Mr. Bjerkholt commenced employment with us

in April 2017.

Executive Summary

P
r
o
x
y

2017 Performance Highlights and Pay for Performance. Our executive compensation programs are designed to
deliver pay in accordance with corporate and individual performance, rewarding superior performance and
providing consequences for underperformance. We believe that compensation of our NEOs for fiscal year 2017 was
aligned with the Company’s performance during 2017. Highlights of that performance include, but are not limited
to:

•

•

•

•

•

In 2017, we initiated and completed enrollment in our RAMSES clinical study, which is a real-world
experience safety trial of AR101 conducted in the United States and Canada;

In June 2017, we completed the construction of our commercial manufacturing facility for AR101 in
Clearwater, Florida.

In July 2017, we initiated enrollment in our ARTEMIS clinical study, which is a European Phase 3
efficacy trial of AR101 that is designed to explore a higher efficacy bar and a shorter maintenance
period than in our recently completed PALISADE trial;

In October 2017, we entered into a clinical collaboration with Regeneron and Sanofi to study AR101
treatment with adjunctive dupilumab in peanut-allergic patients in a Phase 2 clinical trial expected to
begin in 2018; and

In December 2017, we completed enrollment in our PALISADE clinical study, which is a pivotal Phase
3 efficacy trial of AR101 that enrolled 554 subjects ages 4-49 in the United States, Canada and eight
countries in Europe.

In order to align pay with performance, a significant portion of our NEOs’ compensation is delivered in the
form of equity awards and annual cash incentives, each of which depends on our actual performance. For fiscal year
2017, 87.2% of the total target compensation for continuing NEOs was in the form of stock options and annual cash
incentives.

2017 Compensation Highlights. Consistent with our compensation philosophy, key compensation decisions for
2017 included the following:

•

Base Salaries and Target Annual Cash Incentive Opportunities. The 2017 base salaries for our
continuing NEOs were increased between 3.5% and 13.6% in order to position our NEOs’ base salaries

27

•

•

closer to the market median, other than Mr. Bjerkholt who commenced employment with us in 2017. In
addition, other than Mr. Bjerkholt, our continuing NEOs’ 2017 target bonuses were increased by 5
percentage points in order to generally reflect the same competitive position within our tier-based
approach to target bonuses.

Annual Cash Incentives. For 2017, our Compensation Committee selected 17 primary performance
goals for our performance-based annual bonus program that were intended to promote our business plan
and short-term goals, including with respect to our clinical development program, clinical supply and
chemistry, manufacturing and controls (“CMC”) preparation, quality framework, financial planning and
future preparations, as well as two strategic “kicker” goals that could result in achievement over any
primary goals. Our NEOs’ annual bonus payouts were the result of our 108% achievement of the
corporate goals as well as each NEOs; individual performance in 2017.

Equity-Based Long-Term Incentives. In 2017, we granted 77.2% of our continuing NEOs’ target direct
compensation as equity-based compensation in the form of stock options. We believe that stock options
and restricted stock units effectively align the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders,
providing significant leverage if our growth objectives are achieved while also placing a significant
portion of compensation at risk if our objectives are not achieved. In the event that our executives fail to
increase stockholder value over the term of their stock options, or if stockholder value remains stagnant,
then our NEOs will realize no value from their stock options.

Compensation Governance and Best Practices. We are committed to having strong governance standards with
respect to our compensation programs, procedures and practices. Our key compensation practices include the
following:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Pay for performance. A significant portion of executive compensation is “at risk” based on corporate
performance, and additionally is equity-based, in order to align the interests of our executive officers
with stockholders.

Strong link between performance measures and strategic objectives. Performance measures for
incentive compensation are linked to operating priorities designed to create long-term stockholder value.

Independent compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee retains an independent
compensation consultant to review our executive compensation program and practices.

No guaranteed annual salary increases or bonuses. Our NEOs’ salary increases are based on individual
evaluations and their annual cash incentives are tied to corporate performance.

No tax gross-ups. We do not provide any tax gross-ups to our NEOs.

Limited perquisites. We do not provide any perquisites or personal benefits to our NEOs, other than in
limited circumstances.

No hedging or pledging. We prohibit our employees and directors from hedging or pledging any
Company securities.

Executive Compensation Objectives and Philosophy

The key objective in our executive compensation program is to attract, motivate and reward leaders with the

skills and experience necessary to successfully execute on our strategic plan to maximize stockholder value. Our
executive compensation program is designed to:

•

•

•

•

attract and retain talented and experienced executives in a competitive and dynamic market;

motivate our NEOs to help the Company achieve the best possible financial and operational results;

provide reward opportunities consistent with our performance on both a short-term and long-term basis;
and

align the long-term interests of our NEOs with those of our stockholders.

28

We strive to set our overall total compensation at a competitive level. Executives may be compensated above
or below the targeted market position based on factors such as experience, performance, scope of position and the
competitive demand for proven executive talent, as described further below under “Determination of Executive
Compensation.”

Determination of Executive Compensation

Our Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing and overseeing our executive compensation
programs and annually reviews and determines the compensation to be provided to our NEOs. In setting executive
compensation, the Compensation Committee considers a number of factors, including the recommendations of our
Chief Executive Officer (other than with respect to himself), current and past total compensation, competitive
market data and analysis provided by the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant,
Company performance and each executive’s impact on performance, each executive’s relative scope of
responsibility and potential, each executive’s individual performance and demonstrated leadership and internal
equity pay considerations. Our Chief Executive Officer’s recommendations are based on his evaluation of each other
NEO’s individual performance and contributions, of which he has direct knowledge. Our Compensation Committee
makes decisions regarding our Chief Executive Officer’s compensation.

Competitive Market Data and Independent Compensation Consultant

In order to design a competitive executive compensation program that will continue to attract top executive
talent, our Compensation Committee engages an independent compensation consultant to provide a competitive
review of executive compensation, including base salary, annual incentives and equity compensation as compared
with market data. Our Compensation Committee has retained Radford to provide these services.

P
r
o
x
y

In consultation with Radford, in August 2016, our Compensation Committee selected our peer group based on

the following general criteria: 2016(i) U.S.-based technology companies, with an emphasis on recently public
companies and in biotech “hub” markets; (ii) pre-commercial companies, with similar disease focus where possible;
(iii) market capitalization between $200 million and $1.5 billion; and (iv) companies with between 25 and 150 full
time employees. This peer group (the “2016 Peer Group”) was comprised of the following companies:

• Acceleron Pharma • Ardelyx

• Enanta

Pharmaceuticals

• Adamas

• Atara

• Epizyme

• Global Blood
Therapeutics

• OncoMed

• Sage Therapeutics

• Sorrento

Pharmaceuticals

Therapeutics

Pharmaceuticals

• Aduro BioTech
• Aerie

Biotherapeutics
• ChemoCentryx
• Concert

• FibroGen
• Five Prime

• Otonomy
• Portola

• Versartis
• Vital Therapies

Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals

Therapeutics

Pharmaceuticals

• Akebia

Therapeutics

• Dermira

• Flexion

• Revance

• Xencor

Therapeutics

Therapeutics

As of August 2016, as compared to the 2016 Peer Group, we were at the 53rd percentile for 30 day average

market capitalization and the 46th percentile for headcount. For fiscal 2017, the Compensation Committee used
Radford’s analysis of the 2016 Peer Group to consider the positioning of base salaries, target bonuses and equity
award grants. For 2017, our Compensation Committee generally targeted the 50th percentile of market for our
NEOs’ target cash compensation and, based on Company performance, between the 50th and 75th percentile of
market for our NEOs’ equity compensation, though it took into account other factors as described above under
“Determination of Executive Compensation.”

29

In July 2017, following consultation with Radford, our Compensation Committee approved a new peer group
(the “2017 Peer Group”) using the same general criteria as used to determine the 2016 Peer Group, except that the
market capitalization criterion was modified to a range of $300 million to $2.5 billion, and the full-time employee
headcount criterion was modified to a range of 50 to 300 employees. The 2017 Peer Group consisted of the
following:

• Acceleron Pharma • Akebia

• Dermira

Therapeutics

• Achaogen

• Agios

• Enanta

Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals

• Adamas

• Atara

• Epizyme

• Flexion

Therapeutics
• Global Blood
Therapeutics

• Otonomy

Pharmaceuticals

• Aduro BioTech

Biotherapeutics
• ChemoCentryx

• FibroGen

• Portola

Pharmaceuticals

• Revance

Therapeutics
• Sage Therapeutics

• Sangamo

Therapeutics

• Versartis

• Aerie

• Concert

• Five Prime

• Prothena

• Xencor

Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals

Therapeutics

As of July 2017, as compared to the 2017 Peer Group, we were at the 57th percentile for 30 day average
market capitalization and the 8th percentile for headcount. In November 2017, our Compensation Committee
reviewed Radford’s analysis of our 2017 executive compensation program with respect to the most recently filed
proxy information for the 2017 Peer Group and the Radford 2017 Life Sciences Industry Survey, which included a
select cut of our peer companies and public U.S. pre-commercial bio/pharma companies with headcount between 50
and 300 and market capitalization between $300 million and $2.5 billion. Our Compensation Committee was not
aware of the constituent companies in the broader survey data. Based on this analysis and consistent with our
compensation approach for 2017, our CEO’s target cash compensation was at the 25th percentile of market, and our
other NEOs’ target cash compensation (excluding Mr. DeSouza) was between the 25th and 50th percentiles of
market. In addition, our NEOs equity grant values (excluding Mr. DeSouza) were at the 50th to 75th percentiles of
market.

Our Compensation Committee generally uses the peer group to help structure a competitive executive
compensation program, position executive compensation by considering market data, and make individual
compensation decisions based on comparable positions at companies with which we compete for talent. While the
Compensation Committee does not establish compensation levels solely based on a review of competitive data, it
believes such data is a useful tool in its deliberations as our compensation policies and practices must be competitive
in the marketplace for us to be able to attract, motivate and retain qualified executive officers.

Components of Compensation

The primary elements of our NEOs’ compensation and the main objectives of each are:

•

•

•

Base Salary. Base salary attracts and retains talented executives, recognizes individual roles and
responsibilities and provides stable income.

Annual Performance-Based Incentive Compensation. Annual performance bonuses promote short-term
performance objectives and reward executives for their contributions toward achieving those objectives.

Equity Based Long-Term Incentive Compensation. Equity compensation, provided in the form of stock
options and restricted stock units, aligns executives’ interests with our stockholders’ interests,
emphasizes long-term financial and operational performance, and helps retain executive talent.

In addition, our NEOs are eligible to participate in our health and welfare programs and our 401(k) plan on the

same basis as our other employees. We are also party to employment agreements that provide for severance and
change in control benefits, which aid in attracting and retaining executive talent and help executives to remain
focused and dedicated during potential transition periods due to a change in control. Each of these elements of
compensation for 2017 is described further below.

30

Base Salary

Base salaries provide our NEOs with a reasonable degree of financial certainty and stability. Our

Compensation Committee annually reviews and determines the base salaries of our executives and evaluates the
base salaries of new hires at the time of hire. In February 2017, our Compensation Committee (or Board with respect
to our CEO) approved salary increases, effective as of March 1, 2017, for our then-serving NEOS in a range of 3.5%
to 13.6%, which were intended to position our NEOs’ base salaries closer to the market median, though the
Compensation Committee considered a number of factors, including those set forth above under “Determination of
Executive Compensation”. The base salary for Mr. Bjerkholt was set by the Compensation Committee at the time of
his hire in April 2017. Following such determinations, our NEOs’ 2017 base salaries were as set forth below:

2016
Annualized
Name
Base Salary
Dr. Stephen G. Dilly ..................................................... $ 440,000
—
Eric H. Bjerkholt ...........................................................
400,000
Dr. Daniel C. Adelman .................................................
375,000
Jeffrey H. Knapp ...........................................................
350,000
Douglas T. Sheehy ........................................................
332,000
Warren L. DeSouza.......................................................

2017
Annualized
Base Salary
$ 500,000
400,000
414,000
400,000
362,300
332,000

Annual Performance-Based Incentive Compensation

We have adopted the Aimmune Therapeutics Company Bonus Plan pursuant to which we establish annual
performance-based bonus programs in order to motivate our executives to meet or exceed company-wide short-term
performance objectives. Our annual bonus program provides for the payment of cash bonuses based on each NEOs’
target annual bonus and our achievement of corporate performance objectives and each NEO’s individual
performance in a given year.

P
P
r
r
o
o
x
x
y
y

In February 2017, our Board approved an increase to our Chief Executive Officer’s target bonus from 50% to

55% of his base salary, and our Compensation Committee approved an increase to our other then-serving NEOs’
target bonuses from 35% to 40% of their base salaries, in each case, in order to align with competitive market
practices within the Company’s tier-based approach to target bonuses. The target cash bonus for Mr. Bjerkholt was
set by the Compensation Committee at the time of his hire in April 2017 at 40% of his base salary, consistent with
that of our other NEOs.

For fiscal year 2017, our Compensation Committee approved 17 primary performance goals in the

performance areas of our clinical development program, clinical supply and CMC preparation, quality framework,
financial planning and future preparations under our annual bonus program. Our 2017 cash incentive program also
included two strategic “kicker” goals, each of which could result in overachievement of 10%. Clinical development
program goals included the timely completion of our PALISADE clinical trial, the percentage of PALISADE
subjects that completed the trial and then were enrolled in our ARC004 rollover study and the timely enrollment of
subjects in our RAMSES and ARTEMIS clinical trials of AR101. Clinical supply and CMC preparation goals
included the timely completion of our manufacturing facility in Clearwater, Florida and the successful supply of
clinical trial materials for all AR101 clinical programs. Quality framework goals included the timely closing out of
critical findings identified in audits of our GXP quality management systems and the timely preparation for potential
FDA inspections. Financial goals included management of 2017 cash spend in accordance with our forecast and
preparing to be compliant with the requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Future preparations
goals included timely completion of an AR101 market plan in the United States and a go to market plan in the
European Union, timely completion of activities to support the filing of an investigational new drug application for
an egg allergy product candidate, increasing the number of research analysts that cover Aimmune, measuring the
number of impactful articles and mentions in traditional and social media and successful employee survey results.
Given that some of our non-financial goals are related to our business strategy and are highly confidential, we do not
publicly disclose them at all or in full detail. We believe their disclosure would provide our competitors, customers
and other third parties with significant insights regarding our confidential business strategies that could cause us
substantial competitive harm. These goals were set by our Compensation Committee at a level our Compensation
Committee determined would require substantial effort to be achieved, such that the goals would not be expected to
be achieved with average or below average performance.

31

For fiscal year 2017, our Compensation Committee allocated specific weightings to each performance goal and

set threshold, target and stretch goals for each performance goal, which corresponded to percentage achievement of
75%, 100% and 125%, respectively. Our corporate goals, their applicable weightings and actual achievement for
2017 are set forth in the table below:

Performance Area
Clinical Development Program (5 subgoals, each weighted 8%) ...
Clinical Supply & CMC Preparation (3 subgoals, each

weighted 5%) ................................................................................
Quality Framework (2 subgoals, each weighted 5%) ......................
Financial (2 subgoals, each weighted 5%).......................................
Preparing for the Future (5 subgoals, each weighted 5%) ...............
Total (primary goals) ...............................................................
“Kicker” (2 subgoals, each weighted 10%) .....................................
Total...........................................................................................

Weight

Weighted
Achievement

40%

38.0%

15%
10%
10%
25%
100%
20%
120%

6.3%
10.0%
11.3%
22.5%
88.1%
20.0%
108.1%

Corporate goals and performance targets are reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee, which

gives its recommendations to the Board prior to any allocation of the bonus. In February 2018, the Compensation
Committee reviewed our 2017 company-wide performance with respect to determining bonuses to executive officers
and determined a company-wide achievement of 108%.

Individual bonus payouts were determined 80% based on our company-wide achievement, and 20% based on

our Compensation Committee’s assessment of the NEO’s individual performance. The Compensation Committee
did not establish specific individual goals for our NEOs, but rather evaluated each in a holistic manner based on his
or her area of responsibility and contributions to the Company, taking into account the recommendations of our
CEO with respect to each NEO other than himself. Based on this evaluation, our Compensation Committee
determined that each of our NEOs had achieved individual performance of 100%, except Mr. Bjerkholt, who the
Compensation Committee determined had exceptionally strong individual performance in 2017 that made it
appropriate not to prorate his bonus payout based on his start date in April 2017. Pursuant to the terms of his
separation agreement with the Company, a portion of Mr. DeSouza’s severance represented a prorated bonus for
2017 in the amount of $29,050. Mr. DeSouza was not otherwise eligible to receive a payout under the 2017 bonus
program as he terminated in April 2017. The dollar amount of our other NEOs’ 2017 performance bonuses are set
forth in the column entitled “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” in the “2017 Summary Compensation
Table” below.

Equity-Based Long-Term Incentive Awards

Our Compensation Committee believes it is essential to provide equity-based compensation to our executive
officers in order to link the interests and risks of our executive officers with those of our stockholders, reinforcing
our commitment to ensuring a strong linkage between company performance and pay. In 2017, we granted equity-
based compensation to our NEOs under our 2015 Equity Incentive Award Plan in the form of stock options, which
we believe effectively align the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders.

In February 2017, we made the following grants of stock options to our NEOs:

Name
Dr. Stephen G. Dilly ................................................
Dr. Daniel C. Adelman ............................................
Jeffrey H. Knapp......................................................
Douglas T. Sheehy ...................................................
Warren L. DeSouza(1)...............................................

Number of Shares
Underlying Stock
Options

240,000
90,000
90,000
90,000
—

(1) Mr. DeSouza was not granted an annual award of stock options as his departure from the Company in April

2017 was contemplated at the time of the annual grants.

32

The stock option awards vest as to 1/48th of the shares subject to the option on each monthly anniversary of

February 24, 2017, subject to continued employment.

Consistent with our compensation philosophy for 2017, these equity award grants were intended to be

approximately within the 50th to 75th percentile of market, to reflect a tier-based approach to our annual grants where
each of our C-level executives (other than our Chief Executive Officer) were granted awards of the same size and to
provide solid retention value for our executive team in a pivotal year.

In connection with Mr. Bjerkholt’s commencement of employment with us, we granted him an initial award of

options. Mr. Bjerkholt’s initial stock option grant covered 270,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and
vests as to 25% of the shares on the first anniversary of his hire date and as to 1/48th of the shares on each monthly
anniversary thereafter, subject to continued employment on each applicable vesting date.

As discussed below under “Employment and Severance Arrangements – Transition and Separation Agreement

with Dr. Dilly”, stock options held by Dr. Dilly were modified in 2017 to provide for accelerated vesting and an
extended period to exercise.

Retirement Savings, Health and Welfare Benefits

Our NEOs participate in our company-sponsored benefit programs on generally the same basis as other
salaried employees, including a standard complement of health and welfare benefit plans and a 401(k) plan, which is
intended to qualify under Section 401(k) of the Code, such that a portion of their eligible compensation may be
deferred on a pre-tax basis. Under the 401(k) plan, employees may elect to reduce their current compensation by up
to the statutorily prescribed annual limit and to have the amount of such reduction contributed to the 401(k) plan.
Effective January 1, 2018, the Company matched contributions up to an annual maximum match of $2,000 with
immediate vesting.

P
r
o
x
y

Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits

We do not view perquisites or other personal benefits as a significant component of our executive
compensation program. We currently provide perquisites or other personal benefits to our NEOs in limited
circumstances, including the reimbursement of club membership dues, where we believe it is appropriate to assist an
individual executive officer in the performance of his or her duties, to make our executive officers more efficient
and effective or for recruitment, motivation, or retention purposes. All current and future practices with respect to
perquisites or other personal benefits have been and will be approved by the Compensation Committee.

Employment and Severance Arrangements

We have entered into employment agreements with each of our NEOs, which set forth the terms and

conditions of employment of each named executive officer, including base salary, target bonus, initial equity award
grants, and standard employee benefit plan participation. The agreements also include certain change and control
severance provisions, which our Compensation Committee believes are necessary to attract and retain executive
talent and are a customary component of executive compensation. In particular, such provisions can serve to
mitigate a potential disincentive for them when they are evaluating a potential acquisition of the Company and can
encourage retention through the conclusion of the transaction. The change in control and severance payments and
benefits provided under our executive employment agreements are designed to provide our NEOs with treatment
that is competitive with market practices. A description of these provisions, as well as information on the estimated
payments and benefits that our NEOs would have been eligible to receive as of December 31, 2017, are set forth
under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” below.

We also entered into a transition and separation agreement with Mr. DeSouza in connection with his
termination of employment from the Company in April 2017, which provided for certain severance payments and
benefits. These severance payments and benefits are described in further detail below under “Potential Payments
Upon Termination or Change in Control”.

33

Transition and Separation Agreement with Dr. Dilly

In November 2017, Dr. Dilly announced his intention to retire as the Company’s President and Chief

Executive Officer by the end of 2018. In connection with his planned retirement, in November 2017, the Company
entered into a Transition and Separation Agreement with Dr. Dilly, pursuant to which Dr. Dilly will continue to be
employed by the Company through December 31, 2018, subject to earlier termination by the Company for cause or
by Dr. Dilly for any reason (the earliest such date, the “Termination Date”). Dr. Dilly will continue to be employed
by the Company as its President and Chief Executive Officer and continue to serve as a member of the Board
through the earlier of the date that the Company appoints a new Chief Executive Officer (the “Transition Date”) or
the Termination Date. For the period of time commencing on the Transition Date and ending on the Termination
Date (the “Transition Period”), Dr. Dilly will continue to be employed by the Company as a special advisor, and will
provide transition services for four days per week. During the Transition Period, Dr. Dilly will be paid a base salary
at the rate of $2,500 per week, continue to participate in Company employee benefit plans in accordance with their
terms (other than accrue vacation) and continue to vest into outstanding equity awards. If, during the Transition
Period, the Board or the Company’s new Chief Executive Officer request that Dr. Dilly provide more than four days
of services during any calendar week, then the Company will pay Dr. Dilly a $2,500 per diem bonus. In addition, if
Dr. Dilly ceases to be eligible to participate in the Company’s health plans during the Transition Period, the
Company will directly pay or reimburse Dr. Dilly for COBRA premiums during the Transition Period. Dr. Dilly
provided a release of claims in connection with the execution of the Transition and Separation Agreement.

Subject to Dr. Dilly’s continued employment through December 31, 2018, in exchange for providing a general

release of claims that becomes effective after the Termination Date and continued compliance with the Employee
Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement entered into between Dr. Dilly and the Company, Dr. Dilly will
receive: (i) continued payments of his base salary for 12 months following his Termination Date; (ii) accelerated
vesting of his outstanding equity awards in respect of the number of shares that would have vested had he continued
to provide services for the six-month period following his Termination Date; (iii) extended exercisability of the
vested portion of his options (after giving effect to the foregoing acceleration) for the 12-month period beginning on
his Termination Date; and (iv) payment or reimbursement of COBRA premiums for Dr. Dilly and his covered
dependents for up to 12 months following his Termination Date. Additionally, Dr. Dilly will receive enhanced
severance benefits and full acceleration of his outstanding equity awards if his Termination Date occurs during the
period commencing three months before and ending 12 months after a change in control of the Company.

Other Policies and Considerations

Derivatives Trading, Hedging, and Pledging Policies

Our Insider Trading Policy provides that no employee, officer, or director may acquire, sell, or trade in any
interest or position relating to the future price of Company securities, such as a put option, a call option or a short
sale (including a short sale “against the box”), or engage in hedging transactions (including “cashless collars”). In
addition, our Insider Trading Policy provides that no employee, officer, or director may pledge Company securities
as collateral to secure loans. This prohibition means, among other things, that these individuals may not hold
Company securities in a “margin” account, which would allow the individual to borrow against their holdings to buy
securities.

Deductibility of Compensation

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code disallows a tax deduction for any publicly held corporation for

individual compensation exceeding $1 million in any taxable year for certain “covered employees.” Prior to the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, covered employees included our Chief Executive Officer and each of the next three
highest compensated officers serving at the end of the preceding taxable year other than our Chief Financial Officer,
and compensation that qualified as “performance-based” under Section 162(m) was exempt from this $1 million
limitation. As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the ability to rely on this “qualified performance-based
compensation” exception was eliminated, and the limitation on deductibility was generally expanded to include all
named executive officers. While our Board and Compensation Committee may take the deductibility of
compensation into account when making compensation decisions, we believe that maintaining the discretion to
provide compensation that is non-deductible allows us to provide compensation tailored to the needs of our
Company and our named executive officers and is an important part of our responsibilities and benefits our
stockholders.

34

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

The Compensation Committee takes into account whether components of the compensation for our executive
officers will be adversely impacted by the penalty tax imposed by Section 409A of the Code, and aims to structure
these components to be compliant with or exempt from Section 409A to avoid such potential adverse tax
consequences.

“Golden Parachute” Payments

Sections 280G and 4999 of the Code provide that certain executive officers and other service providers who

are highly compensated or hold significant equity interests may be subject to an excise tax if they receive payments
or benefits in connection with a change in control of the company that exceeds certain prescribed limits, and that we,
or a successor, may forfeit a deduction on the amounts subject to this additional tax. We are not obligated to provide
any NEO with a “gross-up” or other reimbursement payment for any tax liability that he or she might owe as a result
of the application of Sections 280G or 4999.

Accounting for Share-Based Compensation

We follow ASC Topic 718 for our share-based compensation awards. ASC Topic 718 requires companies to
measure the compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors, including
stock options, based on the grant date “fair value” of these awards. This calculation is performed for accounting
purposes and reported in the compensation tables below, even though our executive officers may never realize any
value from their awards. ASC Topic 718 also requires companies to recognize the compensation cost of their share-
based compensation awards in their income statements over the period that an executive officer is required to render
service in exchange for the option or other award.

P
r
o
x
y

35

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

2017 Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth total compensation earned by our NEOs for the fiscal years ending on December

31, 2017, 2016 and 2015.

Name and Principal Position

Year

Salary
($)

Bonus
($)

Stock
Awards
($)(1)

Option
Awards
($)(1)

Dr. Stephen G. Dilly.......... 2017 490,000
2016 440,000
2015 372,917

Chief Executive Officer

—
—
—

Eric H. Bjerkholt(3) ............ 2017 268,333 56,800 (4)

— 6,325,029
— 2,675,832
— 2,504,595
— 3,417,012

Chief Financial Officer

Dr. Daniel C. Adelman...... 2017 411,667
2016 216,667
Jeffrey H. Knapp ............... 2017 395,833

Chief Medical Officer

—
—
—
2016 343,750 75,000

Chief Operating Officer

Douglas T. Sheehy ............ 2017 360,250 58,000 (5)

General Counsel and
Secretary

Warren L. DeSouza(6) ........ 2017

96,833

Former Chief Financial
Officer

2016 332,000
2015 212,500

—

—
—

— 1,158,858
— 1,881,050
— 1,158,858
71,500 2,798,900
— 1,158,858

Non-Equity
Incentive
Plan

All Other

Compensation Compensation

($)(2)

291,060
220,000
192,000
116,000

177,800
76,400
171,000
120,500
155,600

($)

Total ($)

— 7,106,089
— 3,335,832
— 3,069,512
— 3,858,145

— 1,748,325
— 2,174,117
— 1,725,691
— 3,409,650
— 1,732,708

—

—

29,050

264,720 (7)

390,603

— 1,270,445
— 1,423,504

116,200
76,500

— 1,718,645
— 1,712,504

(1)

(2)

For the stock and option awards columns, amounts shown represents the grant date fair value of options
granted as calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 718. See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements
included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 for the assumptions used
in calculating this amount. Amounts for 2017 for Dilly and for 2016 for Mr. DeSouza include the incremental
fair value of stock options modified pursuant to the transition and separation agreements entered into with Dr.
Dilly and Mr. DeSouza in the amounts of $3,234,741 and $378,500, respectively.
The amounts reported in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column represent the annual
performance-based cash bonuses earned by our NEOs based on the achievement of certain company
performance objectives and individual performance. For fiscal year 2017, these amounts were paid to the
NEOs in February 2018. Please see the descriptions of the annual performance bonuses paid to our NEOs
under “Annual Performance-Based Incentive Compensation” above.

(3) Mr. Bjerkholt commenced employment with us in April 2017.
(4) Based on the Compensation Committee’s assessment of Mr. Bjerkholt’s strong performance in 2017, the

Compensation Committee determined not to prorate his annual performance-based cash bonus based on the
length of his service in 2017. The amount reported in this column is the amount he received in excess of what
his annual performance-based cash bonus would have been if proration had been applied.

(5) Amount represents a signing bonus paid to Mr. Sheehy in January 2017 in accordance with the terms of his

employment agreement.

(6) Mr. DeSouza separated from the Company in April 2017.
(7) Amount represents cash severance, including nine months of continued base salary and COBRA payments

pursuant to the transition and separation agreement entered into with Mr. DeSouza, in each case, paid or
accrued as of December 31, 2017.

36

2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The following table summarizes information about the non-equity incentive awards and equity-based awards

granted to our NEOs in 2017:

Estimated Future Payouts Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)

Name
Dr. Stephen G.

Grant Date

Threshold
($)

Target ($)

Maximum
($)

Dilly ............ 2/24/2017
11/6/2017
11/6/2017
11/6/2017

202,125
—
—
—

269,500
—
—
—

336,875
—
—
—

Eric H.

Bjerkholt....... 4/28/2017

80,462

107,282

134,103

Dr. Daniel C.

Adelman...... 2/24/2017

123,500

164,667

205,834

Jeffrey H.

Knapp ........... 2/24/2017

118,750

158,333

197,916

Douglas T.

Sheehy......... 2/24/2017

108,075

144,100

180,125

Warren L.

DeSouza ......

— 29,050

38,733

48,417

All Other
Stock
Awards:
(#) of
Shares of
Stock or
Units

All Other
Option
Awards: (#) of
Securities
Underlying
Options

Exercise or
Base Price
of Option
Awards
($/Share)

Grant Date
Fair Value of
Stock and
Option
Awards ($)

—
—
—
—

—

—

—

—

—

240,000
140,000
200,000
595,942

19.63
19.63
16.93
3.02

3,090,288 (2)
683,690 (3)
781,516 (3)
1,769,535 (3)

270,000

19.44

3,417,012 (2)

90,000

19.63

1,158,858 (2)

90,000

19.63

1,158,858 (2)

P
r
o
x
y

90,000

19.63

1,158,858 (2)

—

—

—

(1) Amounts shown in these columns represent each NEOs threshold, target and maximum amounts under our
annual bonus program, assuming 75%, 100% and 125% achievement percentages, respectively for our
corporate goals and 100% achievement percentage with respect to each NEO’s individual performance.
(2) Amounts shown represents the grant date fair value of options granted as calculated in accordance with ASC
Topic 718. See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2017 for the assumptions used in calculating this amount.

(3) Amounts shown represents the incremental fair value of stock options modified pursuant to the transition and
separation agreement entered into with the executive as calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 718.

37

Outstanding Equity Awards at 2017 Fiscal Year End

The following table lists all outstanding equity awards held by our NEOs as of December 31, 2017.

Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Exercisable

Option Awards
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Unexercisable

Stock Awards

Option
Exercise
Price
($)

Option
Expiration
Date

Number of
Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have Not
Vested (#)

Market Value
of Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have Not
Vested($)(1)

46,973 (2)

1,776,519

595,942
110,000
50,000

— 3.02 5/13/2025
16.93 5/26/2026
19.63 2/24/2027

130,000
190,000

Vesting
Commencement
Date

4/1/2014
5/13/2015 (3)
2/26/2016 (3)
2/24/2017 (3)

Name
Dr. Stephen G.
Dilly ...........

Eric H.

Bjerkholt ....

4/28/2017 (4)

—

270,000

19.44 4/28/2027

Dr. Daniel C.

Adelman.....

Jeffrey H.

Knapp.........

Douglas T.

Sheehy........

Warren L.

6/24/2016 (4)
2/24/2017 (3)

70,467
18,750

156,250
71,250

11.45 6/24/2026
19.63 2/24/2027

2/1/2016 (4)
2/24/2017 (3)

114,583
18,750

135,417
71,250

16.93
2/1/2026
19.63 2/24/2027

4/4/2016 (3)
2/24/2017 (3)

7,722
—

64,167
71,250

4/4/2026
12.95
19.63 2/24/2027

DeSouza .....

4/16/2015 (4)

82,741

— 3.02 4/16/2025

(1) Based on the closing price of our common stock on December 29, 2017 ($37.82).
(2) Represents shares of our common stock acquired upon the early exercise of stock options by the applicable

holder. One-fourth of the total number of shares were released from the Company’s right of repurchase on the
first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and 1/48th of the total number of shares are released from
the Company’s right of repurchase on each monthly anniversary of the vesting commencement date thereafter,
subject to the applicable holder’s continued service through the applicable vesting date.

(3) Represents stock options which vest with respect to 1/48th of the total number of shares subject to the option
on each monthly anniversary of the vesting commencement date, subject to the applicable holder’s continued
service through the applicable vesting date.

(4) Represents stock options which vest as to 25% of the total number of shares subject to the option on the first

anniversary of the vesting commencement date and with respect to 1/48th of the total number of shares subject
to the option on each monthly anniversary thereafter, subject to the applicable holder’s continued service
through the applicable vesting date

38

2017 Option Exercises and Stock Vested

The following table summarizes the stock options exercised and stock awards vested during the year ended

December 31, 2017, and the value realized upon exercise or vesting by our NEOs.

Name
Dr. Stephen G. Dilly....
Eric H. Bjerkholt ........
Dr. Daniel C.

Adelman...................
Jeffrey H. Knapp ........
Douglas T. Sheehy .....
Warren L. DeSouza....

Options Awards

Stock Awards

Number of Shares
Acquired on Exercise
(#)

Value Realized Upon
Exercise ($)(1)

Number of Shares
Acquired on Vesting
(#)

Value Realized Upon
Vesting ($)(2)

—
—

23,283
—
56,861
169,013

—
—

455,340
—
1,121,162
3,762,268

—
—

—
5,000
12,000
—

—
—

—
89,800
251,520
—

(1) Amounts are calculated by multiplying the number of underlying shares exercised by the market price of the

shares on the exercise date, net of the exercise price.

(2) Amounts are calculated by multiplying the number of shares vested by our closing stock price on the date of

vesting.

Pension Benefits and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans

We do not have any plans with any of our NEOs that provide for payments or other benefits at, following, or in

connection with retirement. We also do not have any defined contribution or other plan with any of our NEOs that
provides for the deferral of compensation on a basis that is not tax-qualified.

P
r
o
x
y

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

Executive Employment Agreements

Under the employment agreements with each of our NEOs, in the event that the applicable executive is
terminated by us without “cause” or resigns for “good reason”, then in exchange for providing us a general release
of claims, the executive is entitled to receive (i) continued base salary payments for nine months or, in the case of
Dr. Dilly, twelve months, (ii) reimbursement of premiums for continued healthcare coverage for nine months or, in
the case of Dr. Dilly, twelve months, and (iii) six months’ accelerated vesting of equity awards, including stock
options, held by the executive (with any vested stock options remaining exercisable for up to twelve months after his
termination of employment or resignation). If the termination or resignation occurs during the period commencing
three months prior to a change in control and ending twelve months after a change in control, then, in lieu of the
foregoing benefits, each executive is entitled to receive (a) a cash lump sum payment equal to one times, or in the
case of Dr. Dilly, one and one-half times, the sum of the executive’s base salary and target bonus, (b) reimbursement
of continued healthcare coverage premiums for twelve months or, in the case of Dr. Dilly, eighteen months, and (c)
full accelerated vesting of each equity award, including stock options, held by the executive (with any vested stock
options remaining exercisable for up to twelve months following such termination or resignation, with such stock
options limited to those granted after the date of Dr. Dilly’s employment agreement or Mr. DeSouza’s employment
agreement, in each of their respective cases).

The change in control severance agreements also include a Section 280G “best pay” provision, which provides

that if any amount received by the executive pursuant to the agreement or otherwise that would be subject to the
excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Code, the executive would receive the full amount of the payments and
benefits or an amount reduced so that no portion would be subject to the excise tax, whichever would result in the
largest payment to the executive on an after-tax basis.

For the purposes of the employment agreements, “cause” means any of the following events: (a) the

executive’s theft, dishonesty or falsification of any employment or company records that is non-trivial in nature; (b)
the executive’s malicious or reckless disclosure of our confidential or proprietary information or any material breach

39

by the executive of his obligations under the proprietary information and invention assignment agreement with us;
(c) the conviction of the executive of a felony (excluding motor vehicle violations) or the commission of gross
negligence or willful misconduct, where a majority of the non-employee members of our Board reasonably
determines that such act or misconduct has (i) seriously undermined the ability of the Board or management to
entrust the executive with important matters or otherwise work effectively with the executive, (ii) substantially
contributed to our loss of significant revenues or business opportunities, or (iii) significantly and detrimentally
affected our business or reputation; and/or (d) the willful failure or refusal by the executive to follow the reasonable
and lawful directives of our Board, provided such willful failure or refusal continues after the executive’s receipt of
reasonable notice in writing of such failure or refusal and a reasonable opportunity of not less than 30 days to correct
the problem.

The employment agreements provide that “good reason” means any of the following are undertaken without

the executive’s prior written consent: (a) a material diminution in the executive’s authority, duties, or responsibilities
which substantially reduces the nature or character of the executive’s position with us; (b) a material reduction by us
of the executive’s base salary as in effect immediately prior to such reduction; (c) a relocation of the executive’s
principal office to a location that increases the executive’s one-way commute by more than thirty-five (35) miles; or
(d) any material breach by us of any provision of the executive’s employment agreement, in each case, subject to
notice and cure requirements.

The employment agreements provide for “change in control” to have the same definition as in the Company’s

2015 Equity Incentive Award Plan.

Transition and Separation Agreement with Mr. DeSouza

In connection with Mr. DeSouza’s separation from the Company in April 2017, on February 3, 2017, the
Company entered into a transition and separation agreement with him (the “DeSouza Separation Agreement”),
pursuant to which Mr. DeSouza would continue to be employed by the Company as its Chief Financial Officer
through April 16, 2017, subject to earlier termination by the Company for cause or Mr. DeSouza for any reason.

Under the DeSouza Separation Agreement, subject to Mr. DeSouza’s continued employment through April 16,

2017 or the date he is terminated without cause, if earlier, in exchange for a full general release of claims and
continued compliance with the Employee Confidential Information and Inventions Agreement entered into between
Mr. DeSouza and the Company, Mr. DeSouza was eligible to receive: (i) continued payments of his base salary for
nine months following his termination date; (ii) accelerated vesting of 43,684 shares of Company common stock
subject to the option granted by the Company on May 13, 2015 and 10,000 shares of Company common stock
subject to the option granted by the Company on February 26, 2016; (iv) extended exercisability of the vested
portion of such options until the first anniversary of his termination date; (v) payment or reimbursement of COBRA
premiums for Mr. DeSouza and his covered dependents for up to nine months following his termination date; and
(vi) a prorated portion of his 2017 annual bonus in the amount of $29,050, payable within 30 days after the release
of claims becomes effective.

40

Estimated Potential Payments

The following table shows the payments and benefits that would be made to our NEOs assuming a termination

without cause or a resignation for good reason (each, a “Qualifying Termination”) or a Qualifying Termination
within the period commencing three months prior to and ending 12 months following a change in control occurred
on December 31, 2017. For Mr. DeSouza, the table shows the actual payments and benefits he received or was
entitled to receive under the DeSouza Separation Agreement in connection with his separation from the Company on
April 16, 2017.

Name
Dr. Stephen G. Dilly

Qualifying Termination ..................
Qualifying Termination in

Base Salary
and Target
Bonus ($)

COBRA
Premiums ($)

Equity
Acceleration
($)(1)

Extended
Option
Exercise
Period ($)(2)

Total
Potential
Payments
($)(3)

500,000

34,794

5,541,126

141,190

6,217,110

Connection with a CIC ..............

1,162,500

52,191

15,292,924

308,247

16,815,862

Eric H. Bjerkholt

Qualifying Termination ..................
Qualifying Termination in

300,000

25,814

1,447,425

55,291

1,828,530

Connection with a CIC ..............

560,000

34,418

4,962,600

189,569

5,746,587

Dr. Daniel C. Adelman

Qualifying Termination ..................
Qualifying Termination in

310,500

14,031

1,028,700

40,417

1,393,648

Connection with a CIC ..............

579,600

18,708

5,416,350

106,859

6,121,517

P
r
o
x
y

Jeffrey H. Knapp

Qualifying Termination ..................
Qualifying Termination in

300,000

26,095

857,450

87,473

1,271,018

Connection with a CIC ..............

560,000

34,794

4,124,899

177,924

4,897,617

Douglas T. Sheehy

Qualifying Termination ..................
Qualifying Termination in

271,725

4,853

546,600

13,061

836,239

Connection with a CIC ..............

507,220

6,470

2,891,871

68,080

3,473,641

Warren L. DeSouza

Actual Termination.........................

278,050

15,720

749,299

89,070

1,132,139

(1) With respect to options, the value of equity acceleration was calculated by (i) multiplying the number of

accelerated shares of common stock underlying the options by $37.82, the closing stock price of our common
stock on December 29, 2017, the last trading day of fiscal 2017 and (ii) subtracting the exercise price for the
options, except that the value of Mr. DeSouza’s option acceleration was based on $19.57, the closing stock
price of our common stock on April 13, 2017, the last trading day prior to the date of his separation. With
respect to restricted shares, the value of equity acceleration was calculated by multiplying the number of
accelerated shares by $37.82, the closing stock price of our common stock on December 29, 2017, the last
trading day of fiscal 2017.

(2) Amount represents the incremental aggregate value due to the extension of the option exercise period and was

calculated by multiplying the number of accelerated shares of common stock underlying the options by the
difference between the Black-Scholes fair value of an option with a one-year exercise period and a three-
month exercise period.

(3) Amounts shown are the maximum potential payment the NEO would have received as of December 31, 2017.

Amounts of any reduction pursuant to the 280G best pay provision, if any, would be calculated upon actual
termination of employment.

41

Compensation Risk Assessment

Consistent with the SEC’s disclosure requirements, we have assessed our compensation programs for all
employees. We have concluded that our compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably
likely to have a material adverse effect on us. Management has evaluated our executive and employee compensation
and benefits programs to determine if these programs’ provisions and operations create undesired or unintentional
risk of a material nature. The risk assessment process includes a review of program policies and practices; analysis
to identify risks and risk controls related to our compensation programs; and determinations as to the sufficiency of
risk identification, the balance of potential risk to potential reward, the effectiveness of our risk controls and the
impacts of our compensation programs and their risks to our strategy. Although we periodically review all
compensation programs, we focus on the programs with variability of payout, with the ability of a participant to
directly affect payout and the controls on participant action and payout. In relation to this, we believe that our
incentive compensation arrangements provide incentives that do not encourage risk taking beyond our ability to
effectively identify and manage significant risks and are compatible with effective internal controls and our risk
management practices.

The Compensation Committee monitors our compensation programs on an annual basis and expects to make

modifications as necessary to address any changes in our business or risk profile.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table provides certain information as of December 31, 2017, with respect to all of our equity

compensation plans in effect on that date.

Plan Category
Equity Compensation Plan Approved by

Number of Securities to be
Issued Upon Exercise of
Outstanding Options,
Warrants and Rights (a)

Weighted-Average
Exercise Price of
Outstanding
Options, Warrants
and Rights

Number of Securities
Remaining Available for
Future Issuance Under
Equity Compensation Plans
(Excluding Securities
Reflected in Column (a))

Stockholders (1)(2)(3) ...............................

6,582,138

$

14.25

5,627,908

Equity Compensation Plan Not

Approved by Stockholders ...................

—

—

—

(1)

(2)

(3)

Includes the 2015 Equity Incentive Award Plan, the 2013 Stock Plan, as amended, and the 2015 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan.
The 2015 Equity Incentive Award Plan contains an “evergreen” provision, pursuant to which the number of
shares of common stock reserved for issuance or transfer pursuant to awards under the 2015 Equity Incentive
Award Plan shall be increased on the first day of each year beginning in 2016 and ending in 2025, equal to the
lesser of (A) four percent (4.0%) of the shares of common stock outstanding (on an as converted basis) on the
last day of the immediately preceding fiscal year and (B) such smaller number of shares of stock as
determined by our Board; provided, however, that no more than 35,000,000 shares of stock may be issued
upon the exercise of incentive stock options.
The 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan contains an “evergreen” provision, pursuant to which the maximum
number of shares of our common stock authorized for sale under the 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
shall be increased on the first day of each year beginning in 2016 and ending in 2025, equal to the lesser of
(A) one percent (1.0%) of the shares of common stock outstanding (on an as converted basis) on the last day
of the immediately preceding fiscal year and (B) such number of shares of common stock as determined by
our Board; provided, however, no more than 8,000,000 shares of our common stock may be issued thereunder.

42

INFORMATION ABOUT STOCK OWNERSHIP

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table presents information as to the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of April 1,

2018 for:

•

•

•

•

each person, or group of affiliated persons, known by us to beneficially own more than 5% of our
common stock;

each named executive officer as set forth in the summary compensation table above;

each of our directors; and

all executive officers and directors as a group.

Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules of the SEC and generally includes voting or
investment power with respect to securities. Unless otherwise indicated below, to our knowledge, the persons and
entities named in the table have sole voting and sole investment power with respect to all shares beneficially owned,
subject to community property laws where applicable. Shares of our common stock subject to options that are
currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of April 1, 2018 are deemed to be outstanding and to be
beneficially owned by the person holding the stock options for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership
of that person, but are not treated as outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other
person.

Percentage ownership of our common stock in the table is based on 58,024,282 shares of our common stock
issued and outstanding on April 1, 2018. This table is based upon information supplied by officers, directors and
principal stockholders and Schedules 13D and Schedules 13G, if any, filed with the SEC. Unless otherwise
indicated, the address of each of the individuals and entities named below is c/o Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., 8000
Marina Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005.

P
r
o
x
y

Name of Beneficial Owner
5% Stockholders:

Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc.(2) ............
Longitude Venture Partners II, L.P.(3) ....................
Foresite Capital Fund II, L.P.(4) ..............................

NEOs and Directors:

Dr. Stephen G. Dilly(5) ............................................
Gregory Behar(6) .....................................................
Patrick G. Enright(7) ................................................
Kathryn E. Falberg(8) ..............................................
Mark T. Iwicki(9).....................................................
Mark D. McDade(10)................................................
Stacey D. Seltzer(11) ................................................
Dr. Daniel C. Adelman(12).......................................
Eric H. Bjerkholt(13) ................................................
Jeffrey H. Knapp(14) ................................................
Douglas T. Sheehy(15) .............................................
Warren L. DeSouza(16) ............................................

All executive officers and directors as a group

Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned(1)

Securities
Exercisable
Within 60 Days

Number of
Shares
Beneficially
Owned

Percentage

Common Stock

8,489,584
6,013,134
3,864,970

447,008
—
6,036,003
124,894
29,375
16,660
29
—
8,125
2,776
—
20,681

—
—
—

805,941
37,255
155,525
37,255
177,044
142,097
89,676
90,259
75,468
171,091
22,985
32,471

8,489,584
6,013,134
3,864,970

1,252,949
37,255
6,191,528
162,149
206,419
158,757
89,705
90,259
83,593
173,867
22,985
53,152

14.63%
10.36%
6.66%

2.13%
*
10.64%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

(14 persons)(17)........................................................

6,685,680

2,161,780

8,847,460

14.70%

*

Represents beneficial ownership of less than one percent of the outstanding shares of common stock.

43

(1) Represents shares of common stock held and options held by such individuals that were exercisable within 60
days of April 1, 2018. Includes shares held in the beneficial owner’s name or jointly with others, or in the
name of a bank, nominee or trustee for the beneficial owner’s account. Reported numbers do not include
options that vest more than 60 days after April 1, 2018.

(2) As reported on Schedule 13D filed with the SEC on March 5, 2018. The shares are held by Nestle Health

Science US Holdings, Inc. Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NIMCO
US, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nestle S.A., a publicly-traded company. Each of these
entities may be deemed to share voting and investment power with respect to all shares held by Nestle Health
Science US Holdings, Inc. Each of NIMCO US, Inc. and Nestle S.A. disclaims beneficial ownership of such
shares except to the extent of its pecuniary interest therein. The address of Nestle Health Science US
Holdings, Inc. is 383 Main Avenue, 5th Floor, Norwalk, CT 06851.

(3) As reported on Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on February 12, 2018 and the Statement of Change in

Beneficial Ownership on Form 4 filed with the SEC on December 1, 2016, in each case, by Longitude Venture
Partners II, L.P. (“Longitude Venture II”), Longitude Capital Partners II, LLC (“Longitude Capital II”),
Patrick G. Enright and Juliet Tammenoms Bakker. Longitude Venture Partners holds 6,013,134 shares of
common stock. Longitude Capital II is the general partner of Longitude Venture II. Longitude Capital II and
Longitude Venture II may be deemed to have sole voting, investment and dispositive power over the shares
held by Longitude Venture II. Patrick G. Enright and Juliet Tammenoms Bakker are the managing members
of Longitude Capital II and in their capacity as such, may be deemed to exercise shared voting and investment
power with respect to such shares. Each of Ms. Bakker and Mr. Enright disclaim beneficial ownership of such
shares except to the extent of his or her pecuniary interest therein. The address of Longitude Venture Partners
II, L.P. is to 2740 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025.

(4) As reported on Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on February 13, 2018 by Foresite Capital Fund II, L.P.
(“Foresite Capital II”), Foresite Capital Management II, LLC (“Foresite Management II”), Foresite Capital
Fund III, L.P. (“Foresite Capital III”), Foresite Capital Management III, LLC (“Foresite Management III”),
and James Tananbaum. Foresite Capital II holds 3,864,970 shares of common stock. Foresite Management II
is the general partner of Foresite Capital II. Foresite Management II may be deemed to have sole voting,
investment and dispositive power over the shares held by Foresite Capital II. Foresite Capital III holds
764,824 shares of common stock. Foresite Management III is the general partner of Foresite Capital III.
Foresite Management III may be deemed to have sole voting, investment and dispositive power over the
shares held by Foresite Capital III. James Tananbaum is the managing member of Foresite Management II and
Foresite Management III and in his capacity as such, may be deemed to exercise sole voting and investment
power with respect to such shares. The address of Foresite Capital Fund II, L.P. and Foresite Capital Fund III,
L.P. is 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 45100, San Francisco, CA 94111.

(5) Consists of (a) 447,008 shares of common stock, of which 11,743 are subject to repurchase as of April 1,

2018, and (b) 775,941 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of stock options
within 60 days of April 1, 2018. Of such 447,008 shares of common stock, (x) 315,308 shares are held by
Dr. Dilly individually, (y) 41,075 shares are held by Stephen G. Dilly and Edwina Lynette Mullens as
Trustees of the Frederick S W Dilly Trust, 20,656 shares are held by Stephen G. Dilly and Edwina Lynette
Mullens as Trustees of The Dilly Family Trust (the “Family Trust”), 41,075 are held by Stephen G. Dilly and
Edwina Lynette Mullens as Trustees of the Harriet F. L. Dilly Trust, 14,447 shares are held by Stephen G.
Dilly, as Trustee of The Stephen G. Dilly 2016 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust dated August 12, 2016 (the
“Dilly Trust”), and (z)14,447 shares are held by Edwina Lynette Mullens, as Trustee of The Edwina Lynette
Mullens 2016 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust dated August 12, 2016 (the “Mullens Trust”). Dr. Dilly and
Ms. Mullens have joint voting, investment and dispositive power over the shares held by the Frederick S W
Dilly Trust, the Family Trust and the Harriet F.L. Dilly Trust. Dr. Dilly has sole voting, investment and
dispositive power over the shares held by the Dilly Trust. Ms. Mullens has sole voting, investment and
dispositive power over the shares held by the Mullens Trust. Dr. Dilly disclaims beneficial ownership of the
shares held by the Frederick S W Dilly Trust, the Harriet F. L. Dilly Trust and the Mullens Trust.

(6) Represents shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60

days of April 1, 2018.

(7) Consists of (a) 22,869 shares of common stock, (b) 155,525 shares of common stock that may be acquired
pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60 days of April 1, 2018, and (c) the securities beneficially

44

owned by Longitude Venture Partners II, L.P. as set forth in footnote (3). Mr. Enright disclaims beneficial
ownership of the shares listed in footnote (3), except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein.

(8) Consists of (a) 124,894 shares of common stock and (b) 37,255 shares of common stock that may be acquired

pursuant to the exercise of stock options with 60 days of April 1, 2018.

(9) Consists of (a) 29,375 shares of common stock and (b) 177,044 shares of common stock that may be acquired

pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60 days of April 1, 2018.

(10) Consists of (a) 16,660 shares of common stock and (b) 142,097 shares of common stock that may be acquired

pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60 days of April 1, 2018.

(11) Consists of (a) 29 shares of common stock and (b) 89,676 shares of common stock that may be acquired
pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60 days of April 1, 2018, for which Ms. Seltzer disclaims
beneficial ownership of, including any pecuniary interest therein, as a result of an existing contractual
relationship between Ms. Seltzer and Aisling Capital.

(12) Represents shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60

days of April 1, 2018.

(13) Consists of (a) 8,125 shares of common stock and (b) 75,468 shares of common stock that may be acquired

pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60 days of April 1, 2018.

(14) Consists of (a) 2,776 shares of common stock and (b) 171,091 shares of common stock that may be acquired

pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60 days of April 1, 2018.

(15) Represents shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60

days of April 1, 2018.

(16) Represents shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of stock options by April

15, 2018.

(17) Consists of (i) the shares described in notes 5 through 16 above, (ii) 129 shares of common stock and (iii)

324,713 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of stock options within 60 days
of April 1, 2018.

P
r
o
x
y

45

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors and executive officers, and persons who
own more than 10% of a registered class of the Company’s 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 the Company.
Officers, directors and greater than 10% stockholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish the Company with
copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

To the Company’s knowledge, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to the

Company and written representations that no other reports were required, the Company believes that all
Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners were
complied with during the year ended December 31, 2017.

Householding of Proxy Materials

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The SEC has adopted rules that permit companies and intermediaries (e.g., brokers) to satisfy the delivery
requirements for proxy statements and annual reports with respect to two or more stockholders sharing the same
address by delivering a single proxy statement addressed to those stockholders. This process, which is commonly
referred to as “householding,” potentially means extra convenience for stockholders and cost savings for companies.

Brokers with account holders who are Aimmune stockholders may be “householding” our proxy materials. A

single proxy statement may be delivered to multiple stockholders sharing an address unless contrary instructions
have been received from the affected stockholders. Once you have received notice from your broker that it will be
“householding” communications to your address, “householding” will continue until you are notified otherwise or
until you notify your broker or the Company that you no longer wish to participate in “householding.”

If, at any time, you no longer wish to participate in “householding” and would prefer to receive a separate
proxy statement and annual report, you may (1) notify your broker or (2) direct your written request to: 8000 Marina
Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005. Stockholders who currently receive multiple copies of this Proxy
Statement at their address and would like to request “householding” of their communications should contact their
broker. In addition, the Company will promptly deliver, upon written or oral request to the address or telephone
number above, a separate copy of the Form 10-K, Proxy Statement, Proxy Card or Notice of Internet Availability of
Proxy Materials to a stockholder at a shared address to which a single copy of the documents was delivered.

Other Matters

As of the date of this Proxy Statement, the Board does not intend to present any matters other than those
described herein at the Annual Meeting and is unaware of any matters to be presented by other parties. If other
matters are properly brought before the Annual Meeting for action by the stockholders, proxies will be voted in
accordance with the recommendation of the Board or, in the absence of such a recommendation, in the discretion of
the proxy holder.

We have filed our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 with the SEC. It is
available free of charge at the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov. Upon written request by a Aimmune stockholder,
we will mail without charge a copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the financial statements and
financial statement schedules, but excluding exhibits to the Annual Report on Form 10-K. Exhibits to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K are available upon payment of a reasonable fee, which is limited to our expenses
in furnishing the requested exhibit. All requests should be directed to the Corporate Secretary, 8000 Marina
Blvd., Suite 300, Brisbane, California 94005.

By Order of the Board of Directors

/s/ STEPHEN G. DILLY

Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer

April 11, 2018

46

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)
È ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017
OR

‘ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM

TO

Commission File Number 001-37519

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)

45-2748244
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

8000 Marina Blvd Suite #300
Brisbane, CA 94005
(Address of principal executive offices)

(650) 614-5220
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Title of each class

Name of exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share

The Nasdaq Global Select Market

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ‘ NO È
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ‘ NO È
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 È NO ‘
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File
required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES È NO ‘
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405) 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. È
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or
an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging
growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Large accelerated filer

È
‘ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Non-accelerated filer
Emerging growth company ‘
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any
new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ‘
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ‘ NO È
The aggregate market value of voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $736,657,604 as of June 30, 2017.

‘
Accelerated filer
Smaller reporting company ‘

As of February 15, 2018, there were 51,525,596 shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, scheduled to be held on May 23, 2018,
are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. The Definitive Proxy Statement will be
filed within 120 days of the Registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1.
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.

Business
Risk Factors
Unresolved Staff Comments
Properties
Legal Proceedings
Mine Safety Disclosures

PART II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer

Purchases of Equity Securities

Item 6.
Item 7.

Selected Financial Data
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of

Operations

Item 7A.
Item 8.
Item 9.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial

Disclosure

Item 9A.
Item 9B.

Controls and Procedures
Other Information

PART III

Item 10.
Item 11.
Item 12.

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Executive Compensation
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related

Stockholder Matters

Item 13.
Item 14.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Principal Accountant Fees and Services

PART IV

Item 15.
Item 16.

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
Form 10-K Summary
Signatures

Page

1
34
78
78
78
78

79
81

81
97
97

123
123
124

125
125

125
125
125

126
130
131

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

i

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Forward-Looking Statements

PART I

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including “Business” in Part I, Item I and “Management’s Discussion

and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7, contains “forward-looking
statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form
10-K are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements reflecting the current beliefs and
expectations of management with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve
known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or
achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or
implied by these forward-looking statements. These statements are often identified by the use of words such as
“may,” “will,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “should,” “estimate,” or “continue,” and
similar expressions or variations. The risks and uncertainties referred to above include, without limitation, risks
related to our research and development efforts, need for future capital, timely completion of our clinical trials,
uncertainty of clinical trial results or regulatory approvals or clearances, manufacturing of our product candidates
at scales and costs appropriate for commercialization, enforcement of our patent and proprietary rights, potential
competition and other risks that are described herein and that are otherwise described from time to time in our
Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, reports including, but not limited to, the factors described in Item
1A, “Risk Factors,” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Given these risks and uncertainties, you should not
place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to
update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in
the future.

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company advancing a new therapeutic approach, including the

development of proprietary product candidates, for the treatment of peanut and other food allergies. It is
estimated that over 30 million people in the United States and Europe have a food allergy, with peanut allergy
being the most prevalent and most commonly associated with severe outcomes and life-threatening events. There
are currently no approved medical therapies to cure food allergies or prevent their symptoms. Patients with food
allergies are typically counseled to practice strict dietary avoidance. When accidental exposure to food allergens
invokes a serious allergic reaction, rescue therapies, such as antihistamines or injectable epinephrine, are the only
recourse available. Our therapeutic approach, which we refer to as Characterized Oral Desensitization
ImmunoTherapy, or CODITTM, is designed to desensitize patients to food allergens and thereby reduce the risk of
having an allergic reaction upon accidental exposure, or reduce symptom severity should an allergic reaction
occur. CODIT is intended to reduce meaningfully the burden and anxiety experienced by food-allergic patients
and their families.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Our lead CODIT product candidate, AR101, is an investigational biologic for the treatment of patients with
peanut allergy, which affects approximately three million patients in the United States and three million patients
in Europe. AR101 has received Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy Designations for the treatment of patients
4-17 years of age from the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. Our initial target patient
population is children and adolescents in the 4-17 age group, which we estimate will reach approximately
1.6 million patients in the United States alone during 2018.

In late 2015, we initiated a Phase 3 efficacy trial of AR101 in the United States, Canada and Europe, which

we refer to as the PALISADE (Peanut Allergy Oral Immunotherapy Study of AR101 for Desensitization in
Children and Adults) trial. We completed global enrollment of 554 patients between the ages of 4 and 49 in
November 2016 and completed the final study for the PALISADE trial in December 2017. Patient demographics

1

were generally balanced among patients ages 4-17 enrolled in the AR101 treatment arm as compared to those
from the same age group enrolled in the placebo treatment arm.

After approximately one year of treatment, patients completed an exit double-blind, placebo-controlled food

challenge (DBPCFC). Efficacy results for Intent-to-Treat, or ITT, group and for patients ages 4-17 who
completed the AR101 treatment arm of the study, or Completers, are summarized in the charts below.

ITT Analysis: Patients Ages 4-17 Who Tolerated Each Dose Level at Exit DBPCFC

)

%

(

s
r
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R

100

80

60

40

20

0

Primary endpoint:
Difference between
groups = 63.2%
(95% CI: 53%, 73%) 
p<0.0001
*

67%

*

77%

Placebo (n=124)

AR101 (n=372)

*

50%

8%

4%

2%

300

600

1000

Single Highest Tolerated Dose (mg)

*p<0.00001 for Treatment Difference ÿ 15%

Completers: Patients Ages 4-17 Who Tolerated Each Dose Level at Exit DBPCFC

)

%

(

s
r
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R

100

80

60

40

20

0

*

96%

*

85%

Placebo (n=116)

AR101 (n=296)

*

63%

9%

4%

3%

300

600

1000

Single Highest Tolerated Dose (mg)

*p<0.00001 for Treatment Difference ÿ 15%

A total of 496 patients ages 4—17, from both arms (372 AR101 and 124 placebo), were evaluable for
safety. There were no deaths or suspected, unexpected serious adverse reactions. In both arms, the incidence of
serious adverse events (SAEs) was low. An SAE is an adverse event that results in significant medical
consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. A total of 10 patients
ages 4-17 experienced SAEs, none of which were considered life-threatening: nine of these patients were in the
AR101 arm (2.4%) and one was in the placebo arm (0.8%). Of the nine AR101-treated patients ages 4-17 that
experienced an SAE, five patients experienced mild or moderate SAEs. The other four AR101-treated patients
experienced severe SAEs, which, for two of these patients, were not related to treatment (a concussion and a viral
asthmatic exacerbation). Of the two AR101-treated patients ages 4-17 who experienced severe SAEs related to
treatment, both of whom had elevated baseline peanut-specific IgE levels greater than 100 kU/L, one experienced
anaphylaxis and the other experienced wheezing on the first day of treatment. Both of these patients discontinued

2

 
 
from the study. Of patients ages 4-17, 12.4% of patients from the AR101 treatment arm and 2.4% of patients
from the placebo-treatment arm discontinued due to investigator-reported adverse events.

In December 2017, we completed enrollment of 388 eligible patients who had completed PALISADE into a

related open-label roll-over trial, which we refer to as the ARC004 trial. In January 2018, we completed
enrollment of 506 patients in our real-world experience safety trial of AR101 in the United States and Canada in
patients ages 4-17, which we refer to as the RAMSES (Real-World AR101 Market-Supporting Experience Study
in Peanut Allergic Children Ages 4-17 Years) trial. In addition, in July 2017, we began enrollment of our
European Phase 3 efficacy trial designed with a higher efficacy bar of tolerating 1,000 mg of peanut protein in an
exit food-challenge without anything more than mild, transient symptoms, which we refer to as the ARTEMIS
(AR101 Trial in Europe Measuring Oral Immunotherapy Success) trial. We expect data from the ARC004 trial in
the third quarter of 2018 and from the RAMSES and ARTEMIS trials in the second half of 2018.

We expect to submit a Biologics License Application, or BLA, in the United States in late 2018 and a
Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, with the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in the first half
of 2019. If we complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA for AR101 in-line with our current
expected timing, we would expect to be able to commence commercial sales of AR101 around the end of 2019.

We maintain worldwide commercial rights to all of our product candidates, including AR101 and, if
approved, currently intend to commercialize in the United States and Europe by developing a specialty sales
force targeting a subset of the approximately 5,000 practicing allergists in the United States and allergy-focused
clinicians in major European markets.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to build a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes proprietary therapies to

improve the lives of food-allergic patients and their families. We intend to achieve this goal by pursuing the
following key strategic objectives:

•

•

•

Complete development and obtain approval of AR101 in the United States and Europe for the
treatment of peanut allergy: We expect data from the ARC004 trial in the third quarter of 2018 and
from the RAMSES trial in the second half of 2018. We expect the ARTEMIS trial to be completed by
the end of 2018. We intend to file a BLA in the United States in late 2018 and a MAA in the European
Union in the first half of 2019.

Commercialize AR101 in the United States and Europe through our own specialty sales force: We own
worldwide commercial rights to our product candidates. If AR101 is approved for the treatment of
peanut allergy, we intend to commercialize it by developing a specialty sales force targeting a subset of
the approximately 5,000 practicing allergists in the United States as well as allergy-focused clinicians
in the major European markets. We anticipate that this sales force could also support the
commercialization of additional CODIT product candidates, if approved.

Leverage the CODIT system to develop additional proprietary product candidates for the treatment of
food allergies: Leveraging the expertise we have gained developing AR101, we have and expect to
continue to conduct activities to support the filing of an Investigational New Drug, or IND, application
for a product candidate for the treatment of egg allergy in 2018 and an IND for a product candidate for
the treatment of walnut allergy in 2019.

AR101 Program Overview

Peanut allergy is a life-threatening disease with no approved medical treatment options. Based on a 2014

study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 40% to 50% of the people with peanut
allergy in the United States are sensitive to an exposure of 100 mg or less of peanut protein, the equivalent of less

3

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

than half of a peanut kernel (one peanut kernel typically contains approximately 250 mg to 300 mg of peanut
protein). In addition, people with peanut allergy are often sensitive to as little as 10 mg of peanut protein. Strict
dietary avoidance is hard to achieve and accidental exposure to food allergens is common, resulting in
approximately 200,000 emergency room visits per year in the United States. The burden and anxiety for patients
and their families is significant and a highly motivating force in seeking out therapy. There is a particularly high
unmet need in young children who spend a significant portion of their day away at school where parental control
is diminished and in adolescents who face peer pressure from their friends and classmates and may begin to
engage in risk-taking behaviors.

Allergists have long used immunotherapy approaches to successfully treat patients with environmental
allergies, and academic research supports the potential for extending immunotherapy approaches to treating
patients with food allergy. Published studies have shown oral immunotherapy (OIT) to be a potentially promising
approach to desensitizing patients with peanut, milk, egg, walnut and other food allergies. This approach involves
gradual introduction of increasing amounts of food allergen by the oral route to reduce the immune response to
that allergen, referred to as the build-up or up-dosing phase, and then daily ingestion of the target dose of
allergen to maintain the achieved level of desensitization, referred to as the maintenance phase. Historically, OIT
has been practiced by a small number of allergists using their own “home-brew” allergen formulations and
desensitization protocols; however, no OIT-based products have been approved for the treatment of food
allergies to date thereby limiting the widespread adoption of this approach. With CODIT, we believe that we are
the first company to undertake systematic and rigorous development of an OIT-based therapeutic approach to
treat food allergies. We believe that AR101 has the potential to fulfill the need for a consistent and scalable
OIT-based approach to peanut allergy.

In December 2015, we initiated our Phase 3 PALISADE clinical efficacy trial of AR101, and we completed

the study in December 2017. In the PALISADE trial, we measured subjects’ change in levels of sensitivity to
peanut protein using the DBPCFC at the beginning and the end of the approximately 12 months treatment period.
A DBPCFC is generally considered the “gold standard” method of measuring a patient’s sensitivity to peanuts or
other foods. During the DBPCFC, subjects consume increasing amounts of a peanut protein until either the test is
naturally concluded or until a dose-limiting reaction, typically moderate or severe, occurs at which point the
subject is not permitted to proceed to the next step in the challenge and the test is halted.

The primary endpoint in PALISADE is different in the U.S. and European portions of the trial. In the United

States, the primary efficacy endpoint was the single highest tolerated dose of 600 mg, which corresponds to a
cumulative amount of 1,043 mg peanut protein. In addition, we were required to show superiority of AR101 over
placebo with a 15% margin. In Europe, the primary efficacy endpoint was the single highest tolerated dose of
1,000 mg, which corresponds to a cumulative amount of 2,043 mg peanut protein, and we were not required to
show superiority of AR101 over placebo with a 15% margin. Following discussions with the FDA and the EMA
in the first half of 2017, we decided to conduct the primary efficacy analysis for the PALISADE trial in the 4-17
age group, in which we enrolled 498 patients, or 90% of the total number of patients enrolled in the PALISADE
trial.

In May 2017, we initiated the RAMSES trial in the United States and Canada, which does not require a
DBPCFC and therefore reflects our expectations for the real-world experience with AR101, where a DBPCFC is
not required for diagnosis of peanut allergy. In January 2018, we completed enrollment of RAMSES trial. In July
2017, we initiated the ARTEMIS trial in children and adolescents in Europe, which is designed to evaluate a
higher efficacy bar of tolerating a cumulative amount of 2,043 mg of peanut protein after nine months of AR101
therapy. We expect that enrollment of the ARTEMIS trial will be completed in the first quarter of 2018.

Based on discussions with the FDA, we anticipate that the safety database for a BLA will need to include
data from at least 600 patients ages 4-17 treated with AR101 at the target maintenance dose of 300 mg per day.
We expect to fulfill this requirement with patients from ARC001, ARC002, PALISADE, ARC004 and
RAMSES. In Europe, we expect that data from PALISADE, ARC004 and ARTEMIS will form the basis for the

4

MAA filing. We intend to file a BLA in the United States in late 2018 and an MAA in the European Union in the
first half of 2019. If we complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA for AR101 in-line with our
current expected timing, we would expect to be able to commence commercial sales of AR101 around the end of
2019.

Food Allergy Overview

Food Allergies are a Significant and Growing Health Problem

Food allergies are a significant and growing health problem in the United States, Europe and throughout the
developed world. It is estimated that over 30 million people in the United States and Europe have a food allergy,
and one in 13 children are affected in the United States. According to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics in
2013, the economic cost of food allergies in the United States is estimated to equal approximately $25 billion per
year, of which approximately $4 billion is associated with direct medical expenses. Food allergies are a
particularly urgent issue for children and adolescents because of the greater prevalence of food allergies in those
age groups and because of the increased risk of accidental exposures leading to a serious allergic reaction. A
large-scale study conducted in 2011 concluded that approximately 8% of children and adolescents in the United
States have a food allergy and that approximately 39% of that group had a history of at least one severe allergic
reaction. We estimate that over 50% of patients with peanut allergy experience a severe allergic reaction each
year.

Peanut is the most common type of food allergy. Among children with food allergies in the United States,

approximately 25% are allergic to peanuts, with other common food allergies being milk (21%), shellfish (17%),
tree nut (13%, of which walnut represents approximately 40%) and egg (10%). We estimate that there are
approximately three million people in the United States and three million people in Europe with peanut allergy,
including over three million children. The prevalence of peanut allergy in children in the United States is
estimated to have increased at a constant annual growth rate of approximately 10% between 1997 and 2008, and
experts believe it has continued to rise since 2008.

Risks Associated with Allergic Reactions

Allergic reactions to food are painful, frightening and potentially deadly. Symptoms of an allergic reaction

include hives, swelling, vomiting, abdominal pain, wheezing, breathlessness, and lowered blood pressure. Severe
and potentially life-threatening reactions are referred to as anaphylaxis and such reactions require urgent medical
attention and often result in treatment at hospital emergency departments. Food-related allergic reactions are
estimated to result in approximately 200,000 emergency room visits and over 10,000 hospital admissions each
year in the United States.

Allergic reactions, including severe allergic reactions, can be triggered by exposure to minute quantities of
the relevant food allergen. For example, of the over two million people with peanut allergy in the United States,
40% to 50% are sensitive to an exposure of 100 mg or less of peanut protein, the equivalent of less than half of a
peanut kernel (one peanut kernel typically contains approximately 250 mg to 300 mg of peanut protein). In
addition, people with peanut allergy are often sensitive to as little as 10 mg of peanut protein, the equivalent of
approximately 1/25th of a peanut kernel. As a result, accidental exposure arising from contamination of a food
source or the inaccurate or confusing labeling of food products occurs regularly and can result in severe allergic
reactions.

Causes of Allergic Reactions

Food allergies occur when the immune system responds to a harmless food as if it were a threat. The human

gastrointestinal tract contains immune cells whose purpose is to identify and mount a response against proteins
deemed to be foreign and unsafe. These cells come into contact with a large amount and variety of food proteins.

5

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

In a non-allergic person, a tolerance for food proteins develops early in life, and the immune cells do not mount a
response when food proteins are detected. In contrast, in an allergic patient, the immune system is sensitized to
one or more food proteins, or allergens. As a result of this sensitization, the immune system produces antibodies,
known as IgE antibodies, which are directed against a particular allergen, such as a specific peanut protein. The
IgE antibodies link with mast cells and basophils, which are other immune cells. When an IgE antibody linked to
these immune cells encounters the allergen it is directed against, the immune cells are activated and release
histamine and other inflammatory mediators into the blood. These mediators then provoke the symptoms of an
allergic reaction.

The development and progression of food allergies is highly variable. It is unknown why some people
develop food allergies while others do not. For certain types of allergies, such as milk and egg, patients may
outgrow their allergies, but for others, such as peanuts, tree nuts, including walnuts, and shellfish, most patients
remain allergic for life. In addition, a person’s sensitivity appears to vary over time based on a range of factors. It
is not unusual for a person’s first allergic reaction to be mild and their second allergic reaction to be severe or
life-threatening.

Challenges in the Current Treatment and Management of Food Allergies

There are currently no approved medical therapies to cure food allergies or prevent their symptoms. The

most common practices are strict avoidance of food allergens and emergency treatment of allergy symptoms in
the event of an accidental exposure. These options have substantial limitations, and the burdens of practicing
avoidance and stress caused by the limited availability of effective treatment options for accidental exposure can
have a substantial negative impact on the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. For example,
food-allergic patients and their caregivers often have difficulties managing their social and day-to-day lives, and
live with an ongoing fear of accidental exposure and anaphylaxis. One study found that children with peanut
allergy reported a poorer quality of life than children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. A separate study
found that the parents of peanut-allergic children reported more disruption in their family’s lives than the parents
of children with rheumatological disease.

Limitations of Practicing Avoidance of Food Allergens

Successfully practicing avoidance can be very difficult and requires careful reading of food labels, care in

the storage and preparation of foods, awareness of product recalls for mislabeling and contamination, and
oftentimes avoidance of cuisines where the food allergen is known to be common. In addition, activities such as
attending a sporting event, traveling by airplane or visiting public spaces become difficult and stressful for food-
allergic patients and their families. Practicing avoidance can be particularly difficult on food-allergic children as
parents often attempt to prevent accidental exposures by limiting their child’s participation in everyday activities,
including social activities, eating outside the home and sometimes even choosing to home school their child
because such food-allergic children may not have the awareness or self-regulation skills to practice avoidance by
themselves. As children move into adolescence and young adulthood, decreased parental supervision and
increased societal pressures often complicate the practice of avoidance.

Limitations of Emergency and Symptomatic Treatments

Due to a lack of approved symptomatic or disease-modifying food allergy treatments, food-allergic patients

typically must carry rescue medication to treat severe and possibly life-threatening allergic reactions. The most
widely used treatment is epinephrine (also known as adrenaline), which is administered using an auto-injector,
such as an EpiPen. Epinephrine blunts certain symptoms of the allergic reaction by increasing heart rate and
blood pressure and dilating airways, but it does not treat the allergic reaction itself. While epinephrine is useful as
a rescue medication, it is not always administered properly or quickly enough and may not be sufficient to
counteract the effects of the allergic reaction.

6

Limitations of Current Desensitization Treatments

Emergency and symptomatic remedies are reactive treatments and often ineffective in the chronic
management of food allergies. The most commonly practiced proactive therapy for food and other allergies is
desensitization therapy. Desensitization therapy consists of repeated administrations of increasing quantities of
an allergen to an allergic patient in order to decrease the immune response to that allergen. The most common
form of desensitization therapy is subcutaneous injections for patients with environmental allergies. While
desensitization therapy has had significant success in the treatment of environmental allergies, it has been less
successful in the treatment of food allergies. Four different desensitization therapy approaches to food allergies
have been researched:

•

•

•

•

Subcutaneous Injections: Involves the subcutaneous injection of the food allergen. This approach has
been shown to induce desensitization in some patients but has had an unacceptably high incidence of
adverse events and research on this approach has largely been abandoned.

Sublingual Immunotherapy: Involves the administration of increasing amounts of food extract under a
patient’s tongue. This approach has been shown to be safe, but it appears to induce only a modest
degree of desensitization.

Epicutaneous Desensitization: Involves the use of a patch that causes allergens to be absorbed by the
skin. In November 2017, DBV Technologies reported the results of a Phase 3 efficacy trial using such
an approach to treat peanut allergies. In that trial, a numerical difference between the active and
placebo arms was observed; however, the primary endpoint was not met. Additional clinical trials are
ongoing to explore the potential viability of this approach.

Oral Immunotherapy: Involves the administration of increasing doses of a food-based product on a
daily basis over a period of months. This approach has the potential to produce a high degree of
desensitization but adoption has been hampered by lack of standardization for products and protocols.

We believe the most effective form of desensitization therapy is oral immunotherapy, or OIT.

Immunology of Oral Desensitization

Oral desensitization works by gradually shifting the balance of the immune system to dampen the allergic

response in the case of accidental exposure.

The initial step in an immune response is the presentation of an allergenic protein by an antigen presenting
cell, such as a dendritic cell, and subsequent recognition of the allergenic protein by T-cells. A subset of T-cells,
known as Th2 cells, upon binding to an antigen secrete a set of pro-inflammatory proteins called cytokines, such
as IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, which are important in cellular activation and signaling. Secretion of this group of
cytokines promotes B-cell maturation and production of IgE antibodies. These IgE antibodies cross-link at the
surface of the mast cells by binding with the antigen, which results in the mast cells releasing histamines,
proteases and other chemical mediators of inflammation, all of which elicit symptoms of an allergic reaction.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

In oral desensitization, the step-wise increasing of doses of an allergen, starting with very low levels of such
allergen that are generally insufficient to trigger a large IgE-mediated allergic reaction, has been shown over time
to induce regulatory T-cells. These regulatory T-cells dampen the Th2 immune response. At the same time, the
increasing levels of allergen exposure induce B-cells to produce IgG4 antibodies, which compete with IgE
antibodies to bind with the allergen, thereby decreasing allergen-induced mast cell degranulation. Ultimately,
these immunomodulatory T-cell and B-cell responses result in a decreased clinical response to allergen exposure.

Oral Desensitization in Practice

In an OIT treatment regimen, the initial administration of a particular dose of the food allergen will typically
be provided in an allergist’s office and the subsequent administrations will be done at home. The highest level of

7

dosing administration will vary depending on the patient and the protocol, but generally the goal is to achieve
desensitization to a level of food allergen greater than the amount a patient might be exposed to in an accidental
exposure. Once the highest dosing level is attained, the patient will continue to be administered a maintenance
dose on a regular basis. Over time, this regular administration has been shown to result in the patient being able
to tolerate an amount of food substantially greater than the maintenance dose.

Numerous clinical trials at leading academic research centers have shown that OIT can desensitize patients

to a range of food allergies, including peanut, egg, tree nuts and milk. While OIT generally does not cure a
patient of his or her allergy, it can provide protection from food allergens at a level that exceeds the amount
typically encountered in an accidental exposure. For many patients, this protection meaningfully decreases their
stress and anxiety and enables them to lead a more normal life.

While OIT has been shown to be effective, it has not been widely adopted and is currently available only

from a limited number of academic research centers and specialized allergy clinics. These institutions have
access to compounding pharmacies to produce the doses of food-based product necessary for the therapy and also
have the resources to provide the required patient support. However, because no OIT protocol or product has
been validated in a large-scale clinical trial or approved by the FDA, the treatment regimen and food source used
in OIT treatment is determined by the allergist based on their experience and review of the scientific literature,
which can lead to varying results. While studies have shown that most patients tolerate OIT well, the incidence of
severe adverse events associated with OIT treatment has historically been high enough to raise concerns in the
medical community that it is not safe enough to be a standard part of an allergist’s practice. We believe these
safety concerns along with complexity and lack of standardization have limited the adoption of OIT by
community-based allergists.

Our Solution

Our CODIT approach for the treatment of food allergies leverages and improves upon the extensive

independent scientific research supporting OIT. Based on our clinical development to date, including our Phase 3
PALISADE trial of our lead CODIT product candidate, AR101, we believe that our CODIT approach has the
potential to be widely adopted by allergists and to appeal to patients and parents as a result of the following key
attributes:

•

•

•

•

•

•

Standardized Products: Our proprietary biologic product candidates are derived from natural food
products and are designed to contain precisely defined dosages of well-characterized food proteins so
that each dosage is consistent for total protein and relative allergen content. In addition, we expect each
of our product candidates, if approved, to be provided to patients as a convenient, orally administered,
once daily therapy.

Safe and Well-Defined Treatment Regimens: We intend to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of each
CODIT product candidate in large scale, well-controlled clinical trials. In addition, we expect each
CODIT product candidate to feature clearly defined clinical protocols with gradual up-dosing and
practical maintenance dosing regimens designed to enhance safety, tolerability and efficacy.

Clinically Meaningful Desensitization: We expect each approved CODIT product candidate to provide
patients with protection from food allergens at a level that exceeds the amount typically encountered in
an accidental exposure, to impart real world safety.

Compatibility with Clinical Practice: We expect our protocols for each CODIT product candidate to be
similar to treatment regimens currently utilized by allergists for non-food allergies.

Tailored Support Services: We intend to provide physician education, patient guidance and other
support services to facilitate the administration of each approved CODIT product candidate.

Regulatory Approval: We believe regulatory approval of our CODIT product candidates, if obtained,
will validate the extensive existing scientific research supporting oral desensitization and could lead to
widespread adoption of CODIT.

8

We believe our CODIT approach and product candidates, if approved, have the potential to reduce the

dangers posed to food-allergic patients, such as accidental exposures resulting in anaphylactic reactions,
emergency room visits or hospitalization. We expect that this potential protection from accidental exposures will
reduce the stress and anxiety of patients and their families and enable patients to live more normal lives.

AR101 for Peanut Allergy

Overview

We are developing our lead CODIT product candidate, AR101, for the treatment of peanut allergy. Our
initial target patient population is children and adolescents ages 4-17 years. AR101 is intended to desensitize
patients to a level of peanut protein that substantially exceeds the amount typically encountered in an accidental
exposure. Patients successfully treated with AR101 will still need to avoid the consumption of peanuts and foods
containing peanuts, but we believe that protection against potential allergic reactions to accidental exposure will
significantly improve the lives of food-allergic patients and their families.

We believe AR101, if approved, will provide allergists with a safe and practical means of providing oral
desensitization treatment to their patients with peanut allergy. AR101 is designed to be taken orally once daily
after having been mixed with a common age-appropriate food. As with OIT, patients would start with a very low
dose of AR101 and gradually increase their dose over time. The initial assessment of patients and each initial
increase in dosage would occur at an allergist’s office. Based on our existing clinical data, we anticipate it will
take patients approximately six months to reach a daily dose level of 300 mg of peanut protein. Patients would
then continue on a daily 300 mg maintenance dose. Based on independent scientific research, we anticipate that
with continued maintenance dosing, patients’ level of desensitization will increase over time. In order to maintain
desensitization, patients would need to continue to take a daily 300 mg maintenance dose; however, based on
experience with OIT, we do not believe that the occasional failure to take a maintenance dose will significantly
affect desensitization.

Our up-dosing and maintenance dosing regimens are set forth below:

Gradual up-dosing

Low-dose maintenance

Hold at 300 mg

Go slow

Start low

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

For patients in the up-dosing phase of the AR101 treatment regimen, AR101 would be provided in a series

of color coded pharmaceutical grade capsules of various dose levels. These capsules can be easily opened and
emptied, with the contents then mixed with food. For patients who have reached the 300 mg maintenance dose
level, AR101 would be provided in an easy to open-and-empty sachet.

AR101 Product Characteristics

We believe the following characteristics of AR101 could enable it, if approved, to achieve widespread

market acceptance and distinguish it from existing treatments and potentially competing products in
development:

• Proprietary Biologic Product: Our proprietary formulation is a complex mixture of a full range of
naturally occurring proteins and pharmaceutical-grade ingredients that we developed to enable the

9

convenient dosing of consistent amounts of peanut protein with well-defined relative concentrations of
peanut specific allergens.

• Clinically Meaningful and Reliable Desensitization: Based on the results of our clinical trials of

AR101, we believe that patients who successfully complete the AR101 up-dosing regimen will be
desensitized to a level of peanut protein that substantially exceeds the amount typically found in a
peanut-contaminated food product, which we believe ranges from as little as a fraction of a peanut to as
much as a single peanut (which typically contains between 250 mg and 300 mg of peanut protein). In
addition, even if such patients have an allergic reaction, based on the results of our clinical trials of
AR101, we believe it is likely to be less severe as a result of treatment with AR101. Our clinical trials
of AR101 and independent scientific research have indicated that clinically meaningful desensitization
can be attained through an OIT treatment regimen, independent of sex, age and other demographics.

• Rapid and Predictable Onset of Action: In our Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials of AR101, a clinically
meaningful level of protection was typically achieved by patients in the AR101 treatment group after as
few as 22 weeks of dosing. Independent scientific research has also shown that continued maintenance
dosing pursuant to an OIT treatment regimen can confer increased protection over time.

• Attractive Safety Profile: In our Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials of AR101, most patients experienced
only mild, intermittent side effects commonly associated with food allergies during the up-dosing
phase of treatment. The most frequent of these side effects included gastrointestinal symptoms ranging
from itching of the lips to vomiting, hives, throat itching or discomfort, and nasal congestion. We
believe that many of these side effects are associated with the increases in dosage amounts during the
initial up-dosing phase of the treatment regimen. Once patients are desensitized and on maintenance
dosing, we believe that they are likely to experience fewer side effects.

• Convenient Oral Administration: AR101 is designed to be provided to patients as a convenient, orally
administered, once daily therapy that is mixed with common age-appropriate foods. Compared to
subcutaneous, epicutaneous or sublingual administration, we believe our CODIT approach represents a
more convenient and practical method of dosing, particularly in young patients.

• Direct, Targeted Route of Administration: Oral administration of AR101 enables the allergen to

interact directly with immune cells in the gastrointestinal tract responsible for mediating the allergic
reaction to peanuts. Oral desensitization is believed to work by gradually shifting the balance of the
immune system to dampen the allergic response in the case of accidental exposure.

• Compatibility with Current Clinical Practice and Infrastructure: The AR101 up-dosing regimen

involves a series of visits to an allergist. This process is similar in many ways to existing regimens for
the treatment of non-food allergies, such as pollen and pet dander, which we believe will facilitate
adoption by allergists and reimbursement by payors if AR101 is approved.

• CODIT Support Services: We intend to provide physician education, patient guidance and other

support services to facilitate the administration of AR101, if approved.

AR101 Clinical Development Program Leverages Historical OIT Studies

Our development of AR101 leveraged the substantial pre-existing independent scientific research on peanut

allergy and OIT. In connection with our IND submission, we licensed data from studies conducted at three
leading academic research institutions that demonstrated the potential of using OIT to desensitize peanut allergic
patients.

We have also leveraged academic studies that have shown that the daily administration of a relatively low
maintenance dose can enable patients to attain and sustain a significant degree of desensitization. For example, in
one study, 29 children with peanut allergy completed an OIT up-dosing regimen and then received a 300 mg
daily maintenance dose of peanut protein for 12 months. At the end of that period, 27 of the patients were

10

desensitized to exposure of 3,900 mg of peanut protein and the remaining two were desensitized to exposure of
2,100 mg of peanut protein. Two other studies have also shown that 300 mg maintenance doses can result in
consistent desensitization to exposure many times the level of the maintenance dose.

Our clinical trial designs were developed following a review of the academic study protocols described

above as well as protocols used in clinical practice. Many of the protocols used in clinical practice have
maximum dose levels of several thousand milligrams of peanut protein and use aggressive dose-escalation rates
to reach the maximum dose levels quickly. We believe that, as a result, patients under these protocols sometimes
receive too much peanut protein too soon and consequently suffer anaphylaxis, contributing to the perception that
OIT is not safe. In designing our clinical trials, we incorporated low initial dose levels, a gradual escalation of the
dosing and much lower maintenance dose levels. We believe this approach provides for an improved protocol
and has the potential to enable patients to safely attain a clinically significant level of desensitization in a
reasonable time frame.

We also believe that a successful oral desensitization treatment regimen requires a well-characterized and

precisely manufactured drug product. Independent scientific research has shown that the quantity of peanut
protein and the relative concentrations of key peanut proteins can vary widely between the different
commercially available peanut products that could potentially be used as a source for oral desensitization
therapy. These variations could significantly impact the reliability and safety of an oral desensitization treatment
regimen. In order to reduce the potential for variability, we chose to use peanut flour solely from the Golden
Peanut Company, or GPC, as the basis for AR101. In order to develop AR101 as an FDA-approvable biological
product, we took the further step of characterizing the protein signature of GPC flour. Independent scientific
research has identified numerous peanut proteins that are the allergens that cause allergic reactions to peanuts.
Three of these proteins appear to be the most significant and representative of the levels of the other proteins.
Our characterization of AR101 is based on measuring total protein amount and the concentrations of those three
key proteins, as a proxy for the full range of allergenic proteins contained in AR101.

AR101 Phase 3 Development Program

We have developed AR101 in close consultation with the FDA and European regulatory authorities,

including the EMA. In September 2014, the FDA granted AR101 Fast-Track designation for OIT of peanut
sensitive adults and children and in June 2015, the FDA granted AR101 Breakthrough Therapy designation for
OIT of peanut sensitive children and adolescents (ages 4-17). These designations are intended to facilitate the
development and to expedite the review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or
life-threatening diseases or conditions and, in the case of a Fast-Track designation, that demonstrate the potential
to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition or, in the case of a Breakthrough Therapy
designation, where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial
improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial
treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Sponsors of products under development with a Fast-
Track designation or Breakthrough Therapy designation may have greater interactions with the FDA, including
the involvement of more senior staff members, and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast-Track
product’s marketing application before the application is complete. A product that receives these designations
may be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review, if relevant criteria are met.

We have had ongoing communications and meetings with the FDA relating to the clinical development of

AR101 and its manufacture, and we participated in two end-of-Phase 2 meetings with the FDA in July 2015, one
with respect to our clinical plans and the other relating to chemistry, manufacturing and control matters. We have
had several country level scientific advice meetings with European regulatory authorities and our Pediatric
Investigation Plan, or PIP, for AR101 has been approved by the EMA.

11

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

PALISADE Trial Design

In December 2015, we initiated the Phase 3 PALISADE trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-
controlled study of AR101 for the treatment of peanut allergy in children and adults, which was expected to
enroll approximately 500 patients between the ages of 4 and 55 in North America and Europe. The study protocol
is largely a combination of the protocols for ARC001 and ARC002. Patients are randomized at a three to one
ratio between the AR101 group and a placebo group. Patients are up-dosed to a daily 300 mg dose over a period
of five to six months and then maintained at that dose level for approximately six months. At the end of the
maintenance period, patients are administered a DBPCFC.

We received feedback from the FDA in the first quarter of 2017 that our primary efficacy analysis should be

constrained to the 4-17 age group, which aligns with our Breakthrough Therapy Designation patient population.
We have conducted separate analyses on the adults enrolled in the study.

The FDA also provided clarification on the nomenclature used to describe the results of the DBPCFC.
Based on this feedback, we will report the single highest tolerated dose in the food challenge as an appropriate
and clinically meaningful measure of the results. The primary endpoint in PALISADE is different in the U.S. and
European portions of the trial. In the United States, the primary efficacy endpoint was the single highest tolerated
dose of 600 mg, which corresponds to a cumulative amount of 1,043 mg of peanut protein. In addition, we were
required to show superiority of AR101 over placebo with a 15% margin. In Europe, the primary efficacy
endpoint was the single highest tolerated dose of 1,000 mg, which corresponds to a cumulative amount of 2,043
mg peanut protein, and we were not required to show superiority of AR101 over placebo with a 15% margin.
Following discussions with the FDA and the EMA in the first half of 2017, we decided to conduct the primary
efficacy analysis for the PALISADE trial in the 4-17 age group, in which we enrolled and treated 496 patients, or
90%, of the total number of patients enrolled in the PALISADE trial.

PALISADE Top-Line Trial Results

We completed global enrollment of 554 patients between the ages of 4 and 49 in November 2016 and

completed the final study for the PALISADE trial in December 2017. Per the statistical analysis plan, the
primary endpoint assessments were conducted by an independent assessor who was not involved in the patient’s
ongoing care in the trial and was blinded to treatment assignment and food challenge sequence.

In the PALISADE study, patient demographics were generally balanced among patients ages 4-17 enrolled

in the AR101 treatment arm as compared to patients ages 4-17 enrolled in the placebo treatment arm, as
summarized in the baseline patient characteristic table below.

PALISADE Baseline Characteristics (Patients Ages 4-17)

Characteristics, n (%)

Sex

Age

Male
Female

4-11 years
12-17 years
Baseline sensitivity

Median (IQR*) skin-prick test (mm)
Median (IQR) peanut-specific IgE (kUA/L)
Median maximum tolerated dose (mg)**

History of anaphylaxis
Asthma
Multiple food allergies

12

AR101 Patients
(n=372)

Placebo Patients
(n=124)

Total Patients
(n=496)

208 (56%)
164 (44%)

238 (64%)
134 (36%)

11 (9, 14.5)
69 (19, 194)
10
269 (72%)
198 (53%)
245 (66%)

89 (72%)
48 (39%)

89 (72%)
35 (28%)

12 (9, 15.3)
75 (29, 251)
10
89 (72%)
65 (52%)
80 (65%)

284 (57%)
212 (43%)

327 (66%)
169 (34%)

11 (9, 15)
71 (20, 202)
10
358 (72%)
263 (53%)
325 (66%)

Intra-quartile range, 25th and 75th percentile

*
** Single highest tolerated dose in the entry DBPCFC

After approximately one year of treatment, in the DBPCFC exit challenge, 67.2% of AR101-treated patients

ages 4-17 tolerated a single highest dose of at least 600 mg of peanut protein (1,043 mg cumulative) with no
more than mild symptoms, compared to 4% of placebo-treated patients ages 4-17, corresponding to a difference
in response rates of 63.2% (p<0.00001, 95% CI=53.0—73.3%). At 53%, the lower bound of the 95% confidence
interval significantly exceeded the prespecified success criterion for the study, which was 15%. Additionally,
50.3% of AR101-treated patients ages 4-17 tolerated a single highest dose of 1,000 mg of peanut protein (2,043
mg cumulative) compared to 2.4% of placebo patients (p<0.00001).

ITT Efficacy: Percent of Patients (Ages 4-17 years) Tolerating Each Dose in Exit DBPCFC

AR101 (n=372)
Placebo (n=124)
95% CI Difference
p-value

300 mg

600 mg

1000 mg

76.6%
8.1%
(58.6-78.5%)
p<0.00001

67.2%
4.0%
(53.0-73.3%)
p<0.00001

50.3%
2.4%
(38.0-57.7%)
p<0.00001

Of patients ages 4-17, 296 patients (79.6%) on the AR101 treatment arm completed the trial, compared to
115 patients (92.7%) on the placebo arm. Of patients ages 4-17 who completed the AR101 treatment arm of the
study, 96.3% tolerated at least 300 mg (443 mg cumulative) of peanut protein in the exit DBPCFC, 84.5%
tolerated at least 600 mg (1,043 mg cumulative) of peanut protein, and 63.2% tolerated 1,000 mg (2,043 mg
cumulative) of peanut protein. Additionally, AR101 significantly reduced symptom severity at each exit
DBPCFC dose level, compared to placebo.

PALISADE enrolled a highly sensitive and allergic patient population, and enrollment was balanced for
baseline disease characteristics between the two treatment arms. The study enrolled patients who at baseline
tolerated not more than 30 mg of peanut protein, and the patients ages 4-17, 72.2% had a past medical history of
anaphylaxis and 52.8% of whom had a present or previous diagnosis of asthma. In addition, 65.5% of patients
ages 4-17 reported multiple food allergies.

A total of 496 patients ages 4-17, from both arms (372 AR101 and 124 placebo), were evaluable for safety.

There were no deaths or suspected, unexpected serious adverse reactions. In both arms, the incidence of SAEs
was low. A total of 10 patients ages 4-17 experienced SAEs, none of which were considered life-threatening:
nine of these patients were in the AR101 arm (2.4%) and one was in the placebo arm (0.8%). Of the nine AR101-
treated patients ages 4-17 that experienced an SAE, five patients experienced mild or moderate SAEs. The other
four AR101-treated patients experienced severe SAEs, which, for two of these patients, were not related to
treatment (a concussion and a viral asthmatic exacerbation). Of the two AR101-treated patients ages 4-17 who
experienced severe SAEs related to treatment, both of whom had elevated baseline peanut-specific IgE levels
greater than 100 kU/L, one experienced anaphylaxis, and the other experienced wheezing on the first day of
treatment. Both of these patients discontinued from the study. The overall summary of treatment-emergent
adverse events for patients ages 4-17 is shown in the following table.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

13

Overall Summary of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events, n (%)

AR101

Placebo

Mild

Moderate

Severe Mild Moderate

Severe

Subjects Reporting at Least One TEAE
128 (34) 222 (60)
Gastrointestinal Disorders
191 (51) 123 (33)
Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders
192 (52) 107 (29)
162 (44) 100 (27)
Infections and infestations
57 (15)
187 (50)
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
21 (6)
General disorders and administration site conditions 118 (32)
20 (5)
75 (20)
Nervous system disorders
7 (2)
68 (18)
Eye disorders
31 (8)
32 (9)
Immune system disorders
19 (5)
38 (10)
Injury, poisoning, and procedural complications
6 (2)
44 (12)
Vascular disorders
8 (2)
39 (11)
Ear and labyrinth disorders
4 (1)
25 (7)
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
1 (0.3)
17 (5)
Psychiatric disorders

60 (48)
17 (5)
64 (52)
5 (1)
3 (1)
67 (54)
1 (0.3) 59 (48)
51 (41)
5 (1)
0
33 (27)
1 (0.3) 25 (20)
1 (0.3) 23 (19)
1 (0.3) 7 (6)
0
1 (0.3) 3 (2)
1 (0.3) 3 (2)
11 (9)
0
1 (1)
0

26 (21)

55 (44)
22 (18)
22 (18)
31 (25)
17 (14)
5 (4)
7 (6)
3 (2)
4 (3)
3 (2)
0
0
1 (1)
1 (1)

s
s
a
l
C
n
a
g
r
O
m
e
t
s
y
S

3 (2)
1 (1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 (2)
0
0
0
0
0

As expected, allergic hypersensitivity reactions were common; however, few patients ages 4-17 experienced
systemic allergic hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, that led to study discontinuation (2.0% of the
AR101-treated patients, compared to 0% for placebo patients). On the AR101 treatment arm, 14.5% of patients
ages 4-17 experienced systemic hypersensitivity reactions, 98.2% of which were mild or moderate, and there was
one case of severe anaphylaxis. On the placebo treatment arm, 3.2% of patients ages 4-17 experienced systemic
hypersensitivity events, all of which were mild or moderate. In addition, of patients ages 4-17, 12.4% of patients
from the AR101 treatment arm and 2.4% of patients from the placebo-treatment arm discontinued due to
investigator-reported adverse events as shown in the following table.

PALISADE AR101 Discontinuation Table, Patients Ages 4-17

Total Discontinuations Regardless of Causality
Discontinuations not related to adverse events
Discontinuations related to adverse events

• Gastrointestinal (GI)1
• Systemic hypersensitivity reactions2
• Respiratory system
• Cutaneous
• Other3

AR101
(n=372)

%

n

20.4% 76
8.0% 30
12.4% 46
6.7% 25
2.7% 10
4
1.1%
3
0.8%
4
1.1%

1

2

3

Includes one case of biopsy confirmed eosinophilic esophagitis
Of these, seven were investigator-identified anaphylaxis events (one severe)
Includes one discontinuation for each: acute viral illness, eye pruritus, headache, and an unknown factor

Four of the eight AR101-treated patients with a severe adverse event discontinued treatment after the
serious adverse events: one with two events unrelated to study treatment (acute viral illness), one with moderate
anaphylaxis associated with a viral illness, one with a severe anaphylaxis event who had an elevated baseline
peanut-specific IgE level of 173 kU/L, and one with an asthma exacerbation.

One patient (10-year old boy at time of enrollment) was discontinued from the study after being found to

have biopsy-confirmed moderate, non-serious eosinophilic esophagitis during the study; the patient had chronic

14

gastrointestinal symptoms prior to study entry and a baseline peanut-specific IgE level of 352 kU/L. The
symptoms had resolved by the time the patient left the study.

In an exploratory analysis, 55 patients (41 AR101-treated and 14 placebo) between 18 and 49 years old were

randomized into the study. Twenty-one AR101-treated patients discontinued treatment, seven due to adverse
events. Among adults who completed the study, 85% of AR101-treated patients and 15% of placebo-treated
patients tolerated 600 mg in the exit food challenge. While the majority of adults who completed the PALISADE
study in the AR101 arm successfully tolerated the 600 mg dosage (85%), the percentage of dropouts in the 18-49
age range was substantially higher than in our 4-17 year old study population thereby reducing the number of our
ITT population in the 18-49 year old age range who successfully completed the DBPCFC. As a result, in the
exploratory subpopulation ages 18-49, the ITT analysis did not show statistical significance at the 600 mg dose
level.

Statistical significance is denoted by reference to the p-values in the Primary Endpoint and Additional

Endpoints. The p-value is a measure that states the probability that a comparable or better result would be
produced purely by chance. A p-value <0.00001 in the chart means that if the drug was only as effective as the
placebo, there would be less than a 0.01% chance that a comparable or better result would be produced purely by
chance. A p-value ≤0.05 is a commonly used criterion for statistical significance. When evaluating the potential
efficacy of a drug product, the FDA reviews a statistical analysis to determine whether the results of the clinical
trial demonstrated that the drug product was efficacious, and a showing of statistical significance in favor of the
tested criterion supports the finding of efficacy.

ARC004 Trial

In December 2016, we began enrolling eligible patients who had completed PALISADE into a related open-
label roll-over trial, which we refer to as the ARC004 trial. The ARC004 trial is designed to test the durability of
AR101 treatment response and dose forgiveness in a multi-arm design to inform the potential for reduced
frequency of dosing during the maintenance phase of AR101 therapy. Patients who have completed PALISADE
are provided the opportunity to roll over into the ARC004 trial. Patients who were in the AR101 treatment arm in
PALISADE will continue to receive AR101 in ARC004. Patients who were in the placebo arm of PALISADE
will undergo up-dosing with AR101 in ARC004 and then continue maintenance therapy at the target dose of 300
mg of AR101 per day. Enrollment in ARC004 was completed in December 2017. In total, 388 of the 441 patients
who completed PALISADE enrolled in the ARC004 trial.

RAMSES Trial

In May 2017, we began enrolling patients in our real-world experience safety trial of AR101 in the United

States and Canada in patients ages 4-17, which we refer to as the RAMSES (Real-World AR101 Market-
Supporting Experience Study in Peanut Allergic Children Ages 4-17 Years) trial. RAMSES, a randomized 2:1,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, was expected to enroll approximately 440 patients between the ages of
4-17 years in the United States and Canada. The RAMSES trial does not require an oral food challenge for entry.
Instead, patients will be selected based on stringent entry criteria, including a well-documented medical history
of IgE-mediated reactions to peanut (including anaphylaxis), skin prick test reactivity, and assessment of peanut-
specific IgE levels. The study will monitor treatment-emergent adverse events during a six-month up-dosing
period. Patients will then be followed in an open-label manner for at least six months on the maintenance dose of
300 mg of AR101 per day. We believe the absence of an entry food challenge may further improve the
tolerability profile of AR101 in early stages of dosing by removing exposure to high levels of peanut allergen
that may otherwise prime the immune system prior to treatment. In January 2018, we completed enrollment, with
506 patients randomized, and we expect data from the RAMSES trial in the second half of 2018.

RAMSES is expected to generate additional data on the potential use of peanut-specific biomarkers to guide

treatment decisions with AR101, building on Phase 2 results with AR101 that suggested that baseline levels of

15

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

peanut-specific IgE may be useful in predicting patient experience on AR101 therapy. In addition, RAMSES will
include exploratory analyses on quality of life based on a number of validated patient-reported outcome
measures. Based on discussions with the FDA in the beginning of 2017, we anticipate that the safety database for
a Biologics License Application, or BLA, will need to include data from at least 600 patients ages 4-17 treated
with AR101 at the target maintenance dose of 300 mg per day. We expect to meet this requirement with patients
from the ARC001, ARC002, PALISADE, ARC004 and RAMSES trials.

ARTEMIS Trial

In July 2017, we began enrolling patients in our European Phase 3 efficacy trial designed with a higher
efficacy bar in the same age group, which we refer to as the ARTEMIS (AR101 Trial in Europe Measuring oral
Immunotherapy Success) trial. ARTEMIS, a randomized 3:1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in peanut-
allergic children and adolescents ages 4-17 in Europe, will explore protection at an endpoint of tolerating a single
dose of 1,000 mg of peanut protein (corresponding to a cumulative of 2,043 mg peanut protein) after nine months
of treatment. The inclusion criteria for the trial will require that patients react at or before the 300 mg dose of the
challenge. Patients will undergo approximately six months of up-dosing and then three months of maintenance
therapy at 300 mg of AR101 per day, followed by an exit DBPCFC. ARTEMIS builds on the observation that a
very high proportion of patients in the ARC002 Phase 2 trial of AR101 were desensitized to a single dose of
1,000 mg of peanut protein at the nine-month endpoint. ARTEMIS is designed to confirm that finding in a
double-blind, placebo-controlled setting. We expect to complete enrollment of approximately 160 patients in
RAMSES at multiple sites in Europe in the first quarter of 2018 and we expect data from the trial in the second
half of 2018. We believe that ARTEMIS will help to enhance our knowledge about the timing and extent of
desensitization offered by AR101 treatment. As we have engaged with more stakeholders across Europe, we have
also come to understand that confirming that a higher efficacy level can be reached sooner would be important in
obtaining labeling for protection against accidental exposure and supporting reimbursement applications for
AR101, especially as we see increased focus on cost effectiveness throughout Europe.

We expect to file an MAA in the first half of 2019 and will include data from PALISADE, ARC004,

RAMSES and ARTEMIS in such filing.

ARC005 Trial

Pursuant to our Pediatric Investigation Plan, we are planning on initiating a study of AR101, ARC005,

which will include peanut allergic patients ages 4 to 48 months in 2018.

ARC008 Trial

All patients exiting RAMSES, ARTEMIS, ARC004 and ARC002 will be eligible to enroll in the ARC008
trial, which provides an opportunity for long-term safety surveillance and for patients to continue maintenance
therapy at the target dose of 300 mg of AR101 at the dosing interval the patient had been receiving previously.

Phase 2 Clinical Trials—ARC001 and ARC002

We performed ARC001, a Phase 2 multicentered study to assess the safety and efficacy of AR101. ARC001
was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at eight centers in the United States. Eligible
subjects were 4 to 26 years old, sensitized to peanut, and exhibited dose-limiting symptoms to less than or equal
to 100 mg of peanut protein (143 mg cumulative) in a screening DBPCFC. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to daily
AR101 or placebo arms and gradually up-dosed from 0.5 to 300 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the
proportion of subjects in each arm able to tolerate a single highest dose of at least 300 mg of peanut protein (443
mg cumulative) at the exit DBPCFC with no or mild symptoms. Fifty-five subjects (29 AR101, 26 placebo) were
enrolled. In the intent-to-treat analysis, 23 of 29 (79%) and 18 of 29 (62%) of subjects receiving AR101 tolerated
at least 300 mg and 600 mg (1,043 mg cumulative) in an exit DBPCFC, respectively, versus five of 26 (19%) and

16

0 of 26 (0%) of subjects receiving placebo (both P < 0.0001). GI symptoms were the most common treatment-
related adverse events (AEs) in both groups, with six AR101 subjects (21%) withdrawing, four of whom
withdrew primarily due to recurrent GI AEs.

Patients who completed ARC001 were eligible to participate in our Phase 2 follow-on study, ARC002, an

open label study designed to evaluate the long-term safety, efficacy and tolerability of AR101. A total of 47
patients enrolled into ARC002 (21 ARC001 active roll-overs and 26 ARC001 placebo cross-overs) of which 40
patients completed 12 weeks of post—up-dosing maintenance therapy at a daily dose of 300 mg of AR101.
Those patients were then administered a DBPCFC, in which 100%, 90%, and 60% tolerated single highest doses
of peanut protein of 300 mg, 600 mg, and 1,000 mg, respectively (corresponding to 85%, 77%, and 51%,
respectively, on an intent-to-treat basis). There were no treatment-related severe adverse events and no serious
adverse events in ARC002. The results of these two Phase 2 trials informed the design of our Phase 3
PALISADE trial.

Additional Food Allergy Research and Development

We intend to leverage the expertise we gained in the clinical development of AR101 to advance additional

CODIT candidates for a range of food allergy biotherapeutics to address high unmet need. We expect to leverage
our expertise in the formulation and pharmaceutical development of biologic drug products from naturally
available food protein to accomplish this goal. As with AR101, we expect this process to require the
identification of key protein antigens and allergenic protein epitopes, the development of analytic methods, the
creation of usable and stable formulations and the ability to manufacture supplies within strict pharmaceutical
processes.

We are in the process of developing formulations for additional CODIT product candidates beyond peanut

allergy and has formulation and manufacturing activities ongoing for a product candidate to treat egg allergy and
a product candidate to treat walnut allergy. We currently plan to advance these two new CODIT product
candidates into Phase 2 clinical trials in 2019. In addition to these product candidates, we are also conducting
research and development activities for potential CODIT product candidates in other food allergies, including
cow’s milk and shrimp allergy.

AR201 for Egg Allergy

Our Egg CODIT product candidate, which we call AR201, is intended for the treatment of egg allergy in
pediatric and young adult patients. Egg allergy is one of the most common food allergies in infants and young
children. Published studies indicate that egg allergy is prevalent in approximately 1% of young children but
resolves by age 16 in nearly 70% of patients and is therefore significantly less prevalent in the adult population.
Based on our epidemiological analysis, we estimate the prevalence for egg allergy in two key markets, the United
States and the European Union, to be approximately 1.5 million patients in the aggregate. Worldwide, we
estimate that there are more than 6 million pediatric and adult patients, with a significant patient base in China
and Japan, where egg is the most common food allergy. Allergists have observed that patients who have egg
allergy that persist beyond childhood tend to be higher risk patients with more severe reactions, a population that
is especially vulnerable to severe reactions in the case of accidental exposure. The ubiquity of egg in staple foods
and current food labeling requirements make adherence to an avoidance diet especially difficult. Despite
conscientious label reading, egg allergens can be present due to errors in food packaging and formulation as well
as undisclosed ingredient substitutions.

These practical challenges along with the lack of proactive treatment represents a significant unmet need in

pediatric and adult patients.

As a result, we believe there would be strong demand for an FDA-approved Egg CODIT product candidate.

We currently anticipate filing an IND for AR201 in egg allergy in 2018 and initiating a Phase 2 clinical trial of
AR201 in 2019.

17

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

AR301 for Walnut Allergy

Our Walnut CODIT product candidate, which we call AR301, is intended for the treatment of walnut
allergy. We believe that approximately 0.4%-0.6% of the U.S. population is allergic to walnut. Furthermore, a
high proportion of people who are allergic to walnut are also allergic to pecan and other tree nuts due to
preserved homology in allergenic epitopes. Unlike egg allergy, walnut allergy does not resolve with age, but
similar to egg and peanut allergy, it can also trigger severe and potentially life-threatening allergic reactions,
even at small exposure amounts. With no approved treatments currently available, the current standard of care is
an avoidance diet and epinephrine used as a rescue treatment.

We have developed analytical methods, are currently scaling our manufacturing operations and plan to
conduct IND enabling studies to enable the filing of an IND and initiation of a Phase 2 clinical trial of AR301 in
2019.

Other Research and Development Programs

We have ongoing research and development programs evaluating the potential application of CODIT in

other food allergies, including cow’s milk and shrimp.

Cow’s milk allergy is prevalent in approximately 1.7% of U.S. children, but resolves in nearly 80% of

patients by age 16. Similar to the dynamics of egg allergy, cow’s milk is particularly difficult to avoid
considering it remains a cornerstone of nutrition and milk consumption is a key recommendation in the USDA’s
2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines. More broadly, the ubiquity of milk and dairy consumption globally, supported by
similar national dietary guidelines, translates into a 7 million global patient population. Similar to other allergy
management paradigms, strict avoidance, supported by first line defense medication, such as epinephrine, is the
standard of care. We are working on formulation and methods development for AR401, our Milk allergy CODIT
product candidate.

Shrimp allergy prevalence increases through childhood, peaks at early adulthood through exposure, and

often persists throughout life. Specifically, shrimp sensitivity is estimated to account for approximately 75% of
patients with clinically-diagnosed shellfish allergy. Prevalence of shellfish allergy in the United States is believed
to be higher for adults, at approximately 1.6%, but is also significant for children, with approximately 0.9% of
U.S. children being allergic to shellfish. While shrimp allergy is easier to manage in western diets by way of
strict avoidance, particularly in the adult population, the reactivity is often severe and life-threatening even at
very low exposure amounts. Like other food allergies, physicians recommend dietary avoidance of shrimp and
potentially other shellfish, and the utilization of epinephrine in case of accidental exposure. We have an ongoing
research collaboration that is focused on the advancement of key allergenic epitopes conserved across shrimp and
other shellfish species.

Collaborations

Regeneron

In October 2017, we entered into a clinical collaboration with Regeneron and its strategic alliance

collaborator, Sanofi, to study AR101 treatment with adjunctive dupilumab in peanut-allergic patients in a Phase 2
clinical trial. The planned Phase 2 clinical trial includes a proposed primary endpoint of tolerating a certain dose
of peanut protein in a DBPCFC that will include doses matching and exceeding those being tested in our current
and previous AR101 studies. The study also includes a proposed exploration of sustained unresponsiveness after
discontinuation of therapy in another DBPCFC. Sustained unresponsiveness is achieved when, after a break in
treatment, peanut-allergic patients are able to tolerate a defined amount of peanut protein with no more than mild
allergic symptoms. Regeneron will sponsor the clinical trial, and we will provide clinical supply of AR101 and
food challenge materials. The planned Phase 2 clinical trial is expected to begin in 2018.

18

Nestle Health Science

In November 2016, we entered into a two-year strategic collaboration with an affiliate of Nestle Health
Science US Holdings, Inc. for the advancement of food allergy therapeutics and issued and sold to Nestle Health
Science US Holdings, Inc. (together with its affiliate, Nestle Health Science) 7,552,084 shares of common stock
in a private placement at $19.20 per share, which represented approximately 15.1% of our outstanding shares at
the time of the transaction. Subject to certain limited exceptions, Nestle Health Science agreed to a two-year
market standoff provision under which it agreed not to sell or transfer any of our common stock or other
securities. Subject to certain limited exceptions, Nestle Health Science also agreed to a two-year standstill
agreement under which Nestle Health Science agreed not to acquire us through any means. We agreed to register
the resale of the shares that Nestle Health Science purchased on a registration statement to be filed with the SEC
upon the request of Nestle Health Science, which cannot make the request prior to the 45th day preceding the end
of the market standoff provision. The investment and the collaboration do not include any development
milestones, product marketing rights or royalties.

The investment launched a two-year strategic collaboration between us and Nestle Health Science, the terms

of which enable both parties to discuss our current and future oral immunotherapy development programs
through a newly established pipeline forum. Nestle Health Science will provide ongoing scientific, regulatory,
and commercial expertise and advice to us through the pipeline forum. Any information disclosed in the
collaboration will remain our confidential information, and any new ideas or inventions that arise that relate to
our products will be our solely owned intellectual property. If we elect to seek a partner or collaborator for one of
our oral immunotherapy development programs during the two-year term of the collaboration, Nestle Health
Science will have a three-month period to negotiate exclusively with us. During the term of the collaboration,
and for so long as Nestle Health Science holds not less than ten percent of our outstanding common stock, Nestle
Health Science will be entitled to designate one nominee to serve as a director on our Board of Directors. In
November 2016, Greg Behar joined our Board of Directors on behalf of Nestle Health Science. The strategic
collaboration agreement contains a non-competition covenant pursuant to which Nestle Health Science has
agreed not to engage in certain activities relating to OIT for the treatment of food allergies.

Research and Development Expenses

A significant portion of our operating expenses relates to the development of AR101. For the years ended

December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, our research and development costs were $89.3 million, $54.6 million, and
$19.8 million, respectively, and are included in the research and development expense line item in our
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. For further detail about the research and
development activities, refer to the research and development section in the “Management’s Discussion and
Analysis” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Sales and Marketing

Subject to regulatory approval, we intend to commercialize AR101 in the United States and Europe by
developing a specialty sales force targeting a subset of the approximately 5,000 practicing allergists in the United
States as well as allergy-focused clinicians in major European markets. We anticipate that this sales force could
also support the commercialization of additional CODIT product candidates, if approved. We intend to focus our
sales efforts on patients with more moderate to severe food allergies, particularly children and adolescents. We
do not anticipate that a DBPCFC will be a requirement for prescribing AR101 as DBPCFCs are not widely used
as a diagnostic tool in current clinical practice. We anticipate that our CODIT therapeutic approach for food
allergies will encompass providing a range of services to patients and their physicians including telephone and
e-mail support for patients, physician awareness and education activities, reimbursement assistance, benefit
navigation and co-pay and patient assistance programs. Based on the estimated direct medical expenses
associated with peanut allergy and the estimated number of people with peanut allergy in the United States, we
believe the potential market opportunity for approved peanut allergy treatments in the United States could exceed
one billion dollars annually.

19

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Manufacturing

We contract with and rely on third-party manufacturers to produce the food product and final biologic
product for our product candidates and to package our product candidates. We have completed construction of a
manufacturing facility in a leased building in Clearwater, Florida, at the site of one of our current contract
manufacturers. We are installing equipment and qualifying the operating systems in this new facility. We
anticipate that this manufacturing facility will be operational in the first half of 2018. We plan to continue to rely
on the contract manufacturer that is located at the same site to manage the operations of this new manufacturing
facility. We also plan to rely on other contract manufacturers for the production of supply for our clinical trials,
and if we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, for commercial supply.

Our product candidates are manufactured in accordance with stringent manufacturing processes. Our

processes are designed to ensure that that the total protein content of each formulation and the relative
concentrations of particular proteins are consistent. Through our contract manufacturers, we are capable of
producing dosages with protein content as small as 0.5 mg and have developed advanced analytical methods to
ensure each dose contains precisely defined amounts of multiple well-characterized allergenic proteins. Our
formulations are also designed to ensure that the drug product is acceptably stable and can be easily mixed with
food.

AR101 is currently produced for us by a contract manufacturer using our proprietary process. This process
involves several blending and characterization steps intended to ensure that each dose contains a precise amount
of peanut flour containing a specific concentration of peanut protein. Because peanut flour is a sensitizing agent,
AR101 must be produced on a manufacturing line that is physically separated from other manufacturing lines and
that has its own ventilation system. The manufacturing line that we use to produce the clinical supply for our
clinical trials will not be adequate to produce commercial supplies of AR101 and we expect to produce
commercial supplies in our new manufacturing facility. We are also in the process of negotiating a supply
agreement with our contract manufacturer pursuant to which the manufacturer would use our manufacturing line
to produce commercial supplies of AR101 for us. Producing commercial quantities of AR101 will require us to
scale up our existing manufacturing process and design and institute rigorous quality control and assurance
procedures in our new manufacturing facility. These procedures include qualification of the manufacturing
equipment and building utility systems and validation of the manufacturing process at commercial scale.
Designing and implementing these procedures are time-consuming and complex operations, which could cause
delays in our timelines for bringing this facility into production in the first half of 2018. Any delays in bringing
this facility online could cause a delay in the filing of a BLA or MAA for AR101.

We also rely on separate contract manufacturers to provide packaging services for AR101. We plan on using
blister packs as the final packaging configuration for our potential commercial launch of AR101. Stability testing
of AR101 in the blister pack configuration is ongoing. Any complications with the stability testing in the blister
pack configuration could extend the timelines for our planned clinical trials, which would delay the timing of our
regulatory filings for AR101. In addition, regulatory authorities may not find our proposed packing configuration
acceptable, which would also delay the timing of our regulatory filings or potential approval of AR101.

Supplying appropriate clinical trial materials for our ongoing and upcoming clinical trials on a timely basis
is a complex operation. There are multiple doses in the up-dosing phase of our AR101 clinical trials. In addition,
each subject can proceed through the up-dosing phase at a different rate depending on how the subject responds
to each new dose. For example, a subject can move up to the next dose, remain on the current dose or move down
to the prior lower dose during the up-dosing phase of our trials. We believe that this dosing flexibility improves
outcomes for clinical trial subjects. But this dosing flexibility also increases the complexity of supplying the
appropriate doses to each clinical site on a timely basis. In addition, we conduct clinical trials in Europe. EU
regulations require that each lot of clinical trial material be certified and released by a designated qualified
person, or QP. This certification and release process in the EU can cause delays in supplying clinical trial
materials to clinical sites. Any delays or errors in our AR101 supply chain logistics could delay or adversely
affect our clinical trials.

20

Contract manufacturers often encounter difficulties involving production yields, quality control and quality

assurance, as well as shortages of qualified personnel. Qualifying manufacturers and providers of packaging
services is a lengthy process. If at any time, one or more of our qualified contract organizations were not able to
manufacture or package our drug product candidate or provide other requisite services, our business and financial
condition could be materially adversely affected.

Our third-party suppliers (other than GPC), their facilities and all lots of product candidates used in our
clinical trials are required to be in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP. The cGMP
regulations include requirements relating to organization and personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment,
control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and
labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged
products. The manufacturing facilities for our products must meet cGMP requirements to the FDA’s satisfaction
before any product is approved and we can manufacture commercial products. Our third-party manufacturers are
also subject to periodic inspections of facilities by the FDA and other authorities, which may include the
evaluation of procedures and operations used in the testing and manufacture of our products to assess compliance
with applicable regulations.

Suppliers

Our lead product candidate, AR101, contains peanut flour and pharmaceutical-grade ingredients. We source
the peanut flour from GPC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Archer Daniels Midland. We chose to use peanut flour
from GPC as the basis for AR101 because its peanut flour has been used in most of the leading academic studies
of peanut allergy OIT and because we believe that the widespread use of GPC peanut products in the United
States may make their peanut flour representative of the type of peanut protein that patients are most likely to
encounter in an accidental exposure. The other ingredients in AR101, such as diluents, glidants and lubricants,
are sourced from established producers of pharmaceutical grade ingredients. In order to develop AR101 as an
FDA-approvable biological product, we took the further step of characterizing the protein signature of GPC flour.
Independent scientific research has identified numerous peanut proteins that are the allergens that cause allergic
reactions to peanuts. Three of these proteins appear to be the most significant and representative of the levels of
the other proteins. Our characterization of AR101 is based on measuring total protein amount and the relative
concentrations of those three key proteins as well as their potencies in an antibody binding assay.

We purchase standard food-grade peanut flour from GPC pursuant to a long-term exclusive commercial

supply agreement, which was expanded and extended in January 2018. Under the terms of the restated
agreement, we are obligated to purchase peanut flour exclusively from GPC, provided that GPC is able to supply
the peanut flour in a timely manner with the quantity of peanut flour that we require. GPC is not allowed to sell
several peanut flour products to any third party worldwide for use in OIT for the treatment or cure of peanut
allergy, provided that we are in compliance with our exclusive purchase obligation and meet specified annual
purchase commitments. The restated agreement remains in effect until ten years after the first delivery to us of
peanut flour for commercial use and includes an option for us to extend the term for an additional five years. The
restated agreement requires GPC to notify its wholesalers and distributors that the peanut flour products subject
to the restated agreement cannot be used in OIT for the treatment or cure of peanut allergy. We also have a right
of first refusal to obtain rights to new or existing GPC peanut flour products that are not already covered by the
restated agreement if a third party intends to use the new or existing GPC product in OIT for the treatment of or
cure of peanut allergy. We may terminate the restated agreement at any time for any reason upon providing 60
days’ written notice to GPC. Either party may terminate the restated agreement if the other party fails to cure
their material breach within 30 days of receiving notice of such breach from the non-breaching party or if the
other party fails to perform their obligations under the agreement for a continuous period of 120 days due to a
force majeure event or an insolvency or bankruptcy-related events.

In connection with the amendment and restatement of the agreement, we issued Archer Daniels Midland

Company 300,000 shares of our common stock, vesting over a 3.5-year period. Subject to certain exceptions, in

21

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

the event that the price per share of our common stock were to fall below a specified level, the restated
agreement provides that GPC would only be prohibited from selling one peanut flour product to any third party
in the United States, Mexico, Canada, the European Union or Japan for use in OIT for the treatment or cure of
peanut allergy.

Intellectual Property

We have filed patent applications in the United States and international patent applications pursuant to the
Patent Cooperation Treaty relating to AR101 and certain of our other product candidates. Two patents, covering
the formulation of and certain of our manufacturing methods for AR101, have been issued in the United States.
There is no assurance that any additional patents will be issued from any of our pending patent applications. Even
if patents do issue, there can be no assurance that the scope of the claims contained in the patents will be broad
enough to provide protection from potentially competing products. If issued, our patents relating to AR101 are
projected to expire in 2034 without taking into account any potential patent term extensions. Our patent
applications seek protection relating to our formulations, methods of manufacture and improved methods for
treating food allergies. We do not own or license, and do not anticipate that we will be able to obtain, a
composition of matter patent over the active pharmaceutical ingredient in AR101 or for any other product
candidates that are based on widely or readily available food products.

In addition to patents, we rely upon trade secrets, know-how, and continuing technological innovation to

develop and maintain our competitive position. We protect our proprietary information, in part, using
confidentiality agreements with our partners, collaborators, contract manufacturers, suppliers, employees and
consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have confidentiality agreements
or invention assignment agreements with our partners and consultants. Despite these measures, any of our
intellectual property and proprietary rights could be challenged, invalidated, circumvented, infringed or
misappropriated, or such intellectual property and proprietary rights may not be sufficient to permit us to take
advantage of current market trends or otherwise to provide competitive advantages.

Competition

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we
believe that our development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we
may face competition from large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, smaller pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic drug companies, academic institutions,
government agencies and research institutions and others.

Many of our potential competitors may have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources

than we have. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even
more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Our commercial opportunity
could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop or market products or other novel technologies that are
more effective, safer or less costly than any that will be commercialized by us, or if they obtain regulatory
approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. Our success will be
based in part on our ability to identify, develop and manage a portfolio of drugs that are safer, more efficacious
and/or more cost-effective than alternative therapies.

Currently there are no approved medical therapies for the treatment of food allergies. In October 2017, DBV
Technologies S.A. announced results from its completed Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating Viaskin Peanut, a patch
technology that epicutaneously delivers food allergens to the patient with the goal of desensitizing the patient to
the allergens, in peanut-allergic patients (4 to 11 years of age) and, notwithstanding the failure to achieve the
primary endpoint, has indicated that it plans to submit a BLA in the second half of 2018. If AR101 and/or any
additional product candidate of ours is approved, they may face competition from DBV’s product candidates, if
approved. AnaptysBio, Inc. is developing an IL-33 antibody, ANB020, for the treatment of atopic diseases

22

including atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic asthma and peanut allergy. ANB020 is under investigation in a Phase 2a
trial of approximately 20 adults with peanut allergy. IL-33 is an epithelial-derived pro-inflammatory cytokine
implicated in atopic disease though its role in allergic inflammation is not fully understood. It is unclear at this
time whether anti-IL-33 will have clinical meaningfulness in peanut allergy as monotherapy, either with or
without co-administration of native antigen.

We may also face competition from allergists who decide to provide OIT and other desensitization therapies

to their patients using their own formulations of food allergens and treatment protocols rather than adopting our
product candidates or we may face competition from companies that develop their own OIT products, other
desensitization therapy products or products intended to prevent the onset of food allergies in infants or young
children. In addition, peanut allergic patients may attempt to use food products as a substitute for AR101 in the
maintenance portion of our AR101 treatment program.

In the future, we may face competition from competitors seeking to use AR101 as a reference product while

developing a biosimilar product candidate using the FDA’s abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilar
products. The abbreviated regulatory pathway, created pursuant to the Biologics Price Competition and
Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar
biologics. To be considered a biosimilar, a product candidate must be highly similar to the reference product
notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. In addition, there can be no clinically
meaningful differences between the product candidate and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity,
and potency of the product. We believe that the relative concentrations of relevant proteins in the peanut flour we
source pursuant to our exclusive contract with the GPC are significantly different from the concentrations of
proteins found in other commercially available sources of peanut flour, and that a product candidate using
different concentrations of such proteins or different proteins might not be considered “highly similar” to AR101
by the FDA. Such a product candidate would not be eligible for the biosimilar approval pathway. However, there
can be no guarantee that the FDA would agree with this interpretation.

Under the BPCIA, a reference product may be eligible for a 12-year period of exclusivity starting from the

date that the product is first licensed by the FDA pursuant to the approval of a BLA, during which time no
approval of a biosimilar product under the abbreviated approval pathway may be made effective. We believe that
if the FDA approves a BLA for AR101, AR101 should qualify for this 12-year period of market exclusivity,
known as reference product exclusivity, such that no approval of a biosimilar version of our product could
become effective prior to the expiration of that 12-year period. However, these exclusivity provisions have been
subject to various interpretations that have not yet been fully addressed by the FDA, and there is a risk that this
exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider AR101
to be eligible for reference product exclusivity, potentially creating the opportunity for competition sooner than
anticipated. In addition, even if AR101 were to receive reference product exclusivity, a competitor may seek
approval of a product candidate under a full BLA rather than a biosimilar product application. In such a case,
although the competitor would not enjoy the benefits of the abbreviated pathway for biosimilar approval created
under the BPCIA, the FDA would not be precluded from making effective an approval of the competitor product
pursuant to a BLA prior to the expiration of our 12-year period of marketing exclusivity.

Coverage and Reimbursement

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 availability of coverage
and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government payor programs
(such as Medicare and Medicaid in the United States), managed care plans, private health insurers and other
organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate
from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Third-party
payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of

23

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

the drug products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and
examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their
safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the
medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the studies required to obtain regulatory
approvals. In the United States, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be
provided for our products, if approved, will be made on a payor by payor basis. Each payor determines whether
or not it will provide coverage for a drug, what amount it will pay for the drug, and on what tier of its formulary
the drug will be placed. The drug’s formulary placement generally determines the out-of-pocket costs to a patient
in order to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients
who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally
rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use
our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost
of our products and related services.

The cost of pharmaceuticals continues to generate substantial governmental, third-party payor and media
interest. We expect that the pharmaceutical industry will experience pricing pressures due to the trend toward
managed healthcare, the increasing influence of managed care organizations and possible legislative proposals.
Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and
examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their
safety and efficacy. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to
other available therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they
do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit. The U.S. government,
state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment
programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on
coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription
drugs. Adoption of such controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing
controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as the drug candidates that we are
developing and could adversely affect our net revenue and results.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in each country. In the European Community,

governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and
control of national healthcare 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 drug candidate to
currently available treatment approaches. Other member states allow companies to set their own prices for
medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general,
particularly prescription drugs, 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. There can be no assurance that any country that has price
controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing
arrangements for any of our products.

Significant uncertainty also surrounds the reimbursement of allergists for administering the anticipated
treatment regimen for AR101 and our other products candidates. In the United States, it is not certain whether the
existing medical claim reimbursement codes used to compensate physicians for their time in administering a
therapy will be adequate to compensate for a physician’s time in administering AR101 up-dosing visits. We may
decide to support the creation of new codes and associated reimbursement rates to ensure that clinicians are
adequately compensated; however, creation of new codes is a complicated and lengthy process, and we may not
be successful in any such efforts. In addition, if a new code is supported by the American Medical Association,
or the AMA, there is no guarantee that a third-party payor will provide reimbursement for such code as that
decision is solely in the payor’s discretion and must be negotiated on a case by case basis between providers and

24

payors. In markets outside of the United States, we will need to evaluate clinician compensation mechanisms in
each market to determine whether there is appropriate payment of physicians for administration of the treatment
regimens.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to
be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of
operations as we begin to directly commercialize our products.

In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state level

that seek to reduce healthcare costs. Initiatives to reduce the federal deficit and to reform healthcare delivery are
increasing cost-containment efforts. We anticipate that Congress, state legislatures and the private sector will
continue to review and assess alternative benefits, controls on healthcare spending through limitations on the
growth of private health insurance premiums and Medicare and Medicaid spending, the creation of large
insurance purchasing groups, price controls on pharmaceuticals and other fundamental changes to the healthcare
delivery system. Any proposed or actual changes could limit or eliminate our spending on development projects
and affect our ultimate profitability.

In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, which substantially changed the way

healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. The Affordable Care Act, among other things,
established: an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription
drugs and biologic agents; revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers for covered
outpatient drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated; increased the minimum Medicaid
rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug
Rebate program to utilization of certain injectable outpatient drugs, as well as prescriptions of individuals
enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations.

We expect that the current Presidential Administration and U.S. Congress will likely continue to seek to
modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act. Since its enactment,
there have also been other judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
As a result, there have been delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects
of the Affordable Care Act. Most recently, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted, which, among other things,
removes penalties for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health
insurance. It is uncertain if any such changes may impact our business.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and

implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient
reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and
transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk
purchasing.

In addition, third-party payors may revise the payment methodologies used to determine reimbursement

amounts. This includes annual updates to payments to physicians for the procedures performed using our
products, which could directly impact the demand for any of our product candidates that may be approved.

In the future, there may continue to be additional proposals relating to the reform of the United States
healthcare system, some of which could further limit the prices we are able to charge for our products candidates,
or increase the co-pay obligations of patients. If future legislation were to impose direct governmental price
controls and access restrictions, it could have a significant adverse impact on our business. Managed care
organizations, as well as Medicaid and other government agencies, continue to seek price discounts. Some states
have implemented, and other states are considering, price controls or patient access constraints under the

25

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Medicaid program, and some states are considering price-control regimes that would apply to broader segments
of their populations that are not Medicaid-eligible. Due to the volatility in the current economic and market
dynamics, we are unable to predict the impact of any unforeseen or unknown legislative, regulatory, payor or
policy actions, which may include cost containment and healthcare reform measures. Such policy actions could
have a material adverse impact on our profitability.

Government Regulation

Government Regulation in the United States

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level, as well as in foreign
countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling,
packaging, promotion, advertising, storage, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and
export and import of biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with third-party contractors, will be
required to navigate the various pre-clinical, clinical and commercial requirements of the governing regulatory
agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product
candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate
federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial
resources.

Overview of Biologics Regulation in the United States

In the United States, our product candidates are regulated by the FDA as biologics under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and regulations implemented by
the FDA. Section 351(i)(1) of the PHSA defines a biological product (biologic) as a virus, therapeutic serum,
toxin, antitoxin, vaccine, blood, blood component or derivative, allergenic product, protein (except any
chemically synthesized polypeptide), or analogous product applicable to the prevention, treatment, or cure of a
disease or condition of human beings. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may
be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests and animal studies performed in accordance with the FDA’s
Good Laboratory Practices, or GLP, regulations;

submission to the FDA of an IND which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin
and must be updated annually;

approval by an independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, or ethics committee at each clinical
site before the trial is initiated;

performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety, purity and potency of
the proposed biologic product candidate for its intended purpose;

preparation, and submission to the FDA, of a BLA after completion of clinical trials;

a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of a BLA to file the application for review;

satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;

satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at
which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements, and to assure
that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s continued
safety, purity and potency; and

FDA review and approval of the BLA prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the product in the
United States.

26

Pre-clinical Studies and IND Application

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An
IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans.
The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical
trials. The IND also generally includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology,
pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry,
manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the
investigational product. We filed an IND for AR101 in April 2013 for use in oral desensitization therapy for
peanut allergy in children and adults. Because there are no robust animal models of peanut allergy, we did not
conduct any pre-clinical efficacy studies of AR101. In addition, because AR101 is based on a food product, the
FDA did not require us to submit any pre-clinical toxicology data.

Clinical Trials

An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. An IND will automatically become
effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related
to the proposed clinical trials. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and
the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trials can begin. Accordingly,
submission of an IND may or may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the
supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, which include the
requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial.
Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the
parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each clinical protocol
and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and an IRB at each
site where the study is to be conducted must also approve the study. The IRB must monitor the study until
completed. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results
to public registries. Clinical trials typically are conducted in three or four sequential phases, but the phases may
overlap or be combined.

• Phase 1. The investigational product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with
the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to evaluate the safety, dosage tolerance,
metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the investigational product in humans, the side effects
associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness.

• Phase 2. The investigational product is administered to a limited patient population to evaluate dosage
tolerance and optimal dosage, identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks and preliminarily
evaluate efficacy.

• Phase 3. The investigational product is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at
geographically dispersed clinical study sites to generate enough data to statistically evaluate dosage,
clinical effectiveness and safety, to establish the overall benefit-risk relationship of the investigational
product, and to provide an adequate basis for product licensure.

• Phase 4. In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of a BLA for a product candidate on the

sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials after approval. In other cases, a sponsor may
voluntarily conduct additional clinical trials after approval to gain more information about the product.
Such post-approval studies are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials.

The FDA, the IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on
various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.
Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the

27

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization
for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the
trial. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive
climate. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional in vitro studies and develop
additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate, and must finalize a process
for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The
manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and,
among other things, must develop methods for testing the safety, purity and potency of the final product.
Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to
demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Review and Approval of a BLA

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory

requirements, detailed information regarding the investigational product is submitted to the FDA in the form of a
BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant
data available from pertinent pre-clinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as
positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls,
and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to
test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including
studies initiated by investigators. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application
user fee, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual product and establishment user fees.
These fees are typically increased annually. A waiver of user fees may be obtained under certain limited
circumstances.

Once a BLA has been submitted, the FDA’s goal is to review the application within ten months after it
accepts the application for filing, or, if the application relates to an unmet medical need in a serious or life-
threatening indication, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. The review process is often
significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to
determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is
manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety,
purity and potency.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities at which the product is
manufactured. The FDA will not approve the application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes
and facilities are in compliance with cGMP 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 compliance with GCP requirements. If the FDA determines that the application,
manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the
submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any
requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the
regulatory criteria for approval.

The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel product to an advisory committee or explain why

such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including
clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides 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.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the
investigational product and/or its substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a
Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific

28

prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of
the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter may
require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase 3 trial or trials, and/or other significant,
expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, pre-clinical trials or manufacturing. Even if
such additional information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy the
criteria for approval. The FDA may also approve the BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or
REMS, plan to mitigate risks, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or
elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization
tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling, development
of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct one or more post-market studies or clinical
trials, and may limit further marketing of the product based on results of these post-marketing studies. Such post-
market testing may include Phase 4 trials and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and
effectiveness after commercialization. In addition, once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval
if compliance with pre- and post-marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the
product reaches the marketplace. New government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation,
may also be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of
our products under development.

Expedited Review and Approval Programs

A sponsor may seek approval of its product candidate under programs designed to accelerate FDA’s review

and approval of new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and
biological products are eligible for Fast-Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-
threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for that disease or
condition. For a Fast-Track product, the FDA may consider sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis
before the complete application is submitted if relevant criteria are met. A Fast-Track designated product
candidate may also qualify for priority review, under which the FDA sets the target date for FDA action on the
BLA at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review is granted when there is
evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the
treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious condition. If criteria are not met for priority review, the
application is subject to the standard FDA review period of 10 months after FDA accepts the application for
filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific or medical standard for approval or the quality
of evidence necessary to support approval.

Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may approve a BLA on the basis of either a surrogate
endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier
than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or
mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the
availability or lack of alternative treatments. Post-marketing studies or completion of ongoing studies after
marketing approval are generally required to verify the biologic’s clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate
endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the clinical benefit. In September 2014, the FDA granted AR101
Fast-Track designation.

In 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA. This

law established a regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “Breakthrough
Therapies.” A product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in
combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and
preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product 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 FDA may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including
holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product
sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross

29

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient
manner.

Post-Approval Requirements

Biologics manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing
regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting,
product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the
product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling
claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for
any marketed products. Manufacturers of biologics and their subcontractors are required to register their
establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by
the FDA and state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements, which impose certain procedural and
documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process
are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before
being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and
impose reporting and documentation requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide
to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and
quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not
maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown
problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing
processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to
add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or
imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences
include, among other things:

•

•

•

•

•

restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from
the market or product recalls;

fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or
suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of biologics. A company
may make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and
in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws
and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly
promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. Failure to comply with these requirements can
result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and
criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the
product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are
common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for
many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of
treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturers’ communications on the subject of off-label use of
their products.

30

Abbreviated Licensure Pathway of Biological Products as Biosimilar or Interchangeable

The Affordable Care Act, or ACA, signed into law on March 23, 2010, included the BPCIA, which
amended the PHSA and established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and
interchangeable biosimilars. To date, few biosimilars have been licensed under the BPCIA, and numerous
biosimilars have been approved in Europe. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining its current
approach to the review and approval of biosimilars.

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is

“biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In
order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences
between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the
FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the
biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for
products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has
been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive
use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years

after the date that the reference product is first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of an application
for a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years after the date that the reference
product is first licensed by the FDA. These exclusivity provisions have been subject to various interpretations
that have not yet been fully addressed by the FDA. In addition, even if a product is considered to be a reference
product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA
approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own pre-clinical data and data from adequate and
well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The BPCIA also
created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is
unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by
pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

Other Healthcare Laws in the United States

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local
authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of
the United States Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the United
States Department of Justice and individual United States Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, and
state and local governments. The laws we are subject to include, without limitation, state and federal anti-
kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, physician payment transparency and privacy and security laws and
regulations.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully
offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an
individual, for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be
made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Anti-Kickback
Statute is subject to evolving interpretations. In the past, the government has enforced the Anti-Kickback Statute
to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham consulting and other financial arrangements
with physicians. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to
violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including
items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent
claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act. The majority of states also have anti-kickback laws which
establish similar prohibitions and in some cases may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party
payor, including commercial insurers.

31

Additionally, the False Claims Act prohibits knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false,

fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the United States government. Actions under the False Claims Act
may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the
government. Violations of the False Claims Act can result in very significant monetary penalties and treble
damages. The federal government is using the False Claims Act, and the accompanying threat of significant
liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the
country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and
marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the
False Claims Act in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. Given the
significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote
substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud
and abuse laws.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, also created federal

criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute,
a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and
willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation
of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up 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. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not
need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

There has also been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians
and other healthcare providers. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, imposed new
reporting requirements on drug manufacturers for payments made by them to physicians and teaching hospitals,
as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to
submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties for all payments, transfers of value or
ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual
submission. Drug manufacturers are required to submit reports to the government by the 90th day of each
calendar year. Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug
manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of marketing expenditures and pricing
information as well as gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the

states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and
Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule
published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified 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,” defined as independent contractors or agents of
covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with
providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties
that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, 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 attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition,
state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ
from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Government Regulation in Europe

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, (which is composed of the 28 Member States of the European
Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a
Marketing Authorization, or MA.

32

There are two types of MAs:

• The Community MA, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure,
based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the EMA,
and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory
for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products,
and medicinal products that contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of AIDS, cancer,
neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and viral diseases. The Centralized Procedure is
optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products
that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of
public health in the EU. Under the Centralized Procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of
a marketing authorization application is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or
oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP).
Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when the authorization of
a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from
the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. Under the accelerated procedure the standard 210 days review
period is reduced to 150 days.

• National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and

only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope
of the Centralized Procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member
State of the EEA, this National MA can be recognized in another Member States through the Mutual
Recognition Procedure. If the product has not received a National MA in any Member State at the time
of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the Decentralized
Procedure.

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the

Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of
scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

The collection and processing of personal data—including health data—in the European Union is currently
governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, as implemented into national laws by the European
Union Member States. The new European Union-wide General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, entered
into force in May 2016 and will become applicable on May 25, 2018, replacing the current data protection laws
of each European Union Member State. The GDPR will implement more stringent operational requirements for
processors and controllers of personal data, including, for example, expanded disclosures about how personal
information is to be used, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to health
data and pseudonymised (i.e., key-coded) data, mandatory data breach notification requirements and higher
standards for controllers to demonstrate that they have obtained valid consent for certain data processing
activities. The GDPR provides that European Union Member States may make their own further laws and
regulations in relation to the processing of genetic, biometric or health data, which could result in differences
between Member States, limit our ability to use and share personal data or could cause our costs to increase, and
harm our business and financial condition. We are also subject to evolving and strict rules on the transfer of
personal data out of the European Union to the United States. Failure to comply with European Union data
protection laws may result in fines (for example, of up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to 4% of the total worldwide
annual turnover of the preceding financial year (whichever is higher) under the GDPR) and other administrative
penalties, which may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.

Other regulations

We are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working
conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control, and disposal of hazardous or

33

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

potentially hazardous substances. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now
or in the future.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we had 131 full-time employees. Of these employees, 88 are engaged in research

and development. Our employees are not represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining
agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Segment Information

We have one primary business activity and operate as one reportable segment.

Corporate Information

We were founded on June 24, 2011 as a Delaware corporation under the name Allergen Research

Corporation. In May 2015, we changed our name to Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. We completed our initial public
offering in August 2015. Our common stock is currently listed on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the
symbol “AIMT.” Our principal executive offices are located at 8000 Marina Blvd, Suite 300, Brisbane, CA
94005 and our telephone number is (650) 614-5220. Our website address is www.aimmune.com. The
information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual
Report on Form 10-K or any other filings we make with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.

Available Information

We make available on or through our website certain reports and amendments to those reports that we file

with, or furnish to, the SEC in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act. These include our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our
Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make this information available on or through our website free of charge as soon
as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Copies of this
information may be obtained at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549.
Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and
other information regarding our filings, at www.sec.gov. The information on, or that can be accessed through,
our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other filings we make
with the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider

these risks, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our audited financial
statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations.” The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and stock price.
Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also
impair our business operations.

Risks Related to Our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We have a limited operating history, have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that
we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. We have only one product candidate in clinical
trials and no product sales, which, together with our limited operating history, make it difficult to assess our
future viability.

34

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Biopharmaceutical

product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. To date, we
have focused primarily on developing our Characterized Oral Desensitization Immunotherapy, or CODITTM,
therapeutic approach and our lead product candidate, AR101, which is currently our only product in clinical
development, and researching additional product candidates. We are not profitable and have incurred losses each
year since our inception in June 2011. We have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our
business and prospects. In addition, we have limited experience and have not yet demonstrated an ability to
successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and
rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. We have not generated any revenue from
product sales and, as a result, we have incurred significant losses. We incurred a net loss of $131.3 million,
$80.8 million, and $35.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. At
December 31, 2017, our accumulated deficit was $265.5 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the
foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue our development of, seek
regulatory approval for and begin to commercialize AR101, and as we develop other product candidates. Even if
AR101 is approved and we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in
subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have
an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary
capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our
product development, other operations or commercialization efforts.

Since commencing our operations in 2011, substantially all of our efforts have been focused on research,
development and the advancement of our CODIT therapeutic approach and AR101. As of December 31, 2017,
we had capital resources consisting of cash, cash equivalents and investments of $182.4 million. We believe that
we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future as we continue clinical development,
seek regulatory approval for and prepare for the commercialization of AR101, and as we develop other product
candidates.

These expenditures will include costs associated with conducting clinical trials, pursuing research and
development activities and conducting non-clinical studies, obtaining regulatory approvals, manufacturing and
supply, sales and marketing and general operations. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the
outcome of any clinical trial and/or regulatory approval process is highly uncertain, we may not be able to
accurately estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development, regulatory approval
process and commercialization of AR101 or any other product candidates.

We believe that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund our planned operations for the next
12 months and through expected regulatory submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for AR101,
our lead CODITTM product candidate. However, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors,
including factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned,
through public or private equity, debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations. Such financing
may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of debt covenants and repayment obligations or other
restrictions that may affect our business. If we raise additional capital through strategic collaboration agreements,
we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates including possible future revenue streams. In
addition, any fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may
adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

Furthermore, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may

seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

•

the number, size and type of additional clinical trials or studies that we choose to initiate or the FDA or
a foreign regulatory authority requires us to complete for AR101 prior to or following submission of

35

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

our BLA or other marketing approval applications, as well as the cost and time of such trials and
studies;

the time and cost necessary to complete our roll-over study related to our recently completed
PALISADE trial (ARC004), our RAMSES and ARTEMIS trials, our roll-over study related to
RAMSES and ARTEMIS (ARC008), as well as the time and costs associated with the other planned
development activities for AR101, including the initiation and operation of ARC005 and ARC008;

the time and cost necessary to supply clinical trial materials for our clinical trials and develop a
commercial-scale manufacturing process and establish commercial-scale manufacturing capacity for
AR101;

our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and subsequently commercialize AR101 or any other
product candidates we develop;

sales and marketing costs associated with AR101, if approved, including the cost and timing of
developing our sales and marketing capabilities;

the amount of sales and other revenue from AR101, if approved;

our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, coverage and reimbursement from third-party
payors and adequate market share for our product candidates;

the time and cost associated with designing and implementing quality systems for our product
candidates in the United States and Europe;

the time and cost associated with clinical trials and pre-clinical development of other product
candidates;

the cash requirements of any future acquisitions or discovery of product candidates;

the time and cost necessary to respond to technological and market developments;

our ability to attract, hire and retain qualified personnel; and

our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for AR101 or any additional product
candidate and the associated costs of such activities, including for filing, prosecuting, defending and
enforcing any patents for AR101 or any additional product candidate.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all.

If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or

terminate:

•

•

•

clinical trials or other development activities for AR101 or any additional product candidate;

our research and development activities; or

our establishment of sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to
commercialize AR101 or any additional product candidate.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict
and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations or our guidance.

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes it difficult for us to
predict our future operating results. These fluctuations may occur due to a variety of factors, many of which are
outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including:

•

the timing and cost of, and level of investment in, research, development and commercialization
activities relating to our product candidates, which may change from time to time;

36

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

coverage and reimbursement policies with respect to our product candidates, if approved, and potential
future drugs that compete with our product candidates;

the timing and cost of our clinical trials, including the ability to initiate sites, enroll patients in a timely
manner and submit or obtain approval of regulatory filings;

the cost of manufacturing our product candidates and establishing commercial manufacturing capacity
for AR101, which may vary depending on the quantity of production and the terms of our agreements
with manufacturers;

expenditures that we may incur to acquire, develop or commercialize additional product candidates and
technologies;

the level of demand for our products, if approved, which may vary significantly;

future accounting pronouncements or changes in our accounting policies; and

the timing and success or failure of clinical trials for our product candidates or competing product
candidates, or any other change in the competitive landscape of our industry, including consolidation
among our competitors or partners.

The cumulative effects of these factors could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly

and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be
meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance.

This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or
financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of
analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if the forecasts we provide to the
market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline
substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated
revenue and/or earnings guidance we may provide.

Risks Related to Our Business

We are substantially dependent on the success of AR101 which will require additional clinical testing before
we can seek regulatory approval and potentially commence commercial sales, and which may not be
successful in clinical trials, receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized, even if approved.

We currently have no products approved for sale. To date, we have invested substantially all of our efforts
and financial resources in the research and development of our CODIT therapeutic approach and AR101, which
is currently our only product candidate in clinical development. We are not permitted to market or promote any
of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory
authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval. Before seeking marketing approval from the
FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for the sale of AR101, we must complete our ongoing clinical
trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product in humans. We cannot be certain that AR101 will
successfully demonstrate such properties in our ongoing and future clinical trials and, even if it is successful, we
may not receive regulatory approval for AR101, or we may receive approval in a limited patient population, or
we may experience delays in receiving such regulatory approval. If we do not receive regulatory approval for
AR101, we may not be able to continue our operations.

As a result, our prospects, including our ability to finance our operations and generate revenue, will depend

largely on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of AR101. If we complete
clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA for AR101 in-line with our current expected timing, we would
expect to be able to commence commercial sales of AR101 around the end of 2019. The clinical and commercial

37

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

success of AR101 will depend on a number of factors, many of which are out of our control, including the
following:

•

•

•

•

•

•

the results from our ongoing and planned clinical trials, including ARC004, RAMSES and ARTEMIS,
as well as ARC008;

the frequency and severity of adverse effects experienced by patients treated with AR101, including in
any clinical trials we may pursue with collaborators such as our recently announced Phase 2 trial
sponsored by Regeneron evaluating AR101 treatment with adjunctive duplilumab;

the availability, perceived advantages, relative cost, relative safety and relative efficacy of alternative
and competing treatments;

the ability of our third-party manufacturers to manufacture supplies of AR101, including their ability to
provide adequate and timely supplies of our clinical trial materials and to develop, validate and
maintain a commercial-scale manufacturing process that is compliant with current good manufacturing
practices, or cGMP;

our ability to maintain our exclusive supply relationship with the Golden Peanut Company, or GPC;

our ability to demonstrate AR101’s safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and foreign
regulatory authorities;

• whether we are required by the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities, or choose, to conduct

additional clinical trials prior to the approval to market AR101, as well as the cost and time of such
trials;

• whether the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the number, design, size,

conduct or implementation of our clinical trials;

•

•

•

our ability to raise additional capital to fund our development, manufacturing and commercialization
activities for AR101;

the receipt of necessary marketing approvals from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities;

the extent and nature of any Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or foreign equivalent,
that may be required in connection with regulatory approval or following regulatory approval;

• whether the FDA may restrict the use of our products to a narrow population;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

our ability to successfully commercialize AR101, if approved for marketing and sale by the FDA or
foreign regulatory authorities, whether alone or in collaboration with others;

our success in educating physicians and patients about the benefits, administration and use of AR101;

acceptance of AR101 as safe and effective by patients and the medical community;

the continued prevalence of peanut allergy;

achieving and maintaining compliance with all regulatory requirements applicable to AR101;

the effectiveness of our own or any future collaborators’ marketing, pricing, coverage and
reimbursement, sales and distribution strategies and operations;

our ability to obtain issued patents that cover AR101 and to enforce such patents and other intellectual
property rights to AR101;

our ability to avoid third-party intellectual property claims; and

a continued acceptable safety profile of AR101 following approval.

In addition, even though AR101 was granted Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA for oral
immunotherapy of peanut allergic children and adolescents (ages 4 through 17), we may not experience a faster

38

development, review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. Generally, a product may
be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other
products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that
the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically
significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough
Therapy status allows us to hold additional meetings with the FDA during the development process and to
receive advice from the FDA regarding development and approval for AR101.

The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and we may
be required to expend additional time and resources to obtain an approval, if any, and any approval we may seek
may be delayed or prevented or limited to a narrower patient population than we originally target. Despite the
time and expense exerted, failure can occur at any stage, and, even if we are able to obtain approval for AR101,
such approval may be limited to a certain patient subgroup. Accordingly, we cannot assure our stockholders that
we will ever be able to generate revenue through the sale of AR101 or become profitable as a result of such sales.
If we are not able to successfully demonstrate the safety and efficacy of AR101 in humans in our clinical trials,
obtain regulatory approval for AR101 for the indications we seek and successfully commercialize AR101, or if
we are significantly delayed in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and we may
encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials. Furthermore, results of earlier studies may not be predictive
of future studies’ results.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain.

Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of early clinical trials of our product
candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials and of similar academic research
studies. For example, in PALISADE we observed that approximately twelve months of AR101 treatment
significantly raised the amount of peanut protein tolerated in patients ages 4-17 compared to placebo. The
observed differences in response rate between AR101 and placebo groups on the Intent-to-Treat, or ITT, analysis
of patients ages 4-17 were 68.5% for the 300-mg endpoint (95% confidence interval of 58.6-78.5%) and 63.2%
for the 600-mg endpoint (95% confidence interval of 53.0-73.3%) and 47.9% for the 1,000-mg endpoint (95%
confidence interval of 38.0-57.7%). The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval on the PALISADE
Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis greatly exceeded the pre-specified minimally clinically meaningful difference of
15%. Consistent with the known mechanism of OIT, allergic hypersensitivity reactions were common; however,
few patients experienced systemic allergic hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, that led to study
discontinuation (2.0% of the AR101-treated patients ages 4-17, compared to 0% for placebo-treated patients in
the same age group). On the AR101 treatment arm, 14.5% of patients ages 4-17 experienced systemic
hypersensitivity reactions, 98.2% of which were mild or moderate, and there was one case of severe anaphylaxis.
On the placebo treatment arm, 3.2% of patients ages 4-17 experienced systemic hypersensitivity events, all of
which were mild or moderate.

In addition, of patients ages 4-17, 12.4% of patients from the AR101 treatment arm and 2.4% of patients

from the placebo treatment arm in the same age group discontinued due to investigator-reported adverse events.

The positive top-line results generated in PALISADE, as well as our prior clinical trials, do not ensure that
our RAMSES or ARTEMIS trials will demonstrate similar results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical
trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy despite having progressed through initial clinical trials. A
number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials
due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies, and we
cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may
not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval or commercial acceptance for our product candidates in the
indications that we are seeking or at all. For example, while the majority of adults who completed the
PALISADE study in the AR101 arm successfully tolerated the 600 mg dosage (85%), the percentage of dropouts

39

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

in the 18-49 age range was substantially higher than in our 4-17 year old study population thereby reducing the
number of our ITT population in the 18-49 year old age range who successfully completed the DBPCFC. As a
result, in the exploratory subpopulation ages 18-49, the ITT analysis did not show statistical significance at the
600 mg dose level.

In addition, we do not know whether our planned or future clinical trials will need to be redesigned, enroll

an adequate number of patients on time or be conducted on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed or
terminated for a variety of reasons, including delay or failure to:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

obtain regulatory approval to commence a clinical trial;

reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations, or CROs,
clinical trial sites, and specialized clinical vendors, the terms of which can be subject to extensive
negotiation and may vary significantly among CROs, clinical trial sites and vendors;

obtain institutional review board, or IRB, or foreign equivalent approval at each site;

recruit suitable patients to participate in a clinical trial, including, in particular, a sufficient number of
adult patients to support approval in that patient population;

have patients complete a clinical trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;

ensure that clinical sites observe clinical trial protocols, operate in accordance with good clinical
practice standards, or continue to participate in a clinical trial;

address any patient safety concerns that arise during the course of a clinical trial, particularly with
respect to the DBPCFCs;

address any conflicts with new or existing laws or regulations;

initiate or add a sufficient number of clinical trial sites;

demonstrate that the manufacturing process for AR101 is adequately controlled to ensure that all
product produced meets required quality and regulatory standards;

• manufacture sufficient quantities of product candidate for use in clinical trials; or

•

provide clinical trial materials to our clinical sites on a timely basis.

We rely on CROs, specialized clinical vendors, clinical trial sites and consultants to ensure the proper and
timely conduct of our clinical trials and, while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have
limited influence over their actual performance and, as a result, may be subject to unanticipated delays. We are
conducting our clinical trials at leading academic allergy research centers in the United States and Europe, as
well as at community allergy practices. The number and capacity of such sites is limited and our ability to access
the sites may be affected by the number and size of other trials occurring at the same time, including trials
sponsored by our competitors. If adequate capacity at these sites is not available, the initiation and pace of our
clinical trials may be adversely affected.

Conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we are doing for our ARC004, ARTEMIS and ARC008

trials, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include a foreign
regulatory authority imposing additional requirements prior to the commencement of clinical trials in a foreign
country, the failure of physicians or enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result
of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, complying with data privacy regulations in the
European Union and Canada, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory
schemes, and political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries. For example, clinical trial materials
in the European Union must be certified and released by a designated qualified person, which can delay the
release of clinical trial materials to clinical sites in the European Union. In addition, the FDA may determine that
our clinical trial results obtained in foreign subjects are not representative of the U.S. patient population and are
thus not supportive of a BLA approval in the United States.

40

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials and is affected by many factors,
including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility
criteria for the clinical trial, the design of the clinical trial, safety, competing clinical trials, and clinicians’ and
patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available
therapies, including any new drugs or treatments that may be approved for the indications we are investigating.

In addition, certain sub-groups of patients may be more difficult to recruit than others. For example, to date,

we have enrolled only 57 patients above the age of 17, and we believe the adult patient population is more
difficult to recruit than younger patients. If the FDA concludes that additional safety and efficacy data is required
for the adult patient subgroup or any other age-based subgroup, any approval that we may obtain will not include
an indication for patients of such subgroup. If we are not able to recruit patients to participate in our clinical trials
in a timely manner, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs or foreign

equivalents of the institutions in which such studies are being conducted, by an independent Safety Review
Board for such clinical trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or
terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance
with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, failure to pass inspections of the clinical trial operations or
trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to
demonstrate a benefit from using the product, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions,
issues with the quality of or the manufacturing process used to produce our clinical trial materials or lack of
adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. For example, the protocols for certain of our clinical trials require
that patients participate in food challenges where they receive increasing amounts of the food to which they are
allergic. In our clinical trials, participation in these food challenges has resulted in allergic reactions severe
enough to require treatment with epinephrine. It is possible that patients could have allergic reactions severe
enough to require hospitalization or even cause death. In such an event, we could be required to suspend or
terminate our clinical trials.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates,
the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues
from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will
increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process, and jeopardize our
ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects, and stock price. In addition,
many of the factors that cause or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also
ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

In certain of our clinical trials, we utilize an oral food challenge procedure designed to trigger an allergic
reaction, which could be severe or life threatening.

In accordance with our food allergy clinical trial protocols, in certain clinical trials we utilize a DBPCFC

procedure. This consists of giving the offending food protein to patients in order to assess the sensitivity of their
food allergy, and thus to assess the safety and efficacy of our product candidates versus placebo. The food
challenge protocol is meant to induce objective symptoms of an allergic reaction. These oral food challenge
procedures can potentially trigger anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening systemic allergic reaction. Even
though these procedures are well-controlled, standardized, and performed in highly specialized centers with or
near intensive care units, there are inherent risks in conducting a clinical trial of this nature. Such risks may
dissuade patients or parents of patients from electing to participate in our clinical trials. In addition, an
uncontrolled allergic reaction could potentially lead to a serious or even fatal reaction and any such serious
clinical event could potentially adversely affect our clinical development timelines, including a complete clinical
hold on our food allergy clinical trials. For instance, we are aware of one clinical trial for a peanut allergy
treatment that was terminated by its safety monitoring committee because of severe adverse events arising from

41

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

the administration of food challenges. We may also become liable to subjects who participate in our clinical trials
and experience any such serious or fatal reactions. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on
our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects, and stock price.

Interim, “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to
time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures
that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim, “top-line” or preliminary data from our clinical studies. For
example, on February 20,2018 we announced top-line data from the PALISADE Phase 3 trial of AR101. Interim
data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes
may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or
“top-line” data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being
materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data
should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse changes between preliminary or interim
data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

The regulatory approval process is lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable, and we may
experience significant delays in obtaining regulatory approval of AR101, if at all, which would delay the
commercialization of AR101, adversely impact our ability to generate revenue, and harm our business and our
results of operations.

To gain approval to market a biologic product candidate, such as AR101, we must provide the FDA and
foreign regulatory authorities with clinical, non-clinical and manufacturing data that adequately demonstrates to
the satisfaction of such regulatory authority the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of the product for the
intended indication applied for in the BLA or other relevant regulatory filing. We have not previously submitted
a BLA to the FDA, or similar approval filings to comparable foreign regulatory authorities. A BLA or other
relevant regulatory filing must include extensive nonclinical and clinical data and supporting information to
establish that the product candidate is safe, pure, potent and effective for each desired indication. The BLA or
other relevant regulatory filing must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing
and controls for the product.

The FDA or any foreign regulatory bodies can delay, limit or deny approval to market AR101 for many

reasons, including:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

our inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA that AR101 is safe, pure, potent and
effective for the proposed indication or meets similar standards set by foreign authorities;

the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may disagree with the interpretation of data
from clinical trials;

our inability to demonstrate that the clinical and other benefits of AR101 outweigh any safety or other
perceived risks;

the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may require additional nonclinical studies or
clinical trials, including trials with additional patients in one or more subgroups or populations who
have been administered AR101;

the CROs that we retain to conduct our clinical trials may take actions outside of our control that
materially adversely impact our clinical trials;

the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may not approve or may disagree with the
formulation, packaging, labeling and/or the specifications of AR101;

if our BLA, if and when submitted, is reviewed by an advisory committee, the FDA may have
difficulties scheduling an advisory committee meeting in a timely manner or the advisory committee

42

may recommend against approval of our application or may recommend that the FDA require, as a
condition of approval, additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, limitations on approved labeling
or distribution and use restrictions;

the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may require development of a REMS as a
condition of approval or post-approval that is more extensive than proposed by us;

our inability to demonstrate that the manufacturing process for AR101 is adequately controlled to
ensure that all product produced meets required quality standards;

the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may fail to approve the manufacturing facilities
or testing laboratories that we use; or

the potential for approval policies or regulations of the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory
authorities to significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.

•

•

•

•

Of the large number of drugs and biologics in development, only a small percentage successfully complete

the FDA or other regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. In addition, the FDA has never
approved a drug for treating food allergy through desensitization and, in particular, has never approved a drug
based on efficacy as measured by a DBPCFC, which is the testing mechanism for determining the desensitization
efficacy of AR101.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA or foreign marketing
authorization for AR101, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent
on the performance of costly additional clinical trials. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority
may also approve AR101 for a more limited indication and/or a narrower patient population than we originally
request, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may not approve the labeling that we believe is
necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of AR101. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to
obtain, applicable regulatory approval or a regulatory approval for a more limited indication and/or narrower
patient population would delay, prevent, or limit commercialization of AR101 and would materially adversely
impact our business and prospects.

If we complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA for AR101 in-line with our current expected
timing, we would expect to be able to commence commercial sales of AR101 around the end of 2019. If we do
not receive marketing approval for AR101 or are otherwise not successful in commercializing AR101, or are
significantly delayed in doing so, our business will be materially harmed and we may need to curtail or cease
operations. We currently have no products approved for sale, and we may never obtain regulatory approval to
commercialize AR101.

If we do not achieve our projected development and commercialization goals in the timeframes we announce
and expect, the commercialization of AR101 or any additional product candidates may be delayed, and our
business will be harmed.

For planning purposes, we sometimes estimate the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific,
clinical, regulatory and other product development objectives. These milestones may include our expectations
regarding the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials, the submission of regulatory
filings, or commercialization objectives. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of
some of these milestones, such as the completion of an ongoing clinical trial, the initiation of other clinical
programs, receipt of marketing approval, or a commercial launch of a product. The achievement of many of these
milestones may be outside of our control. All of these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions which
may cause the timing of achievement of the milestones to vary considerably from our estimates, including:

•

•

our available capital resources or capital constraints we experience;

the rate of progress, costs and results of our clinical trials and research and development activities,
including the extent of scheduling conflicts with participating clinicians and collaborators;

43

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

our ability to identify and enroll patients who meet clinical trial eligibility criteria;

our receipt of approvals by the FDA and other regulatory authorities and the timing thereof;

other actions, decisions or rules issued by regulators;

our ability to access sufficient, reliable and affordable supplies of materials used in the manufacture of
our product candidates;

our ability to manufacture and supply clinical trial materials to our clinical sites on a timely basis;

the efforts of our collaborators with respect to the commercialization of our products; and

the securing of, costs related to, and timing issues associated with, product manufacturing as well as
sales and marketing activities.

If we fail to achieve announced milestones in the timeframes we expect, the commercialization of AR101 and

any additional product candidates may be delayed, and our business and results of operations may be harmed.

We rely exclusively on the Golden Peanut Company to provide the source material for AR101 and are exposed
to a number of sole supplier risks.

The source material for AR101 is a specific type of peanut flour, which we purchase from GPC pursuant to

a long-term exclusive commercial supply agreement, which was expanded and extended in January 2018. In
order to develop AR101 as an FDA-approvable biological product we were required to characterize the protein
signature of the flour. We believe the flour produced by GPC has a distinct protein signature that is significantly
different from the protein signatures of other commercially available peanut flours and, as a result, it is unlikely
that we could use any other peanut flours as the source material for AR101. If GPC became unwilling or unable
to supply us with peanut flour, our business and operating results would be materially adversely affected.

In addition, our restated agreement with GPC does not require GPC to provide us with peanut flour that has

a specific protein signature or that meets other potentially relevant pharmaceutical standards. We have tested
multiple lots of GPC peanut flour produced in several different years and generally have not identified significant
variations in the protein signature between lots. We can provide no assurance that natural variations in the
peanuts sourced by GPC, changes in the agricultural practices used to produce the peanuts sourced by GPC, or
variations in GPC’s manufacturing process will not result in alterations in the protein signature or other
characteristics of GPC’s peanut flour that would make it unsuitable for use in AR101. If such alterations
occurred, we would not be able to manufacture AR101 and our business and operating results would be
materially adversely affected. In addition, as our purchases of peanut flour from GPC represent an insignificant
portion of GPC’s total peanut flour sales, we have only a limited ability to influence GPC’s decisions regarding
its sourcing of peanuts or methods of producing peanut flour.

Our restated agreement with GPC restricts it from selling peanut flour products to any third party worldwide
for use in oral immunotherapy, or OIT, for peanut allergy. The restated agreement remains in effect until ten years
after the first delivery to us of peanut flour for commercial use and includes an option for us to extend the term for
an additional five years. GPC may terminate the restated agreement if we fail to cure a material breach within 30
days of receiving notice of such breach from GPC or if we fail to perform our obligations under the agreement for a
continuous period of 120 days due to a force majeure event or an insolvency or bankruptcy-related events. If GPC
were to make sales despite the restrictions set forth in the agreement, or terminate the agreement as a result of any of
the foregoing or if we were to otherwise lose exclusivity, we could face additional competition from pharmaceutical
and biotechnology companies, with considerably more resources and experience than we have, that are researching
and selling products designed to treat food allergies or allergies in general.

44

AR101 may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent its regulatory
approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences
following its marketing approval, if that occurs.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt,

delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval
by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. To date, patients treated with AR101 have
experienced drug-related side effects, which mainly include gastrointestinal issues ranging from itching of the lips
to vomiting. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side
effects. In such an event, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign
regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for
any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled
patients to complete the clinical trial or result in potential product liability claims.

In addition, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited

number of subjects and limited duration of exposure in our clinical trials, we cannot be assured that rare and
severe adverse effects of AR101 will not be uncovered when a significantly larger number of patients are
exposed to the drug. Further, we have not designed our clinical trials to determine the effect and safety
consequences of taking AR101 over a multi-year period.

Although we have monitored the subjects in our studies for certain safety concerns and we have not seen
evidence of significant safety concerns in our clinical trials, patients treated with AR101 have and may in the
future experience adverse reactions. For instance, in independent research studies, patients receiving OIT for
peanut allergy have suffered severe anaphylactic reactions. While we have developed AR101 and its associated
treatment regimen in a manner which we believe reduces the risk of adverse reactions, we can provide no
assurance that patients administered AR101 will not also suffer severe anaphylactic reactions, including reactions
leading to death. For example, in our PALISADE clinical trial, one patient had a severe allergic hypersensitivity
reaction that was attributed to AR101 compared to none of the placebo-treated patients and 12.4% of patients
ages 4-17 who received AR101 dropped out of the clinical trial due to gastrointestinal side effects, compared to
2.4% of placebo-treated patients. It is possible that the FDA may ask for additional data regarding such matters.

If safety problems relating to AR101 are identified in our clinical trials or in any clinical trials conducted by

collaborators prior to approval of AR101, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may not approve AR101, may
limit the population it is used in or may require warnings on the label. If AR101 is ultimately approved and we or
others later identify undesirable side effects caused by AR101, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may require
that we amend the labeling of AR101, require additional warnings, create a medication guide outlining the risks
of such side effects for distribution to patients, order us to recall AR101 or even withdraw marketing approval for
AR101. In addition, we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients and our reputation may suffer.
Each of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of AR101, if approved,
and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and
stock price.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

The potential efficacy of AR101, if approved, is dependent upon patient compliance with the prescribed dosing
regimen, and failure to adhere to the dosing regimen could increase the potential of a patient experiencing an
adverse allergic reaction.

The AR101 treatment regimen, if approved, would require that patients start with a very low dose of AR101
and gradually increase their dose over time. Based on our existing clinical data, we anticipate it will take patients
approximately six months to reach a daily dose level of 300 mg of peanut protein. Patients would then continue
on a daily 300 mg maintenance dose.

In order to maintain desensitization, patients would need to continue to take a daily 300 mg maintenance
dose. The potential efficacy of AR101, if approved, is dependent upon patients complying with the prescribed

45

dosing regimen, including the continued maintenance dosing. Based on our studies and independent studies, we
do not believe that the occasional failure to take a dose will affect desensitization. However, in the event a patient
fails to follow the prescribed dosing regimen, halts or skips treatment and then restarts the dosing regimen, the
likelihood of an adverse allergic reaction to the allergen is greatly increased, as any level of desensitization
previously achieved may have dissipated. Further, patients will be required to continue to practice avoidance to
peanut exposure and if patients begin to achieve desensitization, it is possible that they may become less vigilant
in practicing avoidance and further increase their risk of an accidental exposure. As a result, a lack of patient
compliance and the resulting increased likelihood for adverse safety events could have a material adverse effect
on our ability to obtain and maintain, if approved, the regulatory approval necessary to commercialize AR101.

Failure to do so would significantly harm our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects

and stock price. In addition, if patients drop out of our clinical trial due to the strict dosing regimen, the
likelihood that we will be able to demonstrate clinically meaningful desensitization will be decreased.

We rely on third parties to manufacture our clinical trial materials and intend to rely on third parties to
manufacture our commercial drug supply of AR101 and to manufacture nonclinical, clinical and commercial
supplies of any additional product candidate.

We do not currently have the internal capability to produce our clinical or commercial supply of AR101,
and we lack the internal resources and the capability to manufacture any product candidates on a nonclinical,
clinical or commercial scale. The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities must, pursuant to
inspections that will be conducted before and after we submit our BLA or relevant foreign regulatory submission,
approve our contract manufacturers to manufacture AR101 or any additional product candidates.

We have completed construction of a manufacturing facility in a leased building in Clearwater, Florida, at
the site of our primary contract manufacturer; however, we do not directly control the manufacturing operations
of our contract manufacturers, and we are completely dependent on them for operating that facility and for
compliance with cGMP for the manufacture of AR101. If the contract manufacturer operating that facility or our
other contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and
the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure
and/or maintain regulatory approval for our or their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no direct
control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and
qualified personnel. Furthermore, all of our contract manufacturers are engaged with other companies to supply
and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory
risks for the production of such materials and products. As a result, failure to meet the regulatory requirements
for the production of those materials and products may generally affect the regulatory clearance of our contract
manufacturers’ facilities. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these
facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws its approval in the future, we may need
to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact our ability to develop, obtain
regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Further, we rely on separate contract manufacturers to provide packaging services for AR101. We plan on
using blister packs as the final packaging configuration for our potential commercial launch of AR101. Stability
testing of AR101 in the blister pack configuration is ongoing. Any complications with the stability testing in the
blister pack configuration could extend the timelines for our planned clinical trials, which would delay the timing
of our regulatory filings for AR101. In addition, regulatory authorities may not find our proposed packing
configuration acceptable, which would also delay the timing of our regulatory filings or potential approval of
AR101.

We intend to rely on a single manufacturer for the production of the drug product used in AR101 and a

single contract manufacturer for the commercial packaging of AR101. As a result, we are exposed to risks
applicable to our contract manufacturers’ business, including their financial, leadership and operational risks. If

46

one of these manufacturers encountered financial difficulties and was unable to continue operating or was
acquired by a third party and changed strategic direction, our ability to obtain supplies of AR101 or additional
product candidates could be materially adversely affected.

We have not yet entered into an agreement with any third-party manufacturers to produce commercial
quantities of drug product used in AR101 or the packaging of AR101, and any failure to reach such an
agreement and commence the development process for AR101 in a timely manner would delay
commercialization of AR101.

We intend to rely on third-party manufacturers to develop a commercial-scale manufacturing process for
AR101. Aspects of our manufacturing process for AR101 are complex and our existing manufacturing process
will need to be scaled up to meet our anticipated commercial requirements. If we and our third-party
manufacturers are not able to develop successfully a commercial manufacturing process or do so in a timely
manner, we will not be able to initiate commercialization of AR101 within our estimated timeline, if at all. We
anticipate that we will initially be dependent on a single contract manufacturer for the production of the drug
product used in AR101 and a single contract manufacturer for the packaging of AR101 and that during such time,
our commercialization efforts will be substantially dependent on such contract manufacturers’ ability to scale up
the manufacturing process for AR101. We have agreements in place with both contract manufacturers. We
expect to enter into a commercial supply agreement with our drug product manufacturer in 2018.

Supplying our ongoing clinical trials and planned clinical trials is a complex operation.

Supplying appropriate clinical trial materials for our ongoing and planned clinical trials on a timely basis is

a complex operation. There are multiple doses in the up-dosing phase of our AR101 clinical trials. In addition,
each subject can proceed through the up-dosing phase at a different rate depending on how the subject responds
to each new dose. For example, a subject can move up to the next dose, remain on the current dose or move down
to the prior lower dose during the up-dosing phase of our trials. We believe that this dosing flexibility improves
outcomes for clinical trial subjects. But this dosing flexibility also increases the complexity of supplying the
appropriate doses to each clinical site on a timely basis. The complexity of our logistics operations for our
clinical trial materials increased significantly in 2017 as we initiated several new clinical trials of AR101. We
believe this complexity will continue as we continue to operate multiple large trials concurrently, including trials
in Europe. EU regulations require that each lot of clinical trial material be certified and released by a designated
qualified person. This certification and release process in the EU can cause delays in supplying clinical trial
materials to clinical sites. Any delays or errors in our AR101 supply chain logistics could delay or adversely
affect our clinical trials.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their
contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or
commercialize AR101 or any additional product candidates.

We do not have the ability to conduct clinical trials independently. We rely and plan to continue to rely on

medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories, collaborative partners and other third parties,
such as CROs, specialized clinical vendors and consultants to conduct clinical trials on our product candidates.
The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct
of these studies and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. However, these third parties are not our
employees, and except for contractual duties and obligations, we have limited ability to control the amount or
timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our
clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with
the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not
relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities require us and our third-party contractors to comply with
regulations and standards, including regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, which

47

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities for conducting,
monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are
scientifically credible and accurate, and that the clinical trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential
risks of participating in clinical trials. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of
clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of our third-party contractors
fail to comply with applicable GCPs or data privacy requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials
may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform
additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure our stockholders that
upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical
trials complies with GCP regulations.

In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us
from time to time and may receive compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any
related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or regulatory authorities conclude that the
financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the trial, the integrity of the data generated at the
applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which
could result in the delay or rejection by the regulatory authority of any marketing application we submit. Any
such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing AR101 or our other future product candidates.

Furthermore, certain of our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under current good

manufacturing practice, or cGMP, regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to
repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. In addition, the execution of clinical
trials, and the subsequent compilation and analysis of the data produced, requires coordination among various
parties. In order for these functions to be carried out effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that these parties
communicate and coordinate with one another. Moreover, these third parties may also have relationships with
other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. In addition, our agreements with third parties
may typically be terminated by such third parties upon as little as 30 days’ prior written notice or, in certain
cases, under certain other circumstances, including our insolvency. If the third parties conducting our clinical
trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected
deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical
data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols. GCPs or data privacy
requirements, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties, which could be
difficult, costly or impossible, and our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated or may need to be
repeated. If any of the foregoing were to occur, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or
commercialize the product candidate being tested in such studies.

Even if AR101 or any additional product candidates obtain regulatory approval, they may never achieve
market acceptance or commercial success, which will depend, in part, upon the degree of acceptance among
clinicians, patients, patient advocacy groups, healthcare payors and the general medical community.

Even if we obtain FDA or other regulatory approvals, AR101 or any additional product candidates may not

achieve market acceptance among clinicians, patients, patient advocacy groups, healthcare payors and the general
medical community. With respect to AR101, which we intend to market as a means of obtaining protection from
accidental exposure to peanut protein and not as a cure for peanut allergy, we anticipate that clinicians will
continue to recommend that their patients strictly avoid foods that may contain any amount of peanut protein and
continue to carry epinephrine auto-injectors even if the patients have been successfully desensitized with AR101.
As a result, if we are unable to persuade clinicians, patients, caregivers and payors that AR101 has therapeutic
value when used in conjunction with the practice of avoidance, our sales will be adversely affected.

In addition, we may face challenges in gaining market acceptance as a result of our therapeutic approach,

which exposes patients to the exact allergen that poses a risk of causing a severe allergic reaction.

48

Many clinicians believe that previous oral immunotherapy approaches to the treatment of peanut allergy are
too unsafe or unreliable to use in clinical practice. We are also susceptible to changes in the public perception of
the safety and efficacy of desensitization treatments. For example, if a competitor’s desensitization treatment
similar to our own had significant safety issues, perceptions of our products could also be negatively impacted
even if our product did not have similar safety issues. If we are unable to convince clinicians and their patients
that AR101 is safe and reliable, our sales will be adversely affected.

Furthermore, market acceptance of AR101 or any additional product candidates for which we receive

approval depends on a number of factors, including:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

the efficacy of the product as demonstrated in clinical trials;

the frequency and severity of any adverse effects and overall safety profile of the product;

the clinical indication for which the product is approved including any limitations on the patient
population for which it is indicated;

acceptance by clinicians and patients of the product as a safe and effective treatment and their
perceptions of the benefit of the product;

the evaluation of our products by governmental health technology assessment organizations;

the relative convenience and ease of administration of our products, including patients’ acceptance of
the need to take our product candidates mixed with food;

patient and parent acceptance of our product’s formulation and packaging;

the willingness of patients to comply with a treatment regimen that requires daily administration of our
product candidates on a chronic basis;

the potential and perceived advantages of our product candidates over current treatment options or
alternative treatments, including future alternative treatments;

the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments and willingness to pay for our products, if
approved, on the part of clinicians and patients;

the availability of products and their ability to meet market demand, including a reliable supply for
long-term daily treatment;

the strength of our marketing and distribution organizations;

the quality of our relationships with patient advocacy groups; sufficient third-party coverage or
reimbursement for our product candidates; and

sufficient third-party payments to clinicians for the procedures necessary to administer product
candidates.

Any failure by our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval to achieve market acceptance or

commercial success would adversely affect the results of our operations.

In September 2017, the FDA announced that it would permit the labeling of conventional food products

containing ground peanuts to bear a qualified health claim stating that for certain infants and under certain
conditions, the consumption of such products may reduce the risk of developing peanut allergy. This qualified
health claim speaks to risk reduction rather than treatment of peanut allergy. AR101 is an investigational biologic
for the treatment of peanut allergy. Significant and successful use of such food products or dietary supplements
to reduce the risk of peanut allergy may impact the prevalence of peanut allergy and the level of demand for
AR101, which may adversely impact our business and results of operations.

49

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

AR101, if approved, or any additional product candidates may face significant competition and our failure to
effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration.

The pharmaceutical market is highly competitive and dynamic, and is characterized by rapid and substantial

technological development and product innovations. In particular, we compete in the segments of the
pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that address the treatment of food allergies. As a result,
we may face competition from many pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, with considerably more
resources and experience than we have, that are researching and selling products designed to treat food allergies
or allergies in general. For example, in October 2017, DBV Technologies S.A. announced results from its
completed Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating Viaskin Peanut in peanut-allergic patients (4 to 11 years of age) and,
notwithstanding the failure to achieve the primary endpoint, has indicated that it still plans to submit a BLA in
the second half of 2018, and it could potentially receive regulatory approval before AR101. Many of our
competitors have materially greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, research and drug development
resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular have extensive expertise
in nonclinical and clinical testing and in obtaining regulatory approvals for drugs. In addition, academic
institutions, government agencies and other public and private organizations conducting research may seek patent
protection with respect to potentially competitive products or technologies. These organizations may also
establish exclusive collaborative or licensing relationships with our competitors. Failure to effectively compete
against additional products approved for the treatment of peanut allergy could harm our business and results of
operations.

We may also face competition from clinicians who provide oral immunotherapy to patients using

commercially available source material. In addition, peanut allergic patients may attempt to use food products as
a substitute for AR101 in the maintenance portion of our AR101 treatment program. If we are unable to convince
clinicians, patients and caregivers, that our products have advantages over these self-developed approaches to
oral immunotherapy, our business and results of operation could be materially adversely affected.

AR101 and any additional product candidates are regulated as biological products, or biologics, which may
subject them to competition sooner than anticipated.

With the enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, as part of
the Affordable Care Act, an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological
products was created. The abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and
approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its
similarity to an existing brand product. To be considered biosimilar, a product candidate must be highly similar
to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. In addition, there
can be no clinically meaningful differences between the product candidate and the reference product in terms of
the safety, purity and potency of the product. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable
with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same
clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the
reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or
risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. We believe that the concentrations
of relevant proteins in the peanut flour we source pursuant to our exclusive contract with GPC are significantly
different from the concentrations of proteins found in other commercially available sources of peanut flour, and
that a product candidate using different concentrations of such proteins or different proteins might not be
considered “highly similar” to AR101 by the FDA. In that case, such a product candidate would not be eligible
for the biosimilar approval pathway. However, there can be no guarantee that the FDA would agree with this
interpretation. Indeed, the BPCIA is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a
result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when
such processes intended to implement the BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could
have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological product candidates.

50

Under the BPCIA, no approval of an application for a biosimilar product may be made effective until 12

years after the original branded product is first licensed by the FDA pursuant to the approval of a BLA. We
believe that if the FDA approves a BLA for AR101, AR101 should qualify for this 12-year period of market
exclusivity, known as reference product exclusivity, such that no approval of a biosimilar version of our product
could become effective prior to the expiration of that 12-year period. However, these exclusivity provisions have
been subject to various interpretations that have not yet been fully addressed by the FDA, and there is a risk that
this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider
AR101 to be eligible for reference product exclusivity, potentially creating the opportunity for competition
sooner than anticipated. In addition, even if AR101 were to receive reference product exclusivity, a competitor
may seek approval of a product candidate under a full BLA rather than a biosimilar product application. In such a
case, although the competitor would not enjoy the benefits of the abbreviated pathway for biosimilar approval
created under the BPCIA, the FDA would not be precluded from making effective an approval of the competitor
product pursuant to a BLA prior to the expiration of our 12-year period of marketing exclusivity.

In addition, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference
products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear. In
particular, it is unclear at this juncture whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be
readily substituted by pharmacies. Such substitution will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory
factors that are still developing.

We currently have no sales organization or distribution network. If we are unable to establish sales
capabilities and a distribution network on our own or through third parties, we may not be able to market, sell
and distribute AR101, if approved, or any additional product candidates or generate product revenue.

If we complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA for AR101 in-line with our current expected

timing, we would expect to be able to commence commercial sales of AR101 around the end of 2019. We
currently do not have a sales organization. In order to commercialize AR101, we will need to build our
marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third
parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If AR101 receives regulatory
approval, we expect to establish a specialty sales organization with technical expertise and supporting
distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, which will be expensive and time-consuming.

We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products and there

are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain,
and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and
marketing personnel, and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or
delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the
commercialization of these products. Further, given our lack of prior experience in marketing, selling and
distributing pharmaceutical products, our estimates of the number of sales representatives needed to
commercialize AR101 may be materially less than the actual number of sales representatives required. As such,
we may be required to hire substantially more sales representatives to adequately support the commercialization
of AR101, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition,
prospects and stock price.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

We may choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces or established distribution
systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and
distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not
be able to successfully commercialize AR101. If we are not successful in commercializing AR101 or any
additional product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our
additional product revenue will suffer and we would incur significant additional losses.

51

Any product candidate that we are able to commercialize may become subject to unfavorable pricing
regulations, third-party coverage or reimbursement policies.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any drug candidates for which

we obtain regulatory approval. Our ability to commercialize any products successfully in the United States will
depend in part on the extent to which adequate coverage and reimbursement for these products becomes available
from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, such as those that administer the
Medicare and Medicaid programs, and private health insurers. Third-party payors are generally able to affect the
utilization of drugs by a variety of mechanisms, including deciding which medications they will cover,
determining the amount they will pay for a product, establishing which formulary tier to place the drug on that
may result in, among other things, greater out-of-pocket costs to patients, and creating pre-authorization
procedures. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry is cost containment. Coverage, reimbursement,
out-of-pocket costs to patients, and pre-authorization requirements may impact the demand for any product for
which we obtain marketing approval. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that companies provide them
with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. If
coverage and reimbursement are not available or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to
successfully commercialize any product candidate that we successfully develop.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for approved products, and
coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA. Moreover,
eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers
our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new
products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment
rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on
payments allowed for lower cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing
payments for other services. Net prices for products 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 products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. In the
United States, private third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage and reimbursement policies and
payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain
adequate coverage, reimbursement and profitable payment rates from both government funded and private payors
for new products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations,
financial condition, prospects and stock price.

In addition, the anticipated treatment regimen for AR101 and our other products candidates requires a

clinician to see the patient every two weeks during the up-dosing portion of the regimen. These appointments
may take significant time as the patient has to be monitored for two hours after receiving an increased dose. It is
not certain whether the existing reimbursement codes that can be appropriately used for these visits adequately
compensate clinicians for the time spent on the visits. We may decide to seek the creation of new codes and
associated reimbursement rates to ensure that clinicians are adequately compensated; however, creation of new
codes is a complicated and lengthy process and we may not be successful in any such efforts. If appropriate
codes and compensation are not available, clinicians may be deterred from offering AR101 to their patients and
our business and operating results would be adversely affected.

In the past, under the Medicare program, physician payments were updated on an annual basis according to
a statutory formula. When the application of the statutory formula for the update factor would have resulted in a
decrease in total physician payments, Congress would intervene with interim legislation to prevent the
reductions. In April 2015, however, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA,
was signed into law, which repealed and replaced the statutory formula for Medicare payment adjustments to
physicians. MACRA provided a permanent end to the annual interim legislative updates that had previously been
necessary to delay or prevent significant reductions to payments under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.
MACRA provided for a 0.5% update from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, and for each calendar year

52

through 2019, after which there will be a 0% annual update each year through 2025. In addition, MACRA
required the establishment of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, beginning in 2019, under
which physicians may receive performance based payment incentives or payment reductions based on their
performance with respect to clinical quality, resource use, clinical improvement activities and meaningful use of
electronic health records. MACRA also required the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS,
beginning in 2019, to provide incentive payments for physicians and other eligible professionals that participate
in alternative payment models, such as accountable care organizations, that emphasize quality and value over the
traditional volume-based fee-for-service model. It is unclear what impact, if any, MACRA will have on our
business and operating results, but any resulting decrease in payment may result in reduced demand for our
product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Outside of the United States, the regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and
reimbursement for new therapeutic products vary widely from country to country. Some countries require
approval of the sale price of a product 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 might obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price
regulations that delay or prevent our commercial launch of the product and negatively impact the revenue we are
able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. We will need to evaluate clinician compensation
mechanisms in each market outside of the United States to determine whether any action needs to be taken to
allow for payment of physicians for administration of the treatment regimens.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to
limit commercialization of AR101 or any additional product candidates, and our existing insurance coverage
may not be sufficient to satisfy any liability that may arise.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and

will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we
develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing,
marketing or sale. In addition, we may be sued if our product fails to protect a patient from exposure to a food
allergen. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in
design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties.

Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend

ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit
commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and
management resources.

Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

decreased demand for AR101 or any additional product candidates;

injury to our reputation;

withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

costs to defend the related litigation;

a diversion of management’s time and our resources;

substantial monetary awards to clinical trial participants or patients;

regulatory investigations, product recalls or withdrawals, or labeling, marketing or promotional
restrictions;

loss of revenue; and

the inability to commercialize AR101 or any additional product candidates.

53

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of

coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of
AR101 or any additional products we develop. Although we maintain product liability insurance covering the use
of our product candidates in clinical trials, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court
judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess
of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and
we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts
awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by
our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the
future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect
us against losses.

If and when we obtain approval for marketing AR101, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to
include the sale of AR101. However, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially
reasonable terms, if at all.

We will need to significantly increase the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in
managing growth.

As of December 31, 2017, we had 131 full-time employees. We will need to continue to expand our

managerial, operational, finance, clinical, manufacturing, commercial and other resources in order to manage our
operations, regulatory filings, manufacturing and supply activities, marketing and commercialization activities,
clinical trials and develop and commercialize AR101 or any additional product candidates. Our management,
personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need
to effectively execute our growth strategy requires that we:

•

•

•

•

•

expand our general and administrative, manufacturing, sales, marketing and clinical development
organizations;

identify, recruit, retain, incentivize and integrate additional employees;

establish the infrastructure necessary to support international operations;

manage our internal development efforts effectively while carrying out our contractual obligations to
third parties; and

continue to improve our operational, legal, financial and management controls, reporting systems and
procedures.

We may be unable to successfully implement these tasks, which could have a material adverse effect on our

business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and stock price.

If we fail to attract and retain senior management, we may be unable to successfully develop AR101 or any
additional product candidates, conduct our clinical trials and commercialize AR101 or any additional product
candidates.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified
personnel. In particular, we are highly dependent upon our senior management. The loss of services of any of
these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our
planned clinical trial or the commercialization of AR101 or any additional product candidates. Although we have
entered into employment agreements with our senior management team, these agreements do not provide for a
fixed term of service. In November 2017, we entered into a Transition and Separation Agreement with
Dr. Stephen Dilly, our president and chief executive officer. Pursuant to the agreement, Dr. Dilly will continue to
serve in such roles and continue to serve as a member of our Board through the earlier of December 31, 2018 and

54

the date that we appoint a new chief executive officer. Any difficulties in obtaining and integrating a suitable
replacement for Dr. Dilly prior to his departure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.

Although we have not historically experienced unique difficulties attracting and retaining qualified

employees, we could experience such problems in the future. For example, competition for qualified personnel in
the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals field is intense due to the limited number of individuals who possess the
skills and experience required by our industry. We will need to hire additional personnel as we expand our
clinical development and manufacturing activities. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on
acceptable terms or at all. In addition, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to
allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential
information, or that their former employers own their research output.

We incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management devotes
substantial time to new compliance initiatives. We may fail to comply with the rules that apply to public
companies, including Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which could result in sanctions or other
penalties that would harm our business.

We incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses as a public company, including costs resulting

from public company reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and regulations regarding corporate governance practices. We are subject to Section 404 of The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, and the related rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
or SEC, which generally require our management and independent registered public accounting firm to report on
the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, the listing requirements of The
Nasdaq Global Select Market require that we satisfy certain corporate governance requirements relating to
director independence, distributing annual and interim reports, stockholder meetings, approvals and voting,
soliciting proxies, conflicts of interest and a code of conduct. Our management and other personnel will need to
devote a substantial amount of time to ensure that we comply with all of these requirements. Moreover, the
reporting requirements, rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will
make some activities more time-consuming and costly. Any changes we make to comply with these obligations
may not be sufficient to allow us to satisfy our obligations as a public company on a timely basis, or at all. These
reporting requirements, rules and regulations, coupled with the increase in potential litigation exposure
associated with being a public company, could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified
persons to serve on our board of directors or board committees or to serve as executive officers, or to obtain
certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ insurance, on acceptable terms. In addition, as a
public company we are required to file accurate and timely quarterly and annual reports with the SEC under the
Exchange Act. Any failure to report our financial results on an accurate and timely basis could result in
sanctions, lawsuits, delisting of our shares from The Nasdaq Global Select Market or other adverse consequences
that would materially affect our business.

We intend to implement an enterprise resource planning, or ERP, system for our company in 2018. An ERP

system is intended to combine and streamline the management of our financial, accounting, human resources,
sales and marketing and other functions, enabling us to manage operations and track performance more
effectively. However, an ERP system would likely require us to complete many processes and procedures for the
effective use of the system or to run our business using the system, which may result in substantial costs.
Additionally, during the conversion process, we may be limited in our ability to convert any business that we
acquire to the ERP. Any disruptions or difficulties in implementing or using an ERP system could adversely
affect our controls and harm our business, including our ability to forecast or make sales and collect our
receivables. Moreover, such disruption or difficulties could result in unanticipated costs and diversion of
management attention.

55

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

If we are not successful in identifying, acquiring or commercializing additional product candidates, our ability
to expand our business and achieve our strategic objectives would be impaired.

Although a substantial amount of our effort will focus on the continued clinical testing, potential approval

and commercialization of AR101, an important element of our strategy is to expand our product portfolio by
identifying, developing and commercializing additional therapies including therapies using our CODIT
therapeutic approach, including product candidates for the treatment of egg allergy and walnut allergy. A key
component of our CODIT approach is utilizing defined dosages of well-characterized food proteins in order to
allow for gradual updosing. This requires manufacturing stable and standardized drug product, which, for
naturally occurring food based drug products, can be complex and difficult especially in low doses. Other than
AR101, none of our product candidates have been tested in human clinical trials and many of our potential
product candidates are still in the discovery stage. In addition, while we intend to evaluate third-party product
candidates and technologies for the treatment of food allergies, we currently have no plans to acquire or
in-license any specific product candidate. Our efforts to develop, acquire or in-license product candidates may be
unsuccessful for many reasons, including:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

we may not be successful in identifying potential product candidates;

we may not accurately assess the relative technical feasibility or commercial potential of potential
product candidates and may not select the most promising product candidates for development,
acquisition or in-licensing;

competitors may develop alternatives that render our product candidates obsolete or less attractive;

product candidates we develop, acquire or in-license may nevertheless be covered by third-parties’
patents or other exclusive rights;

the market for a product candidate may change over time so that such a product may become
unreasonable to continue to develop;

a product candidate may on further study be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics
that indicate it is unlikely to be effective or otherwise does not meet applicable regulatory criteria;

we may have difficulties finding contract manufacturers willing to manufacture our product candidates,
which include food allergens;

a product candidate may not be capable of being produced in clinical or commercial quantities at an
acceptable cost, or at all; and

a product candidate may not be accepted as safe and effective by clinicians, patients, patient advocacy
groups, healthcare payors or the general medical community.

If we fail to develop and successfully commercialize other product candidates, our business and future

prospects may be harmed and our business will be more vulnerable to any problems that we encounter in
developing and commercializing AR101.

Our existing and any future collaboration arrangements that we may enter into in the future may not be
successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize AR101 and potential
additional product candidates.

In October 2017, we entered into a clinical collaboration agreement with Regeneron Ireland Unlimited
Company and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS to study AR101 with adjunctive dupilumab in peanut-allergic patients
in a Phase 2 trial sponsored by Regeneron. In the future we may seek additional collaboration arrangements with
pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for the development or commercialization of AR101 and other
product candidates depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to
entering into collaboration arrangements. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators.
Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and

56

maintain. We may also not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other
alternative arrangements that we have entered into or that we may choose to enter into in the future. The terms of
any such collaborations or other arrangements may also not be favorable to us.

Our existing and any future collaborations that we may enter into may not be successful. The success of
such collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators and any
such collaboration agreement may not result in the realization of the benefits we expected to achieve upon our
entry into such arrangements. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include that:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to
collaborations;

collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of our product candidates or may
elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial
results, changes in their strategic focus due to the acquisition of competitive products, availability of
funding or other external factors, such as a business combination that diverts resources or creates
competing priorities;

any of our product candidates that are administered in combination with a collaborator’s product or
product candidate could result in previously unforeseen adverse events or adverse events that are
primarily related to the adjunctive therapy but cause higher rates or more severe events of treatment
related adverse events;

collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a
clinical trial, abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new
formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;

collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly
or indirectly with our products or product candidates;

a collaborator with marketing, manufacturing and distribution rights to one or more products may not
commit sufficient resources to or otherwise not perform satisfactorily in carrying out these activities;

we could grant exclusive rights to our collaborators that would prevent us from collaborating with
others;

collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our
intellectual property or proprietary information in a way that gives rise to actual or threatened litigation
that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to
potential liability;

disputes may arise between us and a collaborator that causes the delay or termination of the research,
development or commercialization of our current or additional products or that results in costly
litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources;

collaborations may be terminated, and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to
pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable current or additional products;

collaborators may own or co-own intellectual property covering our products that results from our
collaborating with them, and in such cases, we would not have the exclusive right to develop or
commercialize such intellectual property; and

a collaborator’s sales and marketing activities or other operations may not be in compliance with
applicable laws resulting in civil or criminal proceedings.

If we engage in acquisitions, we will incur a variety of costs and we may never realize the anticipated benefits
of such acquisitions.

Although we currently have no plans to do so, we may attempt to acquire businesses, technologies, services,

products or product candidates that we believe are a strategic fit with our business. If we do undertake any

57

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

acquisitions, the process of integrating an acquired business, technology, service, products or product candidates
into our business may result in unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures, including diversion of
resources and management’s attention from our core business. In addition, we may fail to retain key executives
and employees of the companies we acquire, which may reduce the value of the acquisition or give rise to
additional integration costs. Future acquisitions could result in additional issuances of equity securities that
would dilute the ownership of existing stockholders. Future acquisitions could also result in the incurrence of
debt, contingent liabilities or the amortization of expenses related to other intangible assets, any of which could
adversely affect our operating results. In addition, we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of any
acquisition.

Recent U.S. tax legislation and future changes to applicable U.S. or foreign tax laws and regulations may
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to income and other taxes in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. Changes in laws and policy

relating to taxes or trade may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations. For example, the U.S. government recently enacted significant tax reform, and certain provisions of
the new law may adversely affect us. Changes include, but are not limited to, a federal corporate tax rate decrease
from 34% to 21% for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the transition of U.S. international taxation
from a worldwide tax system to a more generally territorial system, and a one-time transition tax on the
mandatory deemed repatriation of foreign earnings. The legislation is unclear in many respects and could be
subject to potential amendments and technical corrections, and will be subject to interpretations and
implementing regulations by the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, any of which could mitigate or increase
certain adverse effects of the legislation. In addition, it is unclear how these U.S. federal income tax changes will
affect state and local taxation. Generally, future changes in applicable U.S. or foreign tax laws and regulations, or
their interpretation and application could have an adverse effect on our business, financial conditions and results
of operations.

If we obtain approval to commercialize AR101 outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with
international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

If we or a collaborator seek to commercialize AR101 outside the United States, we expect that we will be
subject to additional risks related to entering into these international markets or business relationships, including:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

different regulatory requirements for drug approvals in foreign countries;

different approaches by reimbursement agencies regarding the assessment of the cost effectiveness of
AR101;

differing U.S. and foreign drug import and export rules;

reduced protection for intellectual property rights in certain foreign countries;

unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements;

different reimbursement systems for food allergy medications and for clinicians treating food allergy
patients;

different data privacy regulations, especially in the European Union;

economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and
markets;

compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling
abroad;

foreign taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes;

58

•

•

•

•

•

foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced
revenues, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country;

workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;

production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing
capabilities abroad;

potential liability resulting from activities conducted on our behalf by distributors or other vendors we
engage; and

business interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war and terrorism, or natural
disasters.

The results of the United Kingdom’s referendum on withdrawal from the European Union may have a
negative effect on global economic conditions, financial markets and our business.

In June 2016, a majority of voters in the United Kingdom elected to withdraw from the European Union in a
national referendum. The referendum was advisory, and the terms of any withdrawal are subject to a negotiation
period that could last at least two years after the government of the United Kingdom formally initiates a
withdrawal process. Nevertheless, the referendum has created significant uncertainty about the future relationship
between the United Kingdom and the European Union, including with respect to the laws and regulations that
will apply as the United Kingdom determines which European Union laws to replace or replicate in the event of a
withdrawal. The referendum has also given rise to calls for the governments of other European Union member
states to consider withdrawal. These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, have had and
may continue to have a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial
markets, and may significantly reduce global market liquidity and restrict the ability of key market participants to
operate in certain financial markets.

We have ongoing business in the United Kingdom and the European Union, including employees in the
United Kingdom. Further, our ongoing ARTEMIS study is being conducted solely in Europe. Any application for
Marketing Authorization, or MA, for AR101 or any other product candidate that we may file in the future must
be filed by an entity located in a European Union member nation. The lack of clarity about future United
Kingdom laws and regulations, as the United Kingdom determines which European Union laws to replace or
replicate in the event of a withdrawal, includes regulations related to clinical trials, marketing authorization for
drug products, intellectual property rights and employment and labor matters. A lack of clarity in these areas,
which are central to the development of our product candidates in the United Kingdom and the European Union
and our ongoing business activities in the United Kingdom, may cause operational and strategic uncertainty for
us as we consider the timing of and requirements for approval in the United Kingdom for AR101 and the effect
of a potential withdrawal on our employees located in the United Kingdom.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and our third-party manufacturers and suppliers
must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do
business.

Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve

the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are
subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous
materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our
and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination,
which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and
business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean up and liabilities under applicable laws and
regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products.
Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and

59

disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we
cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these
materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our
resources and governmental authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business
operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to
become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future
compliance. We do not currently carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage. Any of the foregoing
risks could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of
operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the
global financial markets. The recent global financial crisis caused extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital
and credit markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, such as the recent global financial crisis, could
result in a variety of risks to our business, including reduced ability to raise additional capital when needed on
acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in
supply disruption. Any of the foregoing could have a materially adverse impact on our business and we cannot
anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely
impact our business.

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 us from a serious
disaster.

Our corporate headquarters is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which in the past has experienced
severe earthquakes. We do not carry earthquake insurance. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely
disrupt our operations, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial
condition, prospects and stock price.

If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant

portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our enterprise financial systems or
manufacturing resource planning and enterprise quality systems, 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, which, particularly when taken together
with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Furthermore, our contract manufacturer and integral parties in our supply chain, are operating from single

sites, increasing their vulnerability to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and severe adverse events. In
particular, our manufacturing facility for AR101 is located in Florida, which has historically and very recently
experienced severe hurricanes. In addition, the source material for AR101 is a specific type of peanut flour that is
grown and processed in Georgia, which has historically experienced tornadoes and hurricanes. If hurricanes or
other natural disasters were to affect our contract manufacturer or our supply chain, it could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and stock price.

A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure or those of third parties, including those caused by
security breaches, cyber-attacks or data protection failures, could disrupt our business, damage our reputation
and causes losses.

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage, and transmission of confidential and other

information and assets, including in our computer systems and networks. Our business, including our ability to

60

report our financial results in a timely and accurate manner and our ability to collect and analyze clinical data to
support regulatory filings for our product candidates, depends significantly on the integrity, availability and
timeliness of the data we maintain, as well as the data and assets held through third party outsourcers, such as
clinical vendors and clinical research organizations, service providers and systems.

Although we have implemented administrative and technical controls and take protective actions to reduce
the risk of cyber incidents and to protect our information technology and assets, and we endeavor to modify such
procedures as circumstances warrant and negotiate agreements with third party providers to protect our assets,
such measures may be insufficient to prevent, among other things, unauthorized access, computer viruses,
malware or other malicious code or cyber-attack, catastrophic events, system failures and disruptions (including
in relation to new security measures and systems), employee errors or malfeasance, third party (including
outsourced service providers) errors or malfeasance, loss of assets and other security events (each, a “Security
Event”). We may be subject to Security Events, which could have a material adverse impact on our business,
results of operations or financial condition. As the breadth and complexity of our security infrastructure
continues to grow, the potential risk of a Security Event increases. If Security Events occur, these events may
jeopardize our or our clinical vendors’ or collaborators’ or counterparties’ confidential and other information
processed and stored with us, and transmitted through our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause
interruptions, delays, or malfunctions in our, counterparties’ or third parties’ operations, or result in data loss or
loss of assets which could result in significant losses and/or fines, reputational damage or a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or operating results. We may be required to expend significant
additional resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other
exposures and to pursue recovery of lost data or assets and we may be subject to litigation and financial losses.
We currently maintain cyber liability insurance that provides third party or first party liability coverages to
protect us, subject to policy limits and coverages, against certain events that could be a Security Event. However,
a Security Event could nonetheless have a material adverse effect on our operating results or financial condition.

We outsource certain technology and business process functions to third parties and may increasingly do so

in the future. For example, we outsource certain data management and analysis functions for our clinical trials
and use cloud-based systems for financial and human resources data. If we do not effectively develop, implement
and monitor our outsourcing strategy, third party providers do not perform as anticipated or we experience
technological or other problems with a transition, we may not realize productivity improvements or cost
efficiencies and may experience operational difficulties, increased costs and loss of business. Our outsourcing of
certain technology and business processes functions to third parties may expose us to enhanced risks related to
data security, which could result in monetary and reputational damages. In addition, our ability to receive
services from third party providers may be impacted by cultural differences, political instability, unanticipated
regulatory requirements or policies. As a result, our ability to conduct our business may be adversely affected.

We face regulation and potential liability related to the privacy of health information we obtain from clinical
trials sponsored by us or our collaborators.

The regulatory environment surrounding information security and privacy is increasingly demanding. We
are subject to numerous U.S. federal and state laws and non-U.S. regulations governing the protection of personal
and confidential information of our clinical subjects, clinical investigators, and employees, including in relation
to medical records, credit card data and financial information. For example, on May 25, 2016, the European
General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, entered into force following four years of negotiation. The GDPR
repeals the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and will be directly applicable in all E.U. member states starting
on May 25, 2018. We will be subject to the GDPR when conducting clinical trials with E.U. based data subjects
(whether the trials are conducted directly by us or through a clinical vendor or collaborator) or offering approved
products to E.U. based data subjects (regardless of whether involving our E.U. based subsidiary or operations).
The GDPR sets out a number of requirements that must be complied with when handling the personal data of
such E.U. based data subjects including: the obligation to appoint data protection officers in certain

61

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

circumstances; new rights for individuals to be “forgotten” and rights to data portability; the principal of
accountability and the obligation to make public notification of significant data breaches. These laws and
regulations are increasing in complexity and number, change frequently and sometimes conflict. In particular, as
the E.U. states reframe their national legislation to prepare for and harmonize with the GDPR, we will need to
monitor compliance with all relevant E.U. member states’ laws and regulations, including where permitted
derogations from the GDPR are introduced.

The introduction of the GDPR, and any resultant changes in E.U. member states’ national laws and
regulations, may increase our compliance obligations and may necessitate the review and implementation of
policies and processes relating to our collection and use of data. This increase in compliance obligations could
also lead to an increase in compliance costs which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial
condition or results of operations.

If any person, including any of our employees, clinical vendors or collaborators or those with whom we
share such information, negligently disregards or intentionally breaches our established controls with respect to
our clinical subject, clinical investigator or employee data, or otherwise mismanages or misappropriates that data,
we could be subject to significant monetary damages, regulatory enforcement actions, fines and/or criminal
prosecution in one or more jurisdictions. For example, under the GDPR there are significant new punishments for
non-compliance which could result in a penalty of up to 4% of a firm’s global annual revenue. In addition, a data
breach could result in negative publicity which could damage our reputation and have an adverse effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, we have certified under the U.S.-European Union Privacy Shield with respect to our transfer of

certain personal information from the E.U. to the U.S. In 2016, the Department of Commerce and the E.U.
completed the negotiation of the “Privacy Shield” framework, which allows U.S.-based companies to transfer
personal data about European citizens from E.U. to the U.S., after the U.S.-based company has certified
compliance with the Privacy Shield framework with the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, the agreement
itself faces a number of legal challenges and is subject to annual review. This has resulted in some uncertainty,
and compliance obligation could cause us to incur costs or require us to change our business practices in a
manner adverse to our business. If it were to be determined that we were not complying with our obligations
under the Privacy Shield framework and we were to lose our Privacy Shield certification from the Department of
Commerce, we may face difficulties in transferring data from E.U. to the U.S.

We strive to comply with all applicable laws, but they may conflict with each other, and by complying with

the laws or regulations of one jurisdiction, we may find that we are violating the laws or regulations of another
jurisdiction. Despite our efforts, we may not have fully complied in the past and may not in the future. If we
become liable under laws or regulations applicable to us, we could be required to pay significant fines and
penalties, our reputation may be harmed and we may be forced to change the way we operate. That could require
us to incur significant expenses or to discontinue certain services, which could negatively affect our business.

Our product development programs for candidates may require substantial financial resources and may
ultimately be unsuccessful.

In addition to the development of AR101, we are pursuing development of our additional product

candidates. Our current development programs are in the pre-clinical formulation and process development phase
and may not result in product candidates we can advance to the clinical development phase. None of our other
potential product candidates have commenced clinical trials, and there are a number of FDA and foreign
regulatory requirements that we must satisfy before we can commence these clinical trials. Satisfaction of these
requirements will entail substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we may never satisfy these
requirements. We have and expect to continue to conduct activities to support filing of an IND for a product
candidate for the treatment of egg allergy and the filing of an IND for a product candidate for the treatment of
walnut allergy. Any time, effort and financial resources we expend on our other early-stage development

62

programs may adversely affect our ability to continue development and commercialization of AR101, and we
may never commence clinical trials of such development programs despite expending significant resources in
pursuit of their development. Even if we do commence clinical trials of our other potential product candidates,
such product candidates may never be approved by the FDA or the foreign regulatory authorities.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

The regulatory approval process is highly uncertain and we may not obtain regulatory approval for the
commercialization of AR101 or any additional product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing and distribution
of biologics are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States
and other countries, which regulations differ from country to country.

Neither we nor any future collaboration partner will be permitted to market AR101 or any additional
product candidate in the United States until we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA, and we will not be
permitted to market AR101 in other countries until similar regulatory approvals are obtained in those countries.
We have not submitted an application or obtained marketing approval for AR101 anywhere in the world and will
not be able to do so until we complete additional clinical trials. Obtaining regulatory approval of a BLA in the
United States and similar applications in other countries can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. In
addition, failure to comply with FDA and other applicable United States and foreign regulatory requirements
may subject us to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions or other actions, including:

• warning letters;

•

•

civil and criminal penalties;

injunctions;

• withdrawal of regulatory approval of products;

•

•

•

•

product seizure or detention;

product recalls;

total or partial suspension of production; and

refusal to approve pending BLAs or supplements to approved BLAs.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our

collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the
satisfaction of the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe, pure, potent
and effective for their intended uses. The number of nonclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for
FDA approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or condition that the product candidate is
designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. Results from nonclinical
studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data
for our product candidates are promising, regulatory authorities may not agree that such data are sufficient to
support approval. Administering product candidates to humans may produce undesirable side effects, which
could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities denying approval
of a product candidate for any or all targeted indications.

Regulatory approval of a BLA or equivalent application in other territories is not guaranteed, and the
approval process is expensive and may take several years. The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities also have
substantial discretion in the approval process, we may be required to expend additional time and resources to
obtain an approval, if any, and any approval we may seek may be delayed or prevented. For example, the FDA or
other regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials for AR101 either prior to or post-

63

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

approval, such as additional trials in specific patient subpopulations or to establish a larger safety database of
patients who have been administered AR101. The FDA or other regulatory authority may also object to elements
of our clinical development program. Despite the time and expense exerted, failure can occur at any stage.

Regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a drug candidate for many reasons, including, but

not limited to, the following:

•

•

•

•

•

a drug candidate may not be deemed safe or effective;

the characterization of the active pharmaceutical ingredient and the data to demonstrate adequate
control of the manufacturing process may be deemed insufficient;

regulatory officials may not find the data from nonclinical studies and clinical trials sufficient;

the regulatory authorities might not approve our third-party manufacturers’ processes or facilities; or

the regulatory authorities may change its approval policies or adopt new regulations.

If AR101 or any additional product candidate fails to demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials or

does not gain regulatory approval, our business and results of operations will be materially and adversely
harmed. Additionally, if the FDA or other regulatory authorities require that we conduct additional clinical trials,
place limitations on AR101 in our label, delay approval to market AR101 or limit the use of AR101, our business
and results of operations may be harmed.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for AR101 or any additional product candidates, we will be subject to
ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional
expense. Additionally, any product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions
and market withdrawal, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements
or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

Even if a drug is approved, regulatory authorities may still impose significant restrictions on a product’s

indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-marketing studies.
Furthermore, any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays or increased costs to assure
compliance.

If AR101 is approved it will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for labeling, packaging, storage,

advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-marketing
information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and the requirements of the
regulatory agencies in other countries. In addition, manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to
comply with extensive regulatory requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing
procedures conform to current cGMP requirements. As such, we and our contract manufacturers are subject to
continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMP. Accordingly, we and others with
whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including
manufacturing, quality control, and quality assurance. We will also be required to report certain adverse reactions
and production problems, if any, to regulatory authorities, and to comply with requirements concerning
advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are
subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the
product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do
not have regulatory approval.

If a regulatory authority discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of

unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees
with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions on that

64

product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with
applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory authority or enforcement authority may:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

issue warning letters;

impose civil or criminal penalties;

suspend or withdraw regulatory approval;

suspend any of our ongoing clinical trials;

refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications submitted by us;

impose restrictions on our operations, including closing our contract manufacturers’ facilities; or

seize or detain products or require a product recall.

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and

resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory
requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenues from
AR101. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and
our operating results will be adversely affected. Additionally, if we are unable to generate revenues from the sale
of AR101 our potential for achieving profitability will be diminished and the capital necessary to fund our
operations will be increased.

If approved, AR101 or any additional products may cause or contribute to adverse medical events that we are
required to report to regulatory authorities and if we fail to do so we could be subject to sanctions that would
materially harm our business.

Some participants in our clinical trials have reported adverse effects after being treated with AR101. For
example, in our PALISADE clinical trial, of patients ages 4-17, 12.4% of patients from the AR101 treatment arm
and 2.4% of patients from the placebo-treatment arm discontinued due to investigator-reported adverse events.
Additionally, eight AR101-treated patients in the PALISADE trial experienced a total of ten severe adverse
events, and four of these patients discontinued treatment. If we are successful in completing the development of,
obtaining approval for, and commercializing AR101 or any other products, FDA and foreign regulatory authority
regulations require that we report certain information about adverse medical events if those products may have
caused or contributed to those adverse events. The timing of our obligation to report would be triggered by the
date we become aware of the adverse event as well as the nature of the event. We may fail to report adverse
events we become aware of within the prescribed timeframe. We may also fail to appreciate that we have become
aware of a reportable adverse event, especially if it is not reported to us as an adverse event or if it is an adverse
event that is unexpected or removed in time from the use of our products. If we fail to comply with our reporting
obligations, the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority could take action, including criminal prosecution, the
imposition of civil monetary penalties, seizure of our products or delay in approval or clearance of additional
products.

Our failure to obtain regulatory approvals in foreign jurisdictions for AR101 would prevent us from
marketing AR101 internationally.

In order to market any product in the European Economic Area, or EEA (which is composed of the 28

Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), and many other foreign
jurisdictions, separate regulatory approvals are required. In the EEA, medicinal products can only be
commercialized after obtaining a MA. Before granting the MA, the European Medicines Agency or the
competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk benefit balance of the
product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

The approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional clinical testing, and the time
required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. A foreign regulatory authority

65

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

may impose additional requirements prior to the commencement of clinical trials in one country that were not
required in other countries, including the United States. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be
accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. For example, a foreign regulatory authority may determine
that our clinical trial results obtained in U.S. subjects are not representative of foreign patient populations and are
thus not supportive of an approval outside of the United States. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval
by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more foreign regulatory authorities does not
ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in
obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. The
foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We
may not be able to file for foreign regulatory approvals or do so on a timely basis, and even if we do file we may
not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

We may be subject to healthcare laws, regulation and enforcement.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, once we begin commercializing our
products, we will be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by
the U.S. by the federal government and the states and by the governments of other countries where we conduct
our business. The laws that will affect our ability to operate as a commercial organization include:

•

the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly
and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange
for or to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of,
any good or service for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the
Medicare and Medicaid programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this
statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may
assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback
Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the false claims laws;

• U.S. federal false claims laws which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from

knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or
other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent;

• U.S. federal criminal laws that prohibit executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program

or making false statements relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti- Kickback Statute,
a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate
them to have committed a violation;

•

•

•

•

the U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the
Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which governs the conduct of
certain electronic healthcare transactions and protects the security and privacy of protected health
information;

the U.S. federal physician sunshine requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the
Affordable Care Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical
supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information
related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians, other healthcare providers, and teaching
hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and other healthcare providers
and their immediate family members;

state law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws
which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial
insurers;

state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s
voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal

66

government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other
potential referral sources;

•

state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers
of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing
information; and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain
circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating
compliance efforts; and

• European and other foreign law equivalents of each of the laws, including reporting requirements

detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors
available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of
such laws. The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have
not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of
interpretations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could
cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our
business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other
governmental laws and regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal
penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, the exclusion from participation in
federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to
market our products and adversely impact our financial results.

Further, regulations may change, and any additional regulation could prevent, limit or delay regulatory

approval of our product candidates, which could harm our business. For example, in December 2016, the 21st
Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to
modernize the regulation of biologics and spur innovation, but its ultimate implementation remains unclear. We
could also be subject to new international, federal, state or local regulations that could affect our R&D programs
and harm our business in unforeseen ways. If this happens, we may have to incur significant costs to comply with
such laws and regulations, which will harm our results of operations.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future

legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain
policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration
has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose
significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and
oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and
approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these Executive Orders will be implemented, and
the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive
actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal
course, our business may be negatively impacted.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Legislative or regulatory healthcare reforms in the United States may make it more difficult and costly for us
to obtain regulatory clearance or approval of our product candidates and to produce, market and distribute
our products after clearance or approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the
statutory provisions governing the regulatory approval, manufacture, and marketing of regulated products or the
reimbursement thereof. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA
in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or
reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of our product
candidates. We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations, statutes, legal interpretation or policies,

67

when and if promulgated, enacted or adopted may have on our business in the future. Such changes could, among
other things, require:

•

•

•

•

additional clinical trials to be conducted prior to obtaining approval;

changes to manufacturing methods;

recall, replacement or discontinuance of one or more of our products; and

additional record keeping.

Each of these would likely entail substantial time and cost and could materially harm our business and our
financial results. In addition, delays in receipt of or failure to receive regulatory clearances or approvals for any
additional products could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial
condition, prospects and stock price.

In addition, the full impact of recent healthcare reform and other changes in the healthcare industry and in

healthcare spending is currently unknown, and may adversely affect our business model. In the United States, the
Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010 with a goal of reducing the cost of healthcare and substantially
changing the way healthcare is financed by both government and private insurers. The Affordable Care Act,
among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug
Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care
organizations and established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs.
Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable
Care Act, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the Affordable Care Act in the
future. The current Presidential Administration and U.S. Congress will likely continue to seek to modify, repeal,
or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act. It is uncertain the extent to which
any such changes may impact our business or financial condition.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the
Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resulted in
aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1,
2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2025 unless
additional Congressional action is taken, as well as the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among
other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, and increased
the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
Recently there has also been heightened government scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices
for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to,
among other things, reform government program reimbursement methodologies. Individual states in the United
States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to
control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts,
restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some
cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

It is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and foreign governments will continue

to consider changes to existing healthcare legislation. We cannot predict the reform initiatives that may be
adopted in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be repealed or modified. The continuing
efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare
services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect the demand for any drug products for
which we may obtain regulatory approval, our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products, our
ability to obtain adequate coverage and reimbursement approval for a product, our ability to generate revenues
and achieve or maintain profitability, and the level of taxes that we are required to pay.

68

Neither a Fast-Track designation nor a Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA may actually lead to a
faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

Even though we do have Fast-Track designation for AR101 for oral immunotherapy of peanut sensitive

adults and children and Breakthrough Therapy designation for AR101 for oral immunotherapy of peanut
sensitive children and adolescents (ages 4-17), we may not experience a faster development process, review or
approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast-Track designation or
Breakthrough Therapy designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our
clinical development program or other sources.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain adequate intellectual property protection for AR101 or any additional
product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual
property protection in the United States and other countries for AR101 and any additional product candidates.
We intend to rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to
protect our product candidates. Evaluating the strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields
involves complex legal and scientific questions and, as a result, the patent position of biopharmaceutical
companies can generally be highly uncertain. Further, any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of
our confidential or proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our
technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

The degree of patent protection we require to successfully commercialize our product candidates may be
unavailable or severely limited in some cases and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or
maintain any competitive advantage. Though we currently own two issued patents in the United States covering
certain of our manufacturing methods and the formulation for AR101, we do not anticipate that we will be able to
obtain a composition of matter patent over the active pharmaceutical ingredient in AR101 or for any other
product candidates that are based on widely or readily available food products. We have filed additional patent
applications that relate to the manufacture, formulation, and other aspects of AR101 and certain of our other
product candidates. We cannot assure our stockholders that these applications will result in any additional issued
patents in the U.S. or foreign countries. Even if any such additional patents issue, we cannot assure our
stockholders that they or any other patents we obtain will include any claims with a scope sufficient to protect
AR101 or any other additional product candidate or otherwise provide us with meaningful protection or
competitive advantage.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and
prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also
possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too
late to obtain patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same
extent as the laws of the United States. Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the
natural expiration of a patent is generally twenty years after it is filed as a regular, non-provisional application.
Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given
the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug candidates, patents
protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. If we
encounter delays in our clinical trials or other delays during the regulatory approval process, even if we obtain
patents covering AR101 or other product candidates, the period of time during which we could exclusively
market AR101 or such other product candidates under such patents would be reduced, even if we are able to
obtain an extension of patent term due to regulatory delay. As a result, any patents we obtain may not provide us
with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products
similar or identical to AR101 or our other product candidates, including generic versions of such products.

69

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and
therefore, to the extent that we acquire patent protection with respect to AR101 or other product candidates, third
parties may still challenge our patents in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Any issued
patents we obtain could be narrowed, invalidated, held unenforceable or circumvented, any of which could limit
our ability to prevent competitors and other third parties from developing and marketing similar products or limit
the length of terms of patent protection we may obtain for our product candidates. Competitors or other third
parties may also claim that they invented the inventions claimed in our patent applications, or any patents that
may issue in the future, prior to us, or may file patent applications before we do. Further, our competitors might
conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the
information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial
markets. Our competitors might commercialize products in countries where we do not have patent rights. Such
challenges may also result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize our additional products, including
AR101, without infringing third-party patent rights. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by any
patents we obtain with respect to AR101 or any additional product candidates is successfully challenged, then our
ability to commercialize AR101 or any additional product candidates could be negatively affected, and we may
face unexpected competition that could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Even if they are unchallenged, any patents issuing from our pending patent applications may not adequately
protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims to circumvent those patents
by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third
party may develop a competitive product that provides benefits similar to AR101 or an additional product
candidate but falls outside the scope of our patent protection. If the patent protection covering our product
candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our
product candidates could be negatively affected, which would harm our business.

In addition, we may in the future be subject to claims by our former employees or consultants asserting an

ownership right in our patents or patent applications, as a result of the work they performed on our behalf.
Although we generally require all of our employees, consultants and advisors and any other third parties who
have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to assign their inventions to us, we cannot
be certain that we have executed such agreements with all parties who may have contributed to our intellectual
property, nor can we be certain that our agreements with such parties will be upheld in the face of a potential
challenge, or that they will not be breached, for which we may not have an adequate remedy.

We may become subject to claims alleging infringement of third-party patents or proprietary rights, the
outcome of which could result in delay or prevent the development and commercialization of AR101 or any
additional product candidates or otherwise prevent us from competing effectively in our market.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop,

manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing or
otherwise violating the proprietary rights and intellectual property of third parties. The biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and frequent litigation regarding patents and other
intellectual property rights. Third parties, including our competitors, may initiate legal proceedings against us or
our collaborators alleging that we are infringing or otherwise violating their patent or other intellectual property
rights. Given the significant number of patents in our field of technology, we cannot assure our stockholders that
AR101 or any additional product candidates we develop will not infringe existing patents or patents that may be
granted in the future. Because patent applications can take many years to issue and may be confidential for 18
months or more after filing, and because pending patent claims can be revised before issuance, or even after
issuance, there may be applications now pending of which we are unaware that may later result in issued patents
that may be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of AR101 or any additional product candidates. If a patent
holder believes AR101 or any of our product candidates infringes on its patent, the patent holder may sue us even
if we have received patent protection for our technology.

70

If a patent infringement suit were brought against us or any of our collaborators, we or they could be forced
to stop or delay the research, development, manufacturing or sales of AR101 or the product candidate that is the
subject of the suit. Defending any such claims would cause us to incur substantial expenses of financial and other
resources and, if unsuccessful, we could be forced to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and
attorney’s fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a third-party patent. Furthermore, we may be required
to indemnify our collaborators against such claims.

We may choose to seek, or may be required to seek, a license from the third-party patent holder and would

most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both, each of which could be substantial. These licenses
may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, however, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a
license, the rights we obtain may be nonexclusive, which would provide our competitors access to the same
intellectual property rights upon which we are forced to rely. Ultimately, we could be prevented from
commercializing a product, or forced to redesign it, or to cease aspects of our business operations if, as a result of
actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our collaborators are unable to enter into licenses on
acceptable terms. Even if we are successful in defending against any infringement claims, litigation is expensive
and time-consuming and is likely to divert management’s attention and substantial resources from our core
business, which could harm our business.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights,
the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our
business.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any patents we obtain
or other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to initiate
litigation, which can be expensive and time-consuming. A court may disagree with our allegations, however, and
may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover
the third-party technology in question. Further, such third parties could counterclaim that we infringe their
intellectual property or that a patent we have asserted against them is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation
in the United States, defendant counterclaims challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of asserted patents
are commonplace.

In addition, third parties may initiate their own legal proceedings against us to assert such challenges to our
intellectual property rights. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, challenging the invention claimed within any patent we may
obtain, such as in an inter partes review proceeding. Such third-party prior art submissions may also be made
prior to a patent’s issuance, precluding such issuance at all. We may become involved in opposition, derivation,
reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or
the patent rights of others from whom we have obtained licenses to such rights. We may also become involved in
similar opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office or similar offices in other jurisdictions regarding
our intellectual property rights.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

The outcome of any such proceeding is generally unpredictable. Grounds for a validity challenge could be

an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or
non-enablement. Patents may be unenforceable if someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld
relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. It is possible that prior
art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution exists, which could render any patents
we obtain invalid. Moreover, it is also possible that prior art may exist that we are aware of but do not believe is
relevant to patents we may obtain, but that could nevertheless be determined to render such patents invalid. An
adverse result in any litigation or other proceeding to defend or enforce any patents we may obtain could put one
or more of such patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly. If a defendant
were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability of any patents we obtain covering AR101
additional product candidates, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any patent protection covering such
product candidate, which would materially impair our competitive position.

71

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend considerable resources and would be likely to distract
our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is
unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our
core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities.
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. 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 adequately conduct such litigation or

proceedings. 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 and more mature and developed intellectual
property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing
upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties
resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material
adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

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

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual
property, including patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both
technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time
consuming and inherently uncertain. For example, patent reform legislation in the United States and other
countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on
September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of
significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are
prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge
the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act has transformed the U.S. patent system into a
“first-to-file” system. The first-to-file provisions became effective on March 16, 2013. Thus, it is possible that
another party will have filed on the same technology for which we are seeking patent protection before we have
or will have filed and thus be able to obtain competing patent coverage or even preclude our ability to obtain
such coverage. Accordingly, it is not yet clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the
operation of our business. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could make it more difficult to obtain
patent protection for our technology and could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of
our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any patents we obtain, all of which could harm our
business, results of operations and financial condition.

Court decisions can also have an impact on our intellectual property rights, including patent rights. The
United States Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of
patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations.
In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of
events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Depending on future actions by
the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change
in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that we
might obtain in the future.

72

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

The USPTO and various foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural,

documentary, fee payment and other provisions to maintain patent applications and issued patents. In addition,
periodic maintenance fees and various other governmental fees on patents and patent applications often must be
paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of the patents or for the prosecution of patent
applications. While an unintentional lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means
in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment
or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant
jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application
include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of
fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent
applications covering our products or procedures, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing
products that are the same as or similar to our products, which would have a material adverse effect on our
business.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on AR101 or any of our product candidates in all countries
throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Many companies have encountered significant problems
in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The requirements for
patentability differ, in varying degrees, from country to country. The legal systems of some countries,
particularly developing countries, do or may not favor the enforcement of patent and other intellectual property
rights, especially those relating to life sciences. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of any
patents we obtain or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. In addition, many countries
limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government
contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. Moreover, our ability to protect and
enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual
property laws.

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, regardless of whether successful, would
result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Furthermore,
while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure
that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market
AR101 or any additional products. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such
countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our
products in all of our expected significant foreign markets.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and proprietary know-how or if competitors
independently develop viable competing products, our business and competitive position may be harmed.

We rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary know-how and other
confidential information related to our development processes and other elements of our technology for which
patent protection may not be available or may be difficult to obtain or enforce. Although we require all of our
employees to assign their inventions to us, and endeavor to execute confidentiality agreements with all of our
employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how and other
confidential information related to such technology, we cannot be certain that we have executed such agreements
with all parties who may have helped to develop our intellectual property or who had access to our proprietary
information, nor can we be certain that our agreements will not be breached.

Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken

to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other

73

proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to
our trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information. If any of the parties to these confidentiality
agreements breaches or violates the terms of such agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such
breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets as a result. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally
obtained and is using our trade secrets, like patent litigation, is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is
unpredictable. Further, 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.

Even if we are able to adequately protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, our trade secrets could

otherwise become known or could be independently discovered by our competitors. Competitors could purchase our
products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts,
willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own
competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be
lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, in the absence of patent protection, we would have
no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate, from using that technology or information to
compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors’
products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Our stock price may be volatile, and investors in our common stock could incur substantial losses.

The trading price of our common stock has been highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in

response to various factors, including the following:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

results of, or delays in, our clinical trials;

delays in our product development timelines;

the number, size and type of additional clinical trials or studies that we choose to conduct or the FDA
requires us to complete for AR101 prior to or following submission of our BLA and the cost and time
of such trials and studies;

regulatory approval or our receipt of a complete response letter to AR101 and our other product
candidates, or limitations to specific label indications or patient populations for its use, or changes or
delays in the regulatory review process;

severe adverse events in our trials, in any clinical trials with AR101 sponsored by collaborators or in
our competitors’ trials as a result of exposure to the peanut allergen;

announcements concerning our competitors or the pharmaceutical industry in general, including in
respect of the announcement by DBV of its Phase 3 clinical trial results in October 2017 and its intent
to file a BLA;

therapeutic innovations or new products developed by us or our competitors;

adverse actions taken by regulatory authorities with respect to our clinical trials, manufacturing supply
chain or sales and marketing activities;

changes or developments in laws or regulations applicable to AR101 and our other product candidates;

any changes to our relationship with any manufacturers or suppliers;

the success or failure of our efforts to acquire, license or develop additional product candidates;

any intellectual property infringement actions in which we may become involved;

achievement of expected product sales and profitability;

74

• manufacturing, supply or distribution delays or shortages;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

acquisitions or significant partnerships by us or our competitors;

actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results;

changes in financial estimates or recommendations by securities analysts;

failure to meet financial projections that we or the investment community may provide;

trading volume of our common stock;

an inability to obtain additional funding;

sales of our common stock by us, our executive officers and directors or our stockholders in the future;

general economic and market conditions and overall fluctuations in the United States equity markets;
and

additions or departures of any of our key scientific or management personnel.

As a result of this volatility, investors may experience losses on their investment in our stock.

In addition, the stock markets in general, and the markets for pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and

biotechnology stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility that may have been unrelated to the
operating performance of the issuer. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price or
liquidity of our common stock. In the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that
stock have sometimes instituted securities class action litigation against the issuer. If any of our stockholders
were to bring such a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit and the attention
of our management would be diverted from the operation of our business, which could seriously harm our
financial position. Any adverse determination in litigation could also subject us to significant liabilities.

If securities or industry analysts issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our stock, our stock price
and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or
securities analysts publish about us or our business. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or
misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our
clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline.
If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose
visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to
exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

As of December 31, 2017, our executive officers, directors, holders of 5% or more of our capital stock and
their respective affiliates beneficially owned approximately 50% of our outstanding common stock. Therefore,
these stockholders have the ability to influence us through this ownership position. These stockholders may be
able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to
control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of
assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or
offers for our common stock that our stockholders may feel are in their best interest.

Provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could discourage a takeover that stockholders
may consider favorable and may lead to entrenchment of management.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions

that could significantly reduce the value of our shares to a potential acquirer or delay or prevent changes in

75

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

control or changes in our management without the consent of our board of directors. The provisions in our
charter documents include the following:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

a classified board of directors with three-year staggered terms, which may delay the ability of
stockholders to change the membership of a majority of our board of directors;

no cumulative voting in the election of directors, which limits the ability of minority stockholders to
elect director candidates;

the exclusive right of our board of directors to elect a director to fill a vacancy created by the expansion
of the board of directors or the resignation, death or removal of a director, which prevents stockholders
from being able to fill vacancies on our board of directors;
the required approval of at least 66 2⁄ 3% of the shares entitled to vote to remove a director for cause,
and the prohibition on removal of directors without cause;

the ability of our board of directors to authorize the issuance of shares of preferred stock and to
determine the price and other terms of those shares, including preferences and voting rights, without
stockholder approval, which could be used to significantly dilute the ownership of a hostile acquiror;

the ability of our board of directors to alter our bylaws without obtaining stockholder approval;
the required approval of at least 66 2⁄ 3% of the shares entitled to vote at an election of directors to
adopt, amend or repeal our bylaws or repeal the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation regarding the election and removal of directors;

a prohibition on stockholder action by written consent, which forces stockholder action to be taken at
an annual or special meeting of our stockholders;

the requirement that a special meeting of stockholders may be called only by the chairman of the board
of directors, the chief executive officer, the president or the board of directors, which may delay the
ability of our stockholders to force consideration of a proposal or to take action, including the removal
of directors; and

advance notice procedures that stockholders must comply with in order to nominate candidates to our
board of directors or to propose matters to be acted upon at a stockholders’ meeting, which may
discourage or deter a potential acquiror from conducting a solicitation of proxies to elect the acquiror’s
own slate of directors or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us.

In addition, these provisions would apply even if we were to receive an offer that some stockholders may

consider beneficial.

We are also subject to the anti-takeover provisions contained in Section 203 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law. Under Section 203, a corporation may not, in general, engage in a business combination with
any holder of 15% or more of its capital stock unless the holder has held the stock for three years or, among other
exceptions, the board of directors has approved the transaction.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware will be the exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which
could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors,
officers or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of

Delaware is the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action
asserting a breach of fiduciary duty, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware
General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated
bylaws, or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This provision

76

may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or
our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors,
officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision in our certificate of
incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with
resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We provide broad indemnity to our directors and officers. Claims for such indemnification may reduce our
available funds to satisfy successful third-party claims against us and may reduce the amount of money
available to us.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provide that we will
indemnify our directors and officers, in each case to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. In addition, as
permitted by Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated bylaws and our
indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that:

• We will indemnify our directors and officers for serving us in those capacities or for serving other
business enterprises at our request, to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. Delaware law
provides that a corporation may indemnify such person if such person acted in good faith and in a
manner such person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the registrant
and, with respect to any criminal proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe such person’s conduct
was unlawful.

• We may, in our discretion, indemnify employees and agents in those circumstances where

indemnification is permitted by applicable law.

• We are required to advance expenses, as incurred, to our directors and officers in connection with

defending a proceeding, except that such directors or officers shall undertake to repay such advances if
it is ultimately determined that such person is not entitled to indemnification.

• We will not be obligated pursuant to our amended and restated bylaws to indemnify a person with

respect to proceedings initiated by that person against us or our other indemnitees, except with respect
to proceedings authorized by our board of directors or brought to enforce a right to indemnification.

• The rights conferred in our amended and restated bylaws are not exclusive, and we are authorized to

enter into indemnification agreements with our directors, officers, employees and agents and to obtain
insurance to indemnify such persons.

• We may not retroactively amend our amended and restated bylaw provisions to reduce our

indemnification obligations to directors, officers, employees and agents.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, if a corporation
undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in
its equity ownership over a rolling three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating
loss, or NOL, carryforwards to offset its post-change taxable income may be limited. Limitations may also apply
to the utilization of other pre-change tax attributes as a result of an ownership change. As of December 31, 2017,
we had generated NOL carryforwards for federal income tax purposes of $177.9 million and for California
income tax purposes of $12.0 million. These federal and California NOL carryforwards will begin to expire in
2031, if not utilized. Following the equity investment by Nestle Health Science in November 2016, we performed
a Section 382 analysis and determined that we experienced multiple ownership changes under Section 382 of the
Code prior to July 31, 2017. Such annual limitations could affect the utilization of NOL and tax credit
carryforwards in the future. We experienced no significant permanent losses of tax attributes due to these
ownership changes.

77

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

In addition, we may experience more ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code as a result of future
changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside our control. As a result, our ability to utilize NOL
carryforwards or other tax attributes, such as research tax credits, in any taxable year may be further limited.

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

We do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. We

currently intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth. Since we do not intend to pay dividends,
our stockholders’ ability to receive a return on their investment in our common stock will depend on any future
appreciation in the market value of our common stock. There is no guarantee that our common stock will
appreciate or even maintain the price at which our holders have purchased it.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Our corporate headquarters is located in Brisbane, California where we lease a total of approximately
53,000 square feet. The lease for this office space expires on June 30, 2024. We also lease office space in
Durham, North Carolina and London, United Kingdom.

In addition, we lease approximately 20,000 square feet of manufacturing space in Clearwater, Florida
pursuant to a lease that expires in 2025. We believe that our existing facilities and other available properties will
be sufficient for our needs for the foreseeable future.

For additional information, see Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments in Part II, Item 7 of this

Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are currently not party to any material legal proceedings; however, we may from time to time be

involved in various legal proceedings incident to the ordinary course of our business.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

78

PART II

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

Market Information

Our common stock has been listed on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “AIMT” since

our initial public offering, or IPO, of our common stock on August 6, 2015. Prior to that time, there was no
public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth for the indicated periods the high and low
intra-day sales prices per share for our common stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market:

First quarter
Second quarter
Third quarter
Fourth quarter

First quarter
Second quarter
Third quarter
Fourth quarter

2017

High

Low

$23.40
21.88
25.92
40.00

$16.42
15.97
18.25
24.64

2016

High

Low

$19.00
15.88
17.23
27.31

$12.43
10.57
9.77
14.48

Holders of Record

On February 15, 2018, there were approximately 11 stockholders of record of our common stock and the
closing price of our common stock was $38.24 per share as reported by The Nasdaq Global Select Market. Since
many of our shares of common stock are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we are
unable to estimate the total number of stockholders represented by these record holders.

Dividend Policy

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. In addition, the Securities Purchase Agreement we entered
into with Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc. in November 2016, contractually prevents us from using any
of the proceeds from the sale and issuance of the shares of our common stock as a cash dividend or distribution
until the second anniversary of the closing date. Any future determination related to dividend policy will be made
at the discretion of our board of directors.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

None.

Sales of Unregistered Securities

Other than as reported in our current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 10, 2018, there were

no sales of unregistered securities during the year ended December 31, 2018.

79

Use of Proceeds from Initial Public Offering of Common Stock

Shares of our common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on August 5, 2015. The

shares were registered under the Securities Act, as amended, pursuant to our registration statement on Form S-1
(Registration No. 333-205501) relating to our IPO of common stock, which became effective on August 5, 2015.

There has been no material change in the planned use of proceeds from our IPO as described in our
prospectus dated August 5, 2015, filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) under the Securities Act, as
amended.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph illustrates a comparison of the total cumulative stockholder return on our common
stock since August 6, 2015, which is the date our common stock first began trading on The Nasdaq Global Select
Market, to three indices: the NASDAQ Composite Index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index and the NASDAQ
Pharmaceutical Index. The stockholder return shown in the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future
performance, and we do not make or endorse any predictions as to future stockholder returns. This graph shall
not be deemed “soliciting material” or be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or
otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any of our filings under the Securities Act, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of
any general incorporation language in any such filing.

COMPARISON OF 29 MONTH CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., the NASDAQ Composite Index,
the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index and the NASDAQ Pharmaceutical Index

$180

$160

$140

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0

8/6/15

9/15

12/15

3/16

6/16

9/16

12/16

3/17

6/17

9/17

12/17

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

NASDAQ Composite

NASDAQ Biotechnology

NASDAQ Pharmaceutical

*$100 invested on 8/6/15 in stock or 7/31/15 in index, including reinvestment of dividends.
Fiscal year ending December 31.

80

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The following selected financial data are derived from the consolidated financial statements. The data
presented below should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of the Company, the
notes to the consolidated financial statements, and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected
consolidated statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 and the
selected consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 are derived from our audited
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected
consolidated statement of operations data for the year ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the selected
consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 are derived from our audited
consolidated financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our historical results are not
necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected in the future.

Operating expenses

Research and development
General and administrative

Total operating expenses

Loss from operations
Interest income, net

Loss before provision for income

taxes

Provision for income taxes

Net Loss

Net loss per common share, basic and

diluted

Weighted average shares used in

computing net loss per share, basic
and diluted

$

$

$

Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and cash equivalents
Working capital
Total assets
Accumulated deficit
Total stockholders’ equity

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Year Ended December 31,

(In thousands)

89,325
43,949

$

133,274

(133,274)
2,005

$

54,642
26,885

81,527

(81,527)
703

19,816
16,181

35,997

(35,997)
181

$

$

8,181
2,951

11,132

(11,132)
12

(131,269)
56

(80,824)
—

(35,816)
—

(11,120)
—

3,495
1,263

4,758

(4,758)
(67)

(4,825)
—

(131,325)

$

(80,824)

$

(35,816)

$

(11,120)

$

(4,825)

(2.61) $

(1.89) $

(1.88) $

(3.80) $

(1.65)

50,401

42,751

19,041

2,929

2,927

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

(In thousands)

$ 73,487
162,512
206,934
(265,482)
177,805

$ 124,010
240,230
298,789
(134,157)
285,972

$ 76,777
192,359
212,361
(53,333)
206,251

$ 2,269
571
2,531
(17,517)
671

$11,951
11,552
12,156
(6,397)
11,637

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

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

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations in
conjunction with our audited financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. This discussion and other parts of this Annual Report on Form 10-K contain forward-looking
statements that involve risks and uncertainties, such as statements of our plans, objectives, expectations and
intentions. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements.
Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the

81

section of this Annual Report of on Form 10-K titled “Risk Factors.” Except as may be required by law, we
assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements or the reasons that results could differ from
these forward-looking statements.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company advancing a new therapeutic approach, including the

development of proprietary product candidates, for the treatment of peanut and other food allergies. It is
estimated that over 30 million people in the United States and Europe have a food allergy, with peanut allergy
being the most prevalent and most commonly associated with severe outcomes and life-threatening events. There
are currently no approved medical therapies to cure food allergies or prevent their symptoms. Patients with food
allergies are typically counseled to practice strict dietary avoidance. When accidental exposure to food allergens
invokes a serious allergic reaction, rescue therapies, such as antihistamines or injectable epinephrine, are the only
recourse available. Our therapeutic approach, which we refer to as Characterized Oral Desensitization
ImmunoTherapy, or CODITTM, is designed to desensitize patients to food allergens and thereby reduce the risk of
having an allergic reaction upon accidental exposure, or reduce symptom severity should an allergic reaction
occur. CODIT is intended to reduce meaningfully the burden and anxiety experienced by food-allergic patients
and their families.

Our lead CODIT product candidate, AR101, is an investigational biologic for the treatment of patients with
peanut allergy, which affects approximately three million patients in the United States and three million patients
in Europe. AR101 has received Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy Designations for the treatment of patients
4-17 years of age from the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. Our initial target patient
population is children and adolescents in the 4-17 age group, which we estimate will reach approximately
1.6 million patients in the United States alone during 2018.

In late 2015, we initiated a Phase 3 efficacy trial of AR101 in the United States, Canada and Europe, which

we refer to as the PALISADE (Peanut Allergy Oral Immunotherapy Study of AR101 for Desensitization in
Children and Adults) trial. We completed global enrollment of 554 patients between the ages of 4 and 49 in
November 2016 and completed the final study for the PALISADE trial in December 2017. Patient demographics
were generally balanced among patients ages 4-17 enrolled in the AR101 treatment arm as compared to those
from the same age group enrolled in the placebo treatment arm.

A total of 496 patients ages 4—17, from both arms (372 AR101 and 124 placebo), were evaluable for
safety. There were no deaths or suspected, unexpected serious adverse reactions. In both arms, the incidence of
serious adverse events (SAEs) was low. A total of 10 patients ages 4-17 experienced SAEs, none of which were
considered life-threatening: nine of these patients were in the AR101 arm (2.4%) and one was in the placebo arm
(0.8%). Of the nine AR101-treated patients ages 4-17 that experienced an SAE, five patients experienced mild or
moderate SAEs. The other four AR101-treated patients experienced severe SAEs, which, for two of these
patients, were not related to treatment (a concussion and a viral asthmatic exacerbation). Of the two AR101-
treated patients ages 4-17, who experienced severe SAEs related to treatment, both of whom had elevated
baseline peanut-specific IgE levels greater than 100 kU/L, one experienced anaphylaxis and the other
experienced wheezing on the first day of treatment. Both of these patients discontinued from the study. Of
patients ages 4-17, 12.4% of patients from the AR101 treatment arm and 2.4% of patients from the placebo-
treatment arm discontinued due to investigator-reported adverse events.

In December 2017, we completed enrollment of 388 eligible patients who had completed PALISADE into a

related open-label roll-over trial, which we refer to as the ARC004 trial. In January 2018, we completed
enrollment of 506 patients in our real-world experience safety trial of AR101 in the United States and Canada in
patients ages 4-17, which we refer to as the RAMSES (Real-World AR101 Market-Supporting Experience Study
in Peanut Allergic Children Ages 4-17 Years) trial. In addition, in July 2017, we began enrollment of our
European Phase 3 efficacy trial designed with a higher efficacy bar of tolerating 1,000 mg of peanut protein in an

82

exist food-challenge without anything more than mild, transient symptoms, which we refer to as the ARTEMIS
(AR101 Trial in Europe Measuring Oral Immunotherapy Success) trial. We expect data from the ARC004 trial in
the third quarter of 2018 and from the RAMSES and ARTEMIS trials in the second half of 2018.

We expect to submit a Biologics License Application, or BLA, in the United States in late 2018 and a
Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, with the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in the first half
of 2019. If we complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA for AR101 in-line with our current
expected timing, we would expect to be able to commence commercial sales of AR101 around the end of 2019.

We maintain worldwide commercial rights to all of our product candidates, including AR101 and, if
approved, currently intend to commercialize in the United States and Europe by developing a specialty sales
force targeting a subset of the approximately 5,000 practicing allergists in the United States and allergy-focused
clinicians in major European markets.

Since commencing our operations in 2011, substantially all of our efforts have been focused on research,
development and the advancement of our lead CODIT product candidate, AR101. We have not generated any
revenue from product sales and, as a result, we have incurred significant losses. We incurred net losses of
$131.3 million, $80.8 million and $35.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015,
respectively, and used $99.6 million of cash in operations for the year ended December 31, 2017. As of
December 31, 2017, our accumulated deficit was $265.5 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the
foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue our development of, seek
regulatory approval for, and begin to commercialize AR101, and as we develop other product candidates.

We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete
development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and begin to commercialize one or more of our product
candidates, which we expect will take a number of years and is subject to significant uncertainty. Accordingly,
we anticipate that we will need to raise additional capital to fund our future operations. Until such time that we
can generate substantial revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operating activities through
a combination of equity offerings and debt financings and we may seek to raise additional capital through
strategic collaborations. However, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such arrangements
when needed on favorable terms, or at all, which would have a negative impact on our financial condition and
could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our development programs or commercialization efforts or
grant to others rights to develop or market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and
market ourselves. Failure to receive additional funding could cause us to cease operations, in part or in full.
Furthermore, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek
additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations.

We currently utilize contract manufacturers for all of our manufacturing activities. In June 2015, we entered

into a lease for a manufacturing facility in Clearwater, Florida. In June 2017, we completed the construction of
the manufacturing facility within the leased building, which we intend to handle full-scale cGMP (current Good
Manufacturing Practices) commercial production of AR101, if approved, and supply future clinical trials of
AR101. We anticipate that this manufacturing facility will be operational in the first half of 2018. We plan to
continue to rely on the contract manufacturer that is located at the same site to manage the operations of this new
manufacturing facility. Additionally, we currently utilize specialized clinical vendors, clinical trial sites,
consultants, and clinical research organizations, or CROs, to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical
trials, and we do not yet have a sales organization. We expect to significantly increase our investment in our
manufacturing process and commercial organization as we prepare for the filing of a BLA with the FDA and a
MAA with the EMA and prepare for a possible commercial launch of AR101.

Collaboration with Nestle Health Science

In November 2016, we entered into a two-year strategic collaboration with an affiliate of Nestle Health
Science US Holdings, Inc. for the advancement of food allergy therapeutics and issued and sold to Nestle Health

83

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Science US Holdings, Inc. (together with its affiliate, Nestle Health Science) 7,552,084 shares of common stock
in a private placement at $19.20 per share, which represented approximately 15.1% of our outstanding shares at
the time of the transaction. Subject to certain limited exceptions, Nestle Health Science agreed to a two-year
market standoff provision under which it agreed not to sell or transfer any of our common stock or other
securities. Subject to certain limited exceptions, Nestle Health Science also agreed to a two-year standstill
agreement under which Nestle Health Science agreed not to acquire us through any means. We agreed to register
the resale of the shares that Nestle Health Science purchased on a registration statement to be filed with the SEC
upon the request of Nestle Health Science, which cannot make the request prior to the 45th day preceding the end
of the market standoff provision. The investment and the collaboration do not include any development
milestones, product marketing rights or royalties.

The investment launched a two-year strategic collaboration between us and Nestle Health Science, the terms

of which enable both parties to discuss our current and future oral immunotherapy development programs
through a newly established pipeline forum. Nestle Health Science will provide ongoing scientific, regulatory,
and commercial expertise and advice to us through the pipeline forum. Any information disclosed in the
collaboration will remain our confidential information, and any new ideas or inventions that arise that relate to
our products will be our solely owned intellectual property. If we elect to seek a partner or collaborator for one of
our oral immunotherapy development programs during the two-year term of the collaboration, Nestle Health
Science will have a three-month period to negotiate exclusively with us. During the term of the collaboration,
and for so long as Nestle Health Science holds not less than ten percent of our outstanding common stock, Nestle
Health Science will be entitled to designate one nominee to serve as a director on our Board of Directors. In
November 2016, Greg Behar joined our Board of Directors on behalf of Nestle Health Science. The strategic
collaboration agreement contains a non-competition covenant pursuant to which Nestle Health Science has
agreed not to engage in certain activities relating to OIT for the treatment of food allergies.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on

our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, or GAAP, in the United States. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements
requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, as well as the
reported revenue generated and expenses incurred during the reporting periods. Our estimates are based on our
historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the
results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not
readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions
or conditions. We believe that the accounting policies discussed below are critical to understanding our historical
and future performance, as these policies relate to the more significant areas involving management’s judgments
and estimates. Our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Accrued Research and Development Costs

We record expenses for our research and development activities conducted by third-party service providers,

which include the conduct of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials and contract manufacturing activities, based
upon the estimated amount of services provided and work completed but not yet invoiced and in accordance with
agreements established with these third-party service providers. We include these costs in accrued liabilities in
the consolidated balance sheets and within research and development expenses in the consolidated statements of
operations and comprehensive loss. These costs are a significant component of our research and development
expenses.

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

84

services. We make significant judgments and estimates in determining the accrued balance in each reporting
period. As actual costs become known, we adjust our accrued estimates. Although we do not expect our estimates
to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, our understanding of the status and timing of services
performed, the number of patients enrolled and the rate of patient enrollment may vary from our estimates and
could result in us reporting amounts that are too high or too low in any particular period. Our accrued expenses
are dependent, in part, upon the receipt of timely and accurate reporting from clinical research organizations and
other third-party service providers. To date, there have been no material differences from our accrued expenses to
actual expenses.

Stock-Based Compensation

We recognize compensation costs related to stock options granted to employees and directors based on the

estimated fair value of the awards on the date of grant, net of estimated forfeitures. We estimate the grant date
fair value using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The grant date fair value of the stock-based awards is
generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting
period of the respective awards.

We recorded stock-based compensation expense of $16.7 million, $12.6 million and $6.2 million for the

years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

In determining the fair value of the stock-based awards used to calculate stock-based compensation expense,

we use the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and assumptions discussed below. Each of these inputs is
subjective and generally requires judgment to determine.

• Expected Term. The expected term of stock options represents the weighted average period the stock

options are expected to be outstanding. We have opted to use the simplified method for estimating the
expected term as provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin, or
SAB, 110 as our options grants are considered “plain vanilla”. The simplified method calculates the
expected term as the average time-to-vesting and the contractual life of the options. We plan to
continue to use the simplified method under SAB 110 until we have sufficient exercise history as a
publicly traded company.

• Expected Volatility. As we have limited trading history for our common stock, the expected stock price
volatility assumption is determined based on the historical volatilities of a group of industry peers as
well as the historical volatility of our own common stock since we began trading subsequent to our IPO
in August 2015. Industry peers consist of several public companies in the biopharmaceutical industry
with comparable characteristics including enterprise value, risk profiles and position within the
industry. We intend to continue to consistently apply this process using the same or similar public
companies until a sufficient amount of historical information regarding the volatility of our own
common stock share price becomes available, or unless circumstances change such that the identified
companies are no longer similar to us, in which case, more suitable companies whose share prices are
publicly available would be utilized in the calculation.

• Risk-Free Interest Rate. The risk-free interest rate is based on the implied yield available on U.S.

Treasury zero-coupon issues in effect at the time of grant for periods corresponding with the expected
term of the option.

• Expected Dividend Yield. We have never paid dividends on our common stock and have no plans to
pay dividends on our common stock. Therefore, we used an expected dividend yield of zero for all
years presented.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

85

The weighted-average assumptions used to estimate the fair value of stock options using the Black-Scholes
option valuation model and the resulting weighted average grant date fair value of stock options granted were as
follows:

Expected volatility
Risk-free interest rate
Expected dividend yield
Expected term (in years)
Weighted average grant date fair value

Year Ended December 31,
2016
2017

2015

73.1%
2.0%
—
6.0
$13.70

74.5% 74.1%
1.7%
—
6.0
$6.11

1.7%
—
6.0
$10.53

In addition to the Black-Scholes assumptions, we estimate our forfeiture rate based on an analysis of our

actual forfeitures and will continue to evaluate the adequacy of the forfeiture rate based on actual forfeiture
experience, analysis of employee turnover behavior and other factors. The impact from any forfeiture rate
adjustment would be recognized in full in the period of adjustment, and if the actual number of future forfeitures
differs from our estimates, we might be required to record adjustments to stock-based compensation in future
periods. We will continue to use judgment in evaluating the expected volatility, expected terms and forfeiture
rates utilized for our stock-based compensation expense calculations on a prospective basis.

As of December 31, 2017, we had $43.2 million of unrecognized compensation expense related to unvested

stock options, which is expected to be recognized over an estimated weighted-average period of 2.4 years. For
stock option awards subject to ratable vesting, we recognize compensation cost on a straight-line basis over the
service period for the entire award. In future periods, our stock-based compensation expense is expected to
increase as a result of recognizing our existing unrecognized stock-based compensation for awards that will vest
and as we issue additional stock-based awards to attract and retain our employees.

Income Taxes

We recognize deferred income taxes for temporary differences between the basis of assets and liabilities for

financial statement and income tax purposes. We periodically evaluate the positive and negative evidence
bearing upon realizability of our deferred tax assets. Based upon the weight of available evidence, which includes
our historical operating performance, reported cumulative net losses since inception and difficulty in accurately
forecasting our future results, we maintained a full valuation allowance on the net deferred tax assets. We intend
to maintain a full valuation allowance on the federal and state deferred tax assets until sufficient positive
evidence exists to support reversal of the valuation allowance.

As of December 31, 2017, we had generated net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards for federal income
tax purposes of $177.9 million and for California income tax purposes of $12.0 million. These federal and state
NOL carryforwards will begin to expire in 2031, if not utilized. As of December 31, 2017, we had Federal and
California research credit carryforwards of $6.7 million and $1.6 million, respectively.

Following the equity investment by Nestle Health Science in November 2016, we performed a Section 382
analysis and determined that we experienced multiple ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code prior to
July 31, 2017. Utilization of the NOL and tax credit carryforwards are subject to substantial annual limitations
due to the ownership change limitations set forth in Internal Revenue Code Sections 382 and 383 and similar
state provisions. Such annual limitations could impact the utilization of net operating loss and tax credit
carryforwards in the future. We experienced no significant permanent losses of tax attributes due to these
ownership changes.

In addition, we may experience more ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code as a result of future
changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside our control. As a result, our ability to utilize NOL

86

carryforwards or other tax attributes, such as research tax credits, in any taxable year may be further limited if we
experience more ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code.

We record unrecognized tax benefits as liabilities and adjust these liabilities when our judgment changes as

a result of the evaluation of new information not previously available. Because of the complexity of some of
these uncertainties, the ultimate resolution may result in a payment that is materially different from our current
estimate of the unrecognized tax benefit liabilities. These differences will be reflected as increases or decreases
to deferred tax assets offset by a change to valuation allowance in the period in which new information is
available.

Tax benefits from uncertain tax positions are recognized when it is more likely than not that the position
will be sustained upon examination, including resolutions of any related appeals or litigation processes, based on
technical merits. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50%
likely of being realized upon effective settlement.

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “2017 Tax Act”) was signed into law
making significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Changes include, but are not limited to, a federal
corporate tax rate decrease from 34% to 21% for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the transition of
U.S international taxation from a worldwide tax system to a more generally territorial system, and a one-time
transition tax on the mandatory deemed repatriation of foreign earnings.

On December 22, 2017, the SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118 (“SAB 118”) to address the

application of U.S. GAAP in situations when a registrant does not have the necessary information available,
prepared, or analyzed in reasonable detail to complete the accounting for certain income tax effects of the 2017
Tax Act. We did not identify items for which the income tax effects of the 2017 Tax Act have not been
completed and could not be reasonably estimated as of December 31, 2017, and as such, our financial results
reflect the income tax effects of the 2017 Tax Act for which the accounting under ASC Topic 740 is complete.

We have calculated our provision for income taxes in accordance with the 2017 Tax Act and guidance
available as of the date of this filing and as a result have reduced our deferred tax assets by $26.9 million, based
on the rates at which they are expected to reverse in the future, with an equal reduction to the valuation allowance
recorded against our net deferred tax assets in the fourth quarter of 2017, the period in which the legislation was
enacted. The 2017 Tax Act had no impact on tax expense due to us maintaining a full valuation allowance
against our net deferred tax assets.

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update,
or ASU, No. 2016-09, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718) Improvements to Employee Share-Based
Payment Accounting, which simplifies several aspects of accounting for share-based payment transactions
including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, classification on
the statement of cash flows and accounting for forfeitures. Upon our adoption of the new standard for fiscal year
2017, all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies are recognized as income tax expense or benefit in the income
statement. The tax effects of exercised or vested awards are treated as discrete items in the reporting period in
which they occur. We recognize excess tax benefits regardless of whether the benefit reduces taxes payable in the
current period. We applied the modified retrospective approach upon adoption, and prior periods have not been
adjusted. As a result, we have established a net operating loss deferred tax asset of $1.2 million to account for
prior period excess tax benefits through retained earnings; however, an offsetting valuation allowance of
$1.2 million has also been established through retained earnings because it is not more likely than not that the
deferred asset will be realized due to historical and expected future losses, such that there is no impact on our
consolidated financial statements. Additionally, as allowed by the standard, we elected to continue to estimate
potential forfeitures.

87

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-09, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Scope
of Modification Accounting, which provides guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-
based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting in Topic 718. The guidance establishes
that an entity should account for the effects of a modification to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment
award, unless all three of the following conditions are met: (a) the fair value of the modified award is the same as
the fair value of the original award immediately before the modification, (b) the vesting conditions of the
modified award are the same as the vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the modification,
and (c) the classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a liability instrument is the same as the
classifications of the original award immediately before the original award was modified. This guidance is
effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 31, 2017, and early
adoption is permitted. We currently anticipate adopting the new standard effective January 1, 2018, and do not
expect the standard to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows—Restricted Cash (Topic 230),

which establishes that the statement of cash flows will show the changes in cash, cash equivalents and amounts
generally described as restricted cash. As a result, entities will no longer have to determine how to classify
transfers to and from restricted cash within the statement of cash flows. An entity will be required to reconcile
the total cash, cash equivalents and amounts generally described as restricted cash on the statement of cash flows
to the amounts in the balance sheet, and disclose the nature of any restrictions on its cash, cash equivalents or
amounts generally described as restricted cash. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods
within those years, beginning after December 31, 2017, and early adoption is permitted. We currently anticipate
adopting the new standard effective January 1, 2018, and do not expect the standard to have a material impact on
our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In October 2016, the FASB, issued ASU, 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers Other

Than Inventory, which requires companies to recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer
of an asset other than inventory. This guidance will be effective for us in the first quarter of 2018, with the option
to adopt it in the first quarter of 2017. We currently anticipate adopting the new standard effective January 1,
2018, and do not expect the standard to have a material impact on our financial statements and related
disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of
Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which will make eight targeted changes to how cash receipts and cash
payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-15 is effective for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2017. ASU 2016-15 will require adoption on a retrospective basis. Early adoption
is permitted. We currently anticipate adopting the new standard effective January 1, 2018, and do not expect the
standard to have a material impact on our financial statements and related disclosures.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326):

Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which requires measurement and recognition of
expected credit losses for financial assets held. ASU 2016-13 modifies the other-than-temporary impairment
model for available-for-sale debt securities and requires an estimate of expected credit losses when the fair value
is below the amortized cost of the asset. ASU 2016-13 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2019 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the
impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-13 will have on our financial statements and related disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB, issued ASU, No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which requires lessees to apply

a dual approach, classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether or not
the lease is effectively a financed purchase by the lessee. This classification will determine whether lease
expense is recognized based on an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.

88

A lessee is also required to record a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases with a term of greater
than 12 months regardless of their classification. Leases with a term of 12 months or less will be accounted for
similar to existing guidance for operating leases. The standard is effective for interim and annual periods
beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted. We are currently in the process of evaluating
the impact the adoption of this new standard will have on our financial statements and related disclosures;
however, since we are lessee to certain leases for property whose terms exceed twelve months, we expect to
report assets and liabilities related to these leases on our financial statements that have not been previously
reported, once we adopt ASU 2016-02.

Components of Results of Operations

Research and Development Expenses

The largest component of our total operating expenses has historically been our investment in research and

development activities. Research and development expenses consist primarily of external-related expenses,
employee-related expenses, stock-based compensation expense, and facilities and other costs, which include the
following:

• External-related expenses include costs incurred to conduct research, such as the discovery and

development of our product candidates; costs related to the production of clinical supplies, including
fees paid to contract manufacturers; fees paid to consultants and vendors, including clinical research
organizations in conjunction with implementing and monitoring our clinical trials and acquiring and
evaluating clinical trial data, including all related fees, such as for investigator grants, patient screening
fees, laboratory work and statistical compilation and analysis; costs for scientific conferences and
meetings; and costs related to compliance with drug development regulatory requirements.

• Employee-related costs include salaries, bonuses, severance and benefits for personnel in our research

and development functions.

•

•

Stock-based compensation expense is expense associated with our equity plans for awards to personnel
in our research and development functions.

Facilities and other costs include facilities-related rent, depreciation and other allocable expenses,
which include general and administrative support functions and general supplies for our research and
development activities.

We recognize all research and development expenses as they are incurred. Clinical trial, contract
manufacturing and other development costs incurred by third parties are expensed as the contracted work is
performed.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses include employee-related costs, stock-based compensation expense,
external professional services expenses, and facilities and other costs. Employee-related costs include salaries,
bonuses, severance and benefits for personnel in our general and administrative functions. Stock-based
compensation expense is expense associated with our equity plans for awards to personnel in our general and
administrative functions. External professional services expenses consist of legal, accounting, and audit services
and other consulting fees. Facilities and other costs consist of allocable expenses, including facilities-related rent
and depreciation, from our facilities and information technology departments, which are allocated between
research and development and general and administrative functions based on headcount.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

89

Results of Operations

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016

Operating expenses:

Research and development
General and administrative

Total operating expenses

Loss from operations
Interest income, net

Loss before provision for income taxes

Provision for income taxes

Net loss

Year Ended
December 31,

2017

2016

$ Change

%Change

(In thousands)

$ 89,325
43,949

$ 54,642
26,885

$ 34,683
17,064

133,274

81,527

51,747

(133,274)
2,005

(131,269)
56

(81,527)
703

(80,824)
—

(51,747)
1,302

(50,445)
56

$(131,325)

$(80,824)

$(50,501)

63%
63%

63%

63%
185%

62%
0%

62%

Research and Development Expenses

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses incurred during the years ended

December 31, 2017 and 2016:

External clinical-related expenses
Employee-related costs
Stock-based compensation expense
Facilities and other costs

Total research and development

Year Ended
December 31,

2017

2016

$ Change %Change

(In thousands)

$62,723
16,492
5,077
5,033

$37,133
10,342
4,838
2,329

$25,590
6,150
239
2,704

$89,325

$54,642

$34,683

69%
59%
5%
116%

63%

Research and development expenses increased by $34.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017

compared to the year ended December 31, 2016, primarily due to increased external clinical-related expenses,
employee-related costs and facilities and other costs. External clinical-related costs increased primarily due to the
progression of the AR101 program, which include the RAMSES, ARC008, ARTEMIS and ARC011 clinical
trials that commenced in 2017, and higher contract manufacturing costs to support clinical development.
Employee-related costs increased primarily due to increased headcount to support continued development of
AR101. Facilities and other costs increased primarily due to the allocation of higher facilities and information
technology costs, which are allocable from general and administrative to research and development expenses
based on headcount.

We expect research and development expenses to continue to increase as our clinical trials related to the

AR101 development program progress, including the initiation of additional AR101 studies, and as we develop
additional CODIT product candidates, including for the treatment of egg allergy and walnut allergy.

90

General and Administrative Expenses

The following table summarizes our general and administrative expenses incurred during the years ended

December 31, 2017 and 2016:

Employee-related costs
Stock-based compensation expense
External professional services
Facilities and other costs

Total general and administrative

Year Ended
December 31,

2017

2016

$ Change %Change

(In thousands)

$14,068
11,642
16,649
1,590

$ 8,406
7,803
8,542
2,134

$ 5,662
3,839
8,107
(544)

$43,949

$26,885

$17,064

67%
49%
95%
-25%

63%

General and administrative expenses increased by $17.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2017
compared to the year ended December 31, 2016, primarily due to increased external professional services, stock-
based compensation expense and employee-related costs, which increases were partially offset by a decrease in
facilities and other costs. External professional services increased primarily due to consulting services for
commercial planning and support for AR101. Stock-based compensation expense increased primarily due to
increased headcount, higher valuation of stock options granted and the modification of the CEO’s stock options
resulting from the recent announcement of his retirement. Employee-related costs increased primarily due to
increased headcount for additional administrative support as we continue to build infrastructure to support our
clinical trials and potential commercialization of AR101. Facilities and other costs decreased primarily due to the
allocation of higher facilities and information technology costs, which are allocable from general and
administrative to research and development expenses based on headcount.

We expect our general and administrative expenses to continue to increase as we continue to build our
infrastructure, including the hiring of additional personnel, and incur expenses related to commercial planning for
AR101.

Interest Income, net

Interest income, net, increased by $1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year

ended December 31, 2016, primarily due to higher average cash, cash equivalents, and investment balances
during the period.

Provision for Income Taxes

Provision for income taxes for the year ended December 31, 2017 is due to income tax expense generated

from our foreign subsidiaries.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

91

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015

Operating expenses:

Research and development
General and administrative

Total operating expenses

Loss from operations
Interest income, net

Net loss

Research and Development Expenses

Year Ended
December 31,

2016

2015

$ Change %Change

(In thousands)

$ 54,642
26,885

$ 19,816
16,181

$ 34,826
10,704

81,527

35,997

45,530

(81,527)
703

(35,997)
181

(45,530)
522

$(80,824) $(35,816) $(45,008)

176%
66%

126%

126%
288%

126%

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses incurred during the years ended

December 31, 2016 and 2015:

External clinical-related expenses
Employee-related costs
Stock-based compensation expense
Facilities and other costs

Total research and development

Year Ended
December 31,

2016

2015

$ Change %Change

(In thousands)

$37,133
10,342
4,838
2,329

$12,096
4,394
2,522
804

$25,037
5,948
2,316
1,525

$54,642

$19,816

$34,826

207%
135%
92%
190%

176%

Research and development expenses increased by $34.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016,

compared to the year ended December 31, 2015, primarily due to increased external clinical-related expenses,
employee-related costs, stock-based compensation expense and facilities and other costs. External clinical-related
costs increased primarily due to activities related to enrolling patients in and conducting PALISADE, which was
initiated in late 2015, and contract manufacturing costs of AR101 for clinical trials. Employee-related costs
increased primarily due to increased headcount to support continued development of AR101. Stock-based
compensation expense increased primarily due to increased headcount, higher valuation of stock options granted
and expense related to the acceleration of vesting of certain former executives’ stock options. Facilities and other
costs increased primarily due to increased rent expense from our new facility leases and other allocable costs due
to increased headcount.

92

General and Administrative Expenses

The following table summarizes our general and administrative expenses incurred during the years ended

December 31, 2016 and 2015:

Employee-related costs
Stock-based compensation expense
External professional services
Facilities and other costs

Total general and administrative

Year Ended
December 31,

2016

2015

$ Change %Change

(In thousands)

$ 8,406
7,803
8,542
2,134

$ 3,901
3,635
6,567
2,078

$ 4,505
4,168
1,975
56

$26,885

$16,181

$10,704

115%
115%
30%
3%

66%

General and administrative expenses increased by $10.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016,
compared to the year ended December 31, 2015, primarily due to increased employee-related costs, stock-based
compensation expense, and external professional services. Employee-related costs increased primarily due to
increased headcount for additional administrative support associated with being a publicly traded company
following our initial public offering, or IPO, in August 2015. Stock-based compensation expense increased
primarily due to increased headcount, higher valuation of stock options granted, and the modification of certain
former executives’ stock options. External professional services increased primarily due to consulting services,
including for commercial planning and support for AR101.

Interest Income, net

Interest income, net, increased by $0.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year

ended December 31, 2015 primarily due to higher average cash and investment balances during the period.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $182.4 million. We believe that

our existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund our planned operations for the next 12 months and
through expected regulatory submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for AR101, our lead
CODITTM product candidate.

In November 2016, we and Nestle Health Science entered into the Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which

we issued and sold 7,552,084 shares of our common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, to Nestle Health Science
for an aggregate cash purchase price of $145.0 million.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

In August 2015, we completed our IPO and issued 11,499,999 shares of our common stock, par value
$0.0001 per share, including the exercise in full of the underwriter’s option to purchase additional shares, at an
initial offering price to the public of $16.00 per share. We received net proceeds from the IPO of $168.1 million,
after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $12.9 million and offering costs of $3.0 million. Prior
to our IPO, our operations were financed primarily by net proceeds from the sale and issuance of convertible
preferred stock.

We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete
development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and begin to commercialize one or more of our product
candidates, which is subject to significant uncertainty. If we complete clinical testing and receive approval of a
BLA for AR101 in-line with our current expected timing, we would expect to be able to commence commercial
sales of AR101 around the end of 2019. Accordingly, we anticipate that we will need to raise additional capital to

93

fund our future operations. Until such time that we can generate substantial revenue from product sales, if ever,
we expect to finance our operating activities through a combination of equity offerings and debt financings and
we may seek to raise additional capital through strategic collaborations. However, we may be unable to raise
additional funds or enter into such arrangements when needed on favorable terms, or at all, which would have a
negative impact on our financial condition and could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our
development programs or commercialization efforts or grant to others rights to develop or market product
candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Failure to receive additional funding
could cause us to cease operations, in part or in full. Furthermore, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for
our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or
strategic considerations.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including the following:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

the number, size and type of additional clinical trials or studies that we choose to initiate or the FDA or
a foreign regulatory authority requires us to complete for AR101 prior to or following submission of
our BLA or other marketing approval applications, as well as the cost and time of such trials and
studies;

the time and cost necessary to complete our roll-over study related to our recently completed
PALISADE trial (ARC004), our RAMSES and ARTEMIS trials, as well as the time and costs
associated with the other planned development activities for AR101, including the initiation and
operation of ARC005 and ARC008;

the time and cost necessary to supply clinical trial materials for our clinical trials and develop a
commercial-scale manufacturing process for AR101;

our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and subsequently commercialize AR101 or any other
product candidates we develop;

sales and marketing costs associated with AR101, if approved, including the cost and timing of
developing our sales and marketing capabilities;

the amount of sales and other revenue from AR101, if approved;

our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, coverage and reimbursement from third-party
payors and adequate market share for our product candidates;

the time and cost associated with designing and implementing quality systems for our product
candidates in the United States and Europe;

the time and cost associated with clinical trials and pre-clinical development of other product
candidates;

the cash requirements of any future acquisitions or discovery of product candidates;

the time and cost necessary to respond to technological and market developments;

our ability to attract, hire and retain qualified personnel; and

our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for AR101 or any additional product
candidate and the associated costs of such activities, including for filing, prosecuting, defending and
enforcing any patents for AR101 or any additional product candidate.

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If

adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate:

•

•

clinical trials or other development activities for AR101 or any additional product candidate;

our research and development activities; or

94

•

our establishment of sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to
commercialize AR101 or any additional product candidate.

Cash Flows

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016

Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities
Investing activities
Financing activities

Year Ended
December 31,

2017

2016

Change

(In thousands)

$(99,605)
42,562
6,520

$ (56,614)
(43,896)
147,843

$ (42,991)
86,458
(141,323)

Net change in cash and cash equivalents

$(50,523)

$ 47,333

$ (97,856)

Net Cash Used In Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $99.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase
of $43.0 million from $56.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. This increase was primarily due to
higher net loss from operations resulting from increased research and development and general and
administrative expenses.

Net Cash Used In Investing Activities

Cash provided by investing activities was $42.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase

of $86.5 million from cash used in investing activities of $43.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.
The increase was primarily due to the timing of purchases of various investments we have made as we monitor
the balance of our portfolio’s investments while managing our cash requirements.

Net Cash Provided By Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was $6.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, a

decrease of $141.3 million from $147.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease is primarily
due to net cash proceeds of $145.0 million from the issuance of our common stock as part of the equity
investment by Nestle Health Science in 2016, partially offset by proceeds from issuance of our common stock.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $182.4 million.

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015

Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities
Investing activities
Financing activities

Year Ended
December 31,

2016

2015

Change

(In thousands)

$ (56,614)
(43,896)
147,843

$ (35,690)
(125,229)
235,327

$(20,924)
81,333
(87,484)

Net change in cash and cash equivalents

$ 47,333

$ 74,408

$(27,075)

95

Net Cash Used In Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $56.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, an increase
of $20.9 million, from $35.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. This increase was primarily due to
higher net loss from operations resulting from increased research and development and general and
administrative expenses.

Net Cash Used In Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $43.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease

of $81.3 million from $125.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease was primarily due to
the maturities of various investments we had made after our IPO, which partially offset purchases of new
investments in 2016, including those made in conjunction with the proceeds received in the NHSc US investment
of $145.0 million. Additionally, we increased our investments in property and equipment for the manufacturing
facility in Clearwater, Florida, and to a lesser extent, for office furniture and equipment purchases for our
Brisbane, California corporate headquarters.

Net Cash Provided By Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was $147.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, a
decrease of $87.5 million from $235.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. In 2015, we received
aggregate net proceeds from the sale of Series B Preferred Stock and the sale of common stock in our IPO of
$235.0 million. In 2016, we received net proceeds of $145.0 million from the issuance of our common stock as
part of the equity investment by Nestle Health Science.

Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments

The following table summarizes our future contractual obligations as of December 31, 2017:

Operating leases (1), (2)
Capital lease (3)
Other purchase commitments (4)

Total contractual obligations

$18,327
144
—

$18,471

Years

Total

Less than 1

1–3

3–5

(In thousands)
$5,202
67
—

2,985
33
—

$5,529
44
—

$3,018

$5,269

$5,573

$4,611

More
than 5

$4,611
—
—

(2)

(1)

In June 2015, we signed a facility lease for a manufacturing facility in Clearwater, Florida.
In March 2015, we entered into a new lease for our corporate headquarters in Brisbane, California for
11,665 square feet of office space. In August 2015, we entered into a lease amendment, pursuant to which
we leased an additional 26,355 square feet of office space. In June 2017, we entered into a second lease
amendment, under which we leased an additional 14,841 square feet of office space. The term for the
additional space commences on January 1, 2018, or later upon the delivery of the premises to us, and
terminates on June 30, 2024. Additionally, the term of the existing office space has been extended so that it
is coterminous with the new space.
In December 2016, we entered into a capital lease for equipment related to the leased facility in Florida.
(4) We purchase standard food-grade peanut flour from Golden Peanut Company, or GPC, pursuant to a long-
term exclusive commercial supply agreement, which was expanded and extended in January 2018. GPC is
not allowed to sell several peanut flour products to any third party worldwide for use in OIT for the
treatment or cure of peanut allergy, provided that we are in compliance with our exclusive purchase
obligation and meet specified annual purchase commitments. The restated agreement remains in effect until
ten years after the first delivery to us of peanut flour for commercial use and includes an option for us to

(3)

96

extend the term for an additional five years. In connection with the expansion and extension of the
agreement, we issued Archer Daniels Midland Company 300,000 shares of our common stock, vesting over
a 3.5-year period.

Pursuant with the restated agreement, our purchase obligation commences with the first delivery of peanut
flour for commercial use, which we currently anticipate will not occur prior to 2019. Assuming that our first
delivery for commercial use occurs in 2019, which is not assured, the aggregate purchase commitment under
this agreement would be $8.3 million over a term of ten years.

We enter into agreements in the normal course of business with contract research organizations for clinical
trials and with vendors for pre-clinical studies and other services and products for operating purposes which are
cancelable at any time by us, generally upon 30 days prior written notice. These payments are not included in this
table of contractual obligations.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have not entered into any off-balance sheet arrangements and do not have variable interests in variable

interest entities.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $182.4 million, which
consisted primarily of money market funds, agency securities, corporate securities, U.S. government securities
and commercial paper. Such interest-earning instruments carry a degree of interest rate risk. However, historical
fluctuations of interest income have not been significant.

We do not enter into investments for trading or speculative purposes and have not used any derivative

financial instruments to manage our interest rate exposure. We have not historically been exposed to material
risks due to changes in interest rates. Based on our investment positions as of December 31, 2017, a hypothetical
100 basis point change in interest rates would result in a $0.4 million change in the fair market value of the
portfolio. Any changes would only be realized if we sold the investments prior to maturity.

We had no outstanding debt as of December 31, 2017.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

The following consolidated financial statements, and the related notes thereto, of Aimmune Therapeutics,
Inc. and the Report of the Company’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm are filed as a part of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Balance Sheets
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

98

100
101
102
103
104

97

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.:

Opinions on the Consolidated Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries
(the Company) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively, the (consolidated financial statements). We also have
audited the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria
established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects,
effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in
Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission.

Basis for Opinion

The Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective
internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, included in the accompanying Item 9A, Controls and Procedures. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and an opinion on the Company’s
internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with
respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are
free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial
reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material
misstatement of the consolidated 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 consolidated 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 consolidated financial statements. 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
audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

A company’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

98

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

/s/ KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2015.

San Francisco, California
February 20, 2018

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

99

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

Assets
Current assets:

Cash and cash equivalents
Short-term investments
Prepaid expenses and other current assets

Total current assets

Long-term investments
Property and equipment, net
Prepaid expenses and other assets

Total assets

Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Current liabilities:

Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities
Other current liabilities

Total current liabilities

Other liabilities

Total liabilities

Commitments and contingencies (Note 5)
Stockholders’ equity:

December 31,

2017

2016

$ 73,487
108,943
6,681

$ 124,010
124,921
2,749

189,111
—
17,205
618

251,680
33,602
10,391
3,116

$ 206,934

$ 298,789

$

5,095
21,478
26

26,599
2,530

29,129

$

1,427
9,921
102

11,450
1,367

12,817

Preferred stock, par value $0.0001 per share—10,000 shares authorized at

December 31, 2017 and 2016; 0 shares issued and outstanding at December 31,
2017 and 2016

Common stock, par value $0.0001 per share—290,000 shares authorized as of

December 31, 2017 and 2016; 51,091 and 50,204 shares issued and outstanding
as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively (including 47 and 200 shares
subject to repurchase, legally issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017
and 2016, respectively)
Additional paid-in capital
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
Accumulated deficit

Total stockholders’ equity

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

—

—

5
443,390
(108)
(265,482)

5
420,151
(27)
(134,157)

177,805

285,972

$ 206,934

$ 298,789

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

100

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

Year Ended December 31,
2016

2017

2015

Operating expenses

Research and development
General and administrative

Total operating expenses

Loss from operations
Interest income, net

Loss before provision for income taxes
Provision for income taxes

Net loss

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:
Unrealized gain (loss) on investments

Comprehensive loss

Net loss per common share, basic and diluted

$ 89,325 $ 54,642 $ 19,816
16,181

43,949

26,885

133,274

81,527

35,997

(133,274)
2,005

(81,527)
703

(35,997)
181

(131,269)
56

(80,824)
—

(35,816)
—

(131,325)

(80,824)

(35,816)

(81)

61

(88)

$(131,406) $(80,763) $(35,904)

$

(2.61) $

(1.89) $

(1.88)

Weighted average shares used in computing net loss per share, basic and diluted

50,401

42,751

19,041

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

101

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
(In thousands)

Series A
Convertible
Preferred Stock

Series B
Convertible
Preferred Stock

Common Stock

Shares

Amount

Shares

Amount

Shares Amount

Additional
Paid-In
Capital

Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss

Accumulated
deficit

Total
Stockholders’
Equity

Balance as of December 31,

2014

13,264

$ 16,928

— $

— 4,252

$— $

1,260

$ —

$ (17,517)

$

671

Issuance of Series B

convertible preferred
stock for cash at
$5.69 per share, net
of $221 of issuance
costs

Issuance of common

stock upon exercise
of vested options
Issuance of common
stock upon initial
public offering

Repurchase of Series A
convertible preferred
stock

Conversion of preferred
stock to common
stock
Stock based

compensation

Other comprehensive

loss
Net loss

Balance as of December 31,

2015

— $

Issuance of common

stock upon exercise
of vested options
Issuance of common

stock upon securities
purchase agreement

Stock-based

compensation

Other comprehensive

gain
Net loss

—

—

—

—
—

Balance as of December 31,

2016

— $

Issuance of common

stock upon exercise
of vested options and
vesting of restricted
stock units
Stock-based

compensation

Other comprehensive

loss
Net loss

—

—

—
—

Balance as of December 31,

2017

— $

—

—

—

—
—

—

—

—

—

—
—

—

—

—

—
—

—

— 14,048

79,779

—

—

—

—

303

— 1,436

— 11,500

1

168,118

—

—

—

(2,261)

(12,874)

—

—

(11,003)

(4,054)

(14,048)

(79,779)

25,051

—

—
—

—

—
—

—

—
—

—

3

—

—
—

—

83,830

6,157

—
—

—

—

—

—

—
—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

79,779

303

168,119

(12,874)

—

6,157

(88)
—

—
(35,816)

(88)
(35,816)

— $

— 42,239

$ 4

$259,668

$ (88)

$ (53,333)

$ 206,251

—

—

—

—
—

—

413

— 7,552

—

—
—

—

—
—

—

1

—

—
—

2,843

144,999

12,641

—
—

—

—

—

61
—

—

—

—

—
(80,824)

2,843

145,000

12,641

61
(80,824)

— $

— 50,204

$ 5

$420,151

$ (27)

$(134,157)

$ 285,972

—

—

—
—

—

—

—
—

887

—

—
—

—

—

—
—

6,520

16,719

—
—

—

—

(81)
—

—

—

6,520

16,719

—
(131,325)

(81)
(131,325)

— $

— 51,091

$ 5

$443,390

$(108)

$(265,482)

$ 177,805

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

102

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands)

Year Ended December 31,
2016

2015

2017

Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities

Depreciation expense
Stock-based compensation expense
Investment premium amortization, net
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Prepaid expenses and other assets
Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities
Other liabilities

$(131,325) $ (80,824) $ (35,816)

966
16,719
511

(1,435)
2,315
11,557
1,087

534
12,641
919

3,967
(994)
6,803
340

115
6,157
324

(9,698)
1,072
1,859
297

Net cash used in operating activities

(99,605)

(56,614)

(35,690)

Cash flows from investing activities:

Purchases of property and equipment
Purchases of investments
Maturities of investments
Change in restricted cash

(6,425)
(129,534)
178,521
—

(7,665)
(197,178)
160,947
—

(1,708)
(152,811)
29,250
40

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

42,562

(43,896)

(125,229)

Cash flows from financing activities:

Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs
Net cash proceeds from exercise of stock options, including early exercise
Proceeds from issuance of Series B convertible preferred stock, net of

issuance costs

Repurchase of Series A convertible preferred stock

Net cash provided by financing activities

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period

6,520
—

145,000
2,843

168,119
303

—
—

—
—

79,779
(12,874)

6,520

147,843

235,327

(50,523)
124,010

47,333
76,677

74,408
2,269

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period

$ 73,487

$ 124,010

$ 76,677

Supplemental schedule of non-cash investing and financing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment reported in accounts payable
Conversion of convertible preferred stock to common stock at closing of

initial public offering

Capital expenditures and interest funded through long term lease obligation
Supplemental cash flow disclosures:
Cash paid for taxes
Cash paid for interest

$

$
$

$
$

1,355

$

558

$

—

— $
— $

39
$
— $

— $ 83,833
710
— $

— $
— $

—
—

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

103

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. Formation and Business of the Company

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., or the Company, is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company advancing a

new therapeutic approach, including the development of proprietary product candidates, for the treatment of
peanut and other food allergies. Our therapeutic approach, which we refer to as Characterized Oral
Desensitization Immunotherapy, or CODITTM, is a therapeutic approach designed to desensitize patients to food
allergens using rigorously characterized biologic products, defined treatment protocols and tailored support
services. We are headquartered in Brisbane, California and were incorporated in the state of Delaware on
June 24, 2011.

Since inception, we have incurred net losses and negative cash flows from operations. During the year
ended December 31, 2017, we incurred a net loss of $131.3 million and used $99.6 million of cash in operations.
As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $265.5 million and we do not expect to experience
positive cash flows in the near future. As of December 31, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments
of $182.4 million. We believe that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund our planned operations
for the next 12 months and through regulatory submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for
AR101, our lead CODITTM product candidate. We have financed our operations to date primarily through private
placements of our equity securities and our initial public offering, or IPO, of common stock in August 2015. Our
ability to continue to meet our obligations and to achieve our business objectives is dependent upon a number of
factors, which include raising additional capital, the successful and timely completion of our clinical trials, our
ability to control expenses, obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and European Medicines
Agency, or EMA, approval, and generating sufficient revenue in the United States and Europe. Failure to obtain
FDA and EMA approval, commercialize our lead product candidate, manage discretionary expenditures, or raise
additional financing, as required, may adversely impact our ability to achieve our intended business objectives.

Private Placement

On November 23, 2016, we completed the issuance and sale of 7,522,084 shares of our common stock for
an aggregate cash purchase price of $145.0 million, or the Equity Investment, pursuant to a Securities Purchase
Agreement, or the Purchase Agreement, dated November 2, 2016, by and between us and Nestle Health Science
US Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, or Nestle Health Science. In connection with the closing of the
Equity Investment, we and Nestle Health Science entered into a Standstill Agreement, or the Standstill
Agreement, and a Registration Rights Agreement, or the Registration Rights Agreement. See Note 6,
“Stockholders’ Equity.”

Initial Public Offering

On August 5, 2015, our registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-205501) relating to the IPO of our
common stock became effective. The IPO closed on August 11, 2015 at which time we issued 11,499,999 shares
of our common stock at a price of $16.00 per share, which included 1,499,999 shares sold pursuant to the
exercise in full of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. We received proceeds of approximately
$168.1 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions, and offering expenses. In addition, upon our
IPO, all outstanding shares of convertible preferred stock converted by their terms into approximately
25.1 million shares of common stock. As of December 31, 2017, we had 51,090,813 shares of common stock
outstanding. See Note 6, “Stockholders’ Equity.”

Stock Split

On July 30, 2015, we effected a 1-for-1.317 stock split of our common stock and convertible preferred

stock. The par value of the authorized stock was not adjusted as a result of the stock split. In addition, we

104

increased the number of authorized shares of common stock to 55,051,264 and the number of authorized shares
of preferred stock to 25,051,264. All issued and outstanding common stock, convertible preferred stock, stock
options and per share amounts contained in the accompanying consolidated financial statements and
accompanying notes have been retroactively adjusted to give effect to the stock split for all periods presented. In
conjunction with the our IPO, we filed our amended and restated certificate of incorporation that authorized
290,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock,
$0.0001 par value per share.

2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Preparation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States, or U.S. GAAP, and include the accounts of our wholly-owned
subsidiaries. All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated. We operate in one reportable
segment in the United States.

Foreign Currency Translation

Our functional currency and the functional currency of all of our subsidiaries is the United States dollar.

Accordingly, monetary assets and liabilities in the non-functional currency of these subsidiaries are remeasured
using exchange rates in effect at the end of the period. Costs in local currency are remeasured using average
exchange rates for the period, except for costs related to those balance sheet items that are remeasured using
historical exchange rates. The resulting remeasurement gains and losses are included in the consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive loss as incurred and have not been material for all periods presented.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of the accompanying consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP

requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, and the reported
amounts of costs and expenses during the reporting period. We base our estimates and assumptions on historical
experience when available and on various factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. We
evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Our actual results could differ from these estimates
under different assumptions or conditions.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

We consider all highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of
purchase to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents, which are carried at estimated fair value, consist primarily of
money market funds and certain available-for-sale investments with maturities of three months or less.

Segment Reporting

Operating segments are identified as components of an enterprise about which separate discrete financial

information is available for evaluation by the chief operating decision maker in making decisions regarding
resource allocation and assessing performance. We have one operating segment.

Concentration of Credit Risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to a concentration of credit risk consist of cash and cash

equivalents and certain investments in money market funds, agency securities, corporate securities, U.S.

105

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

government securities and commercial paper. Bank deposits are primarily held by a single financial institution
and these deposits may exceed insured limits. We are exposed to credit risk in the event of default by the
financial institution holding our cash and cash equivalents and issuers of investments that are recorded on our
consolidated balance sheets. We mitigate our risk by investing in high-grade instruments and limiting the
concentration in any one issuer, which limits our exposure.

Investments

Our investments consist of available-for-sale securities. Investments with original maturities of greater than

90 days but less than one (1) year are classified as short-term on the consolidated balance sheets. Investments
with original maturities greater than one (1) year are classified as long-term on the consolidated balance sheets.

Our investments in available-for-sale securities are reported at estimated fair value. Available-for-sale
securities consist primarily of agency securities, corporate securities, U.S. government securities and commercial
paper. Unrealized gains and losses related to changes in the fair value of securities are recognized in accumulated
other comprehensive loss, net of tax, on our consolidated balance sheets. Changes in the fair value of
available-for-sale securities impact the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss only when
such securities are sold or an other-than-temporary impairment is recognized. Realized gains and losses on the
sale of securities are determined by specific identification of each security’s cost basis. We regularly review our
investment portfolio to determine if any security is other-than-temporarily impaired, which would require us to
record an impairment charge in the period any such determination is made. We consider factors such as the
duration, severity and the reason for the decline in value, the financial condition of the issuer and any changes
thereto, the potential recovery period and our intent to sell. For debt securities, we also consider whether (i) it is
more likely than not that we will be required to sell the debt securities before recovery of their amortized cost
basis, and (ii) the amortized cost basis cannot be recovered as a result of credit losses. Our assessment on
whether a security is other-than-temporarily impaired could change in the future due to new developments or
changes in assumptions related to any particular security.

Property and Equipment

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. Maintenance and repairs are
charged to the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss as incurred. Upon sale or retirement
of assets, the cost and related accumulated depreciation are removed from the balance sheet and the resulting
gain or loss, if any, is reflected in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

The useful lives of property and equipment are as follows:

Furniture and office equipment
Computer equipment
Buildings
Fixtures
Leasehold improvements

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

4 years
3 years
25 years
10 years
Shorter of remaining lease terms or useful life

We evaluate our long-lived assets, including property and equipment, for impairment whenever events or

changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of these assets may not be recoverable. Recoverability
of these assets is measured by comparison of the carrying amount of each asset to the future undiscounted cash
flows expected to result from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. If the asset is considered to be
impaired, the amount of any impairment is measured as the difference between the carrying value and the fair
value of the impaired assets. We have not recorded impairment of any long-lived assets in the periods presented.

106

Leases

Leases related to our corporate headquarters are classified as operating leases. Rent expense is recognized
on a straight-line basis over the terms of the leases and, accordingly, we record the difference between cash rent
payments and the recognition of rent expense as a deferred rent liability. Incentives granted under facilities leases
are deferred and recognized as adjustments to rental expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.

In June 2015, we signed a lease for a manufacturing facility in Clearwater, Florida. We were considered the

deemed owner for accounting purposes. See Note 5, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for further details.

Research and Development

We expense research and development costs as incurred. We record accrued liabilities for estimated costs of

research and development activities conducted by third-party service providers, which include the conduct of
pre-clinical studies and clinical trials and contract manufacturing activities. These costs are a significant
component of our research and development expenses. We accrue for these costs based on factors such as
estimates of the work completed and in accordance with agreements established with our third-party service
providers under the service agreements. We make significant judgments and estimates in determining the accrued
liabilities balance in each reporting period. As actual costs become known, we adjust our accrued liabilities. We
have not experienced any material differences between accrued costs and actual costs incurred. However, the
status and timing of actual services performed, number of patients enrolled and the rate of patient enrollments
may vary from our estimates, resulting in adjustments to expense in future periods. Changes in these estimates
that result in material changes to our accruals could materially affect our results of operations.

Stock-Based Compensation

Stock-based awards issued to employees, including stock options, are measured at fair value on the grant
date using the Black—Scholes option-pricing model for stock options and the market price of our ordinary shares
on that date for restricted stock units (“RSUs”). The fair value stock-based awards is recognized as expense on a
straight-line basis over the employee’s requisite service period (generally the vesting period). Because noncash
stock compensation expense is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, it is reduced by an estimate for
future forfeitures. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if
actual forfeitures differ from estimates. There were 2,371,700, 2,343,385 and 4,192,485 stock options granted
during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Additionally, there were 16,638,
17,000, and 0 restricted stock units awarded during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015
respectively.

Income Taxes

We use the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets

and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the financial reporting and the tax bases of
reported 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. We must then assess the likelihood that the resulting deferred tax assets
will be realized. A valuation allowance is provided when it is more likely than not that some portion or all of a
deferred tax asset will not be realized. Due to our lack of earnings history, the net deferred tax assets have been
fully offset by a valuation allowance. Tax benefits from uncertain tax positions are recognized when it is more
likely than not that the position will be sustained upon examination, including resolutions of any related appeals
or litigation processes, based on technical merits. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of
tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon effective settlement.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

107

Comprehensive Income or Loss

Comprehensive income or loss is defined as the change in equity during a period from transactions and other

events, excluding changes resulting from investments from owners and distributions to owners. Other
comprehensive loss includes net loss and unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale investments.

Net Loss per Share

The following common stock equivalents were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share

for the periods presented because their inclusion would have been antidilutive:

Series A convertible preferred stock
Stock options
Restricted stock units

Offering Costs

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

—
6,629,111
16,638

—
5,429,267
17,000

—
4,814,892
—

Offering costs represent underwriting, legal, accounting and other direct costs related to our IPO. These
costs were deferred until completion of the IPO, at which time they were reclassified to additional paid-in capital
as a reduction of the proceeds.

Fair Value Measurements

We define fair value as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability

(an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants on the measurement date.

Our valuation techniques are based on observable and unobservable inputs. Observable inputs reflect readily
obtainable data from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect our market assumptions. We classify
these inputs into the following hierarchy:

Level 1—Inputs are unadjusted, quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities at the
measurement date;

Level 2—Inputs are observable, unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for similar assets or liabilities,
unadjusted quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, or other inputs
that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the related
assets or liabilities; and

Level 3—Unobservable inputs that are significant to the measurement of the fair value of the assets or liabilities
that are supported by little or no market data.

Financial instruments include cash equivalents, investments, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities. Our

cash equivalents and investments are carried at estimated fair value and remeasured on a recurring basis. The
carrying value of accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate their estimated fair value due to the
relatively short-term nature of these instruments. Our valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of
money market funds were derived from quoted prices in active markets for identical assets. The valuation
techniques used to measure the fair value of investments, all of which have counterparties with high credit
ratings, were valued based on quoted market prices or model-driven valuations using significant inputs derived
from or corroborated by observable market data.

108

In accordance with fair value accounting requirements, companies may choose to measure eligible financial

instruments and certain other items at fair value. We have not elected the fair value option for any eligible
financial instruments.

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update,
or ASU, No. 2016-09, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718) Improvements to Employee Share-Based
Payment Accounting, which simplifies several aspects of accounting for share-based payment transactions
including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, classification on
the statement of cash flows and accounting for forfeitures. Upon our adoption of the new standard for fiscal year
2017, all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies are recognized as income tax expense or benefit in the income
statement. The tax effects of exercised or vested awards are treated as discrete items in the reporting period in
which they occur. We recognize excess tax benefits regardless of whether the benefit reduces taxes payable in the
current period. We applied the modified retrospective approach upon adoption, and prior periods have not been
adjusted. As a result, we have established a net operating loss deferred tax asset of $1.2 million to account for
prior period excess tax benefits through retained earnings; however, an offsetting valuation allowance of
$1.2 million has also been established through retained earnings because it is not more likely than not that the
deferred asset will be realized due to historical and expected future losses, such that there is no impact on our
consolidated financial statements. Additionally, as allowed by the standard, we elected to continue to estimate
potential forfeitures.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-09, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Scope
of Modification Accounting, which provides guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-
based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting in Topic 718. The guidance establishes
that an entity should account for the effects of a modification to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment
award, unless all three of the following conditions are met: (a) the fair value of the modified award is the same as
the fair value of the original award immediately before the modification, (b) the vesting conditions of the
modified award are the same as the vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the modification,
and (c) the classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a liability instrument is the same as the
classifications of the original award immediately before the original award was modified. This guidance is
effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 31, 2017, and early
adoption is permitted. We currently anticipate adopting the new standard effective January 1, 2018, and do not
expect the standard to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In November 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards
Update, or ASU, 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows—Restricted Cash (Topic 230), which establishes that the
statement of cash flows will show the changes in cash, cash equivalents and amounts generally described as
restricted cash. As a result, entities will no longer have to determine how to classify transfers to and from
restricted cash within the statement of cash flows. An entity will be required to reconcile the total cash, cash
equivalents and amounts generally described as restricted cash on the statement of cash flows to the amounts in
the balance sheet, and disclose the nature of any restrictions on its cash, cash equivalents or amounts generally
described as restricted cash. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years,
beginning after December 31, 2017, and early adoption is permitted. We currently anticipate adopting the new
standard effective January 1, 2018, and do not expect the standard to have a material impact on our consolidated
financial statements and related disclosures.

In October 2016, the FASB, issued ASU, 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers Other
Than Inventory, which requires companies to recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of
an asset other than inventory. This guidance will be effective for us in the first quarter of 2018, with the option to

109

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

adopt it in the first quarter of 2017. We currently anticipate adopting the new standard effective January 1, 2018,
and do not expect the standard to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related
disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of
Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which will make eight targeted changes to how cash receipts and
cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-15 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2017. ASU 2016-15 will require adoption on a retrospective basis. Early
adoption is permitted. We currently anticipate adopting the new standard effective January 1, 2018, and do not
expect the standard to have a material impact on our financial statements and related disclosures.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326):

Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which requires measurement and recognition of
expected credit losses for financial assets held. ASU 2016-13 modifies the other-than-temporary impairment
model for available-for-sale debt securities and requires an estimate of expected credit losses when the fair value
is below the amortized cost of the asset. ASU 2016-13 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2019 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the
impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-13 will have on our consolidated financial statements and related
disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB, issued ASU, No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which requires lessees to apply

a dual approach, classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether or not
the lease is effectively a financed purchase by the lessee. This classification will determine whether lease
expense is recognized based on an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.
A lessee is also required to record a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases with a term of greater
than 12 months regardless of their classification. Leases with a term of 12 months or less will be accounted for
similar to existing guidance for operating leases. The standard is effective for interim and annual periods
beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted. We are currently in the process of evaluating
the impact the adoption of this new standard will have on our consolidated financial statements and related
disclosures; however, since we are lessee to certain leases for property whose terms exceed twelve months, we
expect to report assets and liabilities related to these leases on our consolidated financial statements that have not
been previously reported, once we adopt ASU 2016-02.

110

3. Available-for-Sale Securities and Fair Value Measurements

The following table sets forth our financial instruments that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis

by level within the fair value hierarchy (in thousands):

Cash and cash equivalents:

Cash and money market funds
Corporate securities
Commercial paper

Total cash and cash equivalents

Investments:

Agency securities
Corporate securities
Commercial paper
US government securities

Total investments

Cash and cash equivalents:

Cash and money market funds
Commercial paper

Total cash and cash equivalents

Investments:

Agency securities
Corporate securities
Commercial paper
US government securities

Total investments

Level 1

December 31, 2017
Level 3
Level 2

Total

$39,072
—
—

$ —

999
33,416

$39,072

$ 34,415

—
—
—
—

12,718
28,345
21,432
46,448

$—
—
—

$—

—
—
—
—

$ 39,072
999
33,416

$ 73,487

12,718
28,345
21,432
46,448

$ —

$108,943

$—

$108,943

December 31, 2016

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Total

$107,977
—

$ —

16,033

$107,977

$ 16,033

$ —
—
—
—

$ —

$ 45,571
22,031
8,669
82,252

$158,523

$—
—

$—

$—
—
—
—

$—

$107,977
16,033

$124,010

$ 45,571
22,031
8,669
82,252

$158,523

Our valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of money market funds were derived from quoted

prices in active markets for identical assets. The valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of
investments, all of which have counterparties with high credit ratings, were valued based on quoted market prices
or model-driven valuations using significant inputs derived from or corroborated by observable market data.
Investments are carried at fair value. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, there were no
transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

111

Available-for-sale investments are carried at fair value and are included in the tables above. The aggregate

market value, cost basis, and gross unrealized gains and losses of available-for-sale investments by security type,
classified in cash equivalents and investments, as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 are as are as
follows (in thousands):

Agency securities
Corporate securities
Commercial paper
US government securities

Total available-for-sale investments

Agency securities
Corporate securities
Commercial paper
US government securities

Total available-for-sale investments

December 31, 2017

Gross
unrealized
gains

Gross
unrealized
losses

$—

1

—
—

$

1

$ (11)
(26)
—
(72)

$(109)

December 31, 2016

Gross
unrealized
gains

Gross
unrealized
losses

$

5
2

—

15

$ 22

$ (25)
(21)
—

(3)

$ (49)

Total
fair value

$ 12,718
29,344
54,848
46,448

$143,358

Total
fair value

$ 45,571
22,031
24,702
82,252

$174,556

Amortized
Cost

$ 12,729
29,369
54,848
46,520

$143,466

Amortized
Cost

$ 45,591
22,050
24,702
82,240

$174,583

At December 31, 2017, all of the available-for-sale securities have contractual maturities within one year.

We periodically review our available-for-sale investments for other-than-temporary impairment loss. We
consider factors such as the duration, severity and the reason for the decline in value, the potential recovery
period and our intent to sell. For debt securities, we also consider whether (i) it is more likely than not that we
will be required to sell the debt securities before recovery of their amortized cost basis, and (ii) the amortized
cost basis cannot be recovered as a result of credit losses. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and
2015 we did not recognize any other-than-temporary impairment losses. All marketable securities with
unrealized losses have been in a loss position for less than twelve months.

4. Balance Sheet Components

Property and Equipment, Net

Property and equipment, net consists of the following (in thousands):

Furniture and equipment
Computer equipment
Manufacturing equipment
Leased equipment
Leasehold improvements
Buildings
Construction in progress

Property and equipment, gross
Less: accumulated depreciation

Property and equipment, net

112

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

$ 1,655
1,410
830
100
2,685
688
11,490

$

776
850
703
—
—
—
8,749

18,858
(1,653)

11,078
(687)

$17,205

$10,391

Depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $1.0 million, $0.5 million

and $0.1 million, respectively.

Accrued Liabilities

Accrued liabilities consist of the following (in thousands):

Compensation and benefits
Research and development
Professional and consulting
Other

Total accrued liabilities

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Facility Leases

Year Ended December 31,

2017

$ 6,205
12,716
2,370
187

$21,478

2016

$3,195
5,154
967
605

$9,921

In March 2015, we entered into a new lease for our corporate headquarters in Brisbane, California for
11,665 square feet of office space. In August 2015, we entered into a lease amendment, pursuant to which we
leased an additional 26,355 square feet of office space. In June 2017, we entered into a second lease amendment,
under which we leased an additional 14,841 square feet of office space. The term for the additional space
commenced on January 1, 2018 and terminates on June 30, 2024. Additionally, the term of the existing office
space has been extended so that it is coterminous with the new space. No additional security deposit was
required, and we are responsible for operating expenses over base operating expenses as defined in the original
lease agreement. We also lease office space in Durham, North Carolina and London, United Kingdom with lease
terms that are less than twelve months.

In June 2015, we signed a facility lease for a manufacturing facility for approximately 20,000 square feet of

manufacturing space in Clearwater, Florida. The initial term of the lease is for 120 months. For accounting
purposes, due to the nature and extent of our involvement with the construction of this manufacturing facility, we
were considered to be the owner of the assets during the construction period through the lease commencement
date, even though the lessor is responsible for funding and repairing components of the building shell and
constructing a portion of the related building infrastructure. We capitalized $0.7 million for costs incurred by the
lessor in constructing the building shell and recognized a corresponding amount included within other liabilities.
Construction to this building commenced in July 2015 and as of December 31, 2017, we have incurred
approximately $13.3 million of construction and equipment costs related to the building, of which $10.4 million
is recorded in construction in progress. We are responsible for operating expenses including real estate taxes as
defined in the manufacturing facility lease agreement.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Total future aggregate minimum lease payments under our operating leases, are as follows (in thousands):

Year Ended December 31,

2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
and thereafter

Total

113

$ 2,985
2,557
2,645
2,724
2,805
4,611

$18,327

Rent expense under operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was

$2.4 million, $1.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively.

Capital Lease

In July 2016, we entered into a five year capital lease agreement for certain equipment in our Florida
manufacturing facility. The current portion of the capital lease obligation is included in Other Current Liabilities
and the noncurrent portion is included in Other Liabilities.

The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments due under the capital lease obligation as of

December 31, 2017 (in thousands):

Year Ended December 31,

2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

Total capital lease obligation
Less: amount representing interest

Present value of net minimum capital lease payments

Less: current portion

Total noncurrent capital lease obligation

$ 33
33
34
35
9

144
(53)

91
(14)

$ 77

Purchase Commitments

We purchase standard food-grade peanut flour from Golden Peanut Company, or GPC, pursuant to a long-

term exclusive commercial supply agreement, which was expanded and extended in January 2018. GPC is not
allowed to sell several peanut flour products to any third party worldwide for use in OIT for the treatment or cure
of peanut allergy, provided that we are in compliance with our exclusive purchase obligation and meet specified
annual purchase commitments. The restated agreement remains in effect until ten years after the first delivery to
us of peanut flour for commercial use and includes an option for us to extend the term for an additional five
years. In connection with the expansion and extension of the agreement, we issued Archer Daniels Midland
Company 300,000 shares of our common stock, vesting over a 3.5 year period. Subject to certain exceptions, in
the event that the price per share of our common stock were to fall below a specified level, the restated
agreement provides that GPC would only be prohibited from selling one peanut flour product to any third party
in the United States, Mexico, Canada, the European Union or Japan for use in OIT for the treatment or cure of
peanut allergy.

Pursuant with the restated agreement, our purchase obligation commences with the first delivery of peanut

flour for commercial use, which we currently anticipate will not occur prior to 2019. Assuming that our first
delivery for commercial use occurs in 2019, which is not assured, the aggregate purchase commitment under this
agreement would be $8.3 million over a term of ten years.

Indemnifications

We indemnify each of our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits,

while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity, as permitted under
Delaware law and in accordance with our certificate of incorporation and bylaws. The term of the
indemnification period lasts as long as an officer or a director may be subject to any proceeding arising out of

114

acts or omissions of such officer or director in such capacity. The maximum amount of potential future
indemnification is unlimited; however, we currently hold directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. This
insurance allows the transfer of risk associated with our exposure and may enable us to recover a portion of any
future amounts paid. We believe that the fair value of these indemnification obligations is minimal. Accordingly,
we have not recognized any liabilities relating to these obligations for any period.

Legal

We are currently not a party to any material legal proceedings. During the normal course of business, we

may be a party to legal claims that may not be covered by insurance. We do not believe that any such claims
would have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

6. Stockholders’ Equity

Convertible Preferred Stock

In January and February 2015, we issued an aggregate 14,047,996 shares of Series B convertible preferred
stock, $0.0001 par value, original issue price of $5.69 per share, for gross cash proceeds of $80.0 million, and in
January 2015, we repurchased 2,260,706 shares of Series A convertible preferred stock from certain investors.
The purchase price of the Series A convertible preferred stock was $5.69 per share, the same as the issue price of
the Series B convertible stock, and was at an aggregate cost of $12.9 million. The offering costs for the issuance
and sale of Series B convertible preferred stock was $221,000. All 25,051,257 shares of our then-outstanding
convertible preferred stock converted into an equivalent number of shares of common stock upon the closing of
our IPO on August 11, 2015.

As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, we had authorized 10,000,000 shares of convertible preferred stock,

and no shares of convertible preferred stock were issued and outstanding.

Common Stock

On November 23, 2016, we issued and sold 7,522,084 shares of our common stock, par value $0.0001 per

share, for an aggregate cash purchase price of $145.0 million, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, dated
November 2, 2016, by and between us and Nestle Health Science. In connection with the closing of the Equity
Investment, we and Nestle Health Science entered into a Registration Rights Agreement and a Standstill
Agreement.

Under the terms of the Registration Rights Agreement, upon the written request of Nestle Health Science,

we shall prepare and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Commission, a registration
statement covering the resale of all the shares sold to Nestle Health Science that are not then registered on an
existing and effective registration statement for an offering to be made on a continuous basis pursuant
Commission Rule 415. Additionally, we shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause such registration
statement filed under the Registration Rights Agreement to be declared effective under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, within certain defined time limits and to keep such registration statement continuously
effective for a period of potentially three years from the original effect date of such registration statement.

Under the terms of the Standstill Agreement, Nestle Health Science is prohibited from entering into

transactions with the shares purchased in the Equity Investment, as well as to enter into any transactions with any
of our assets, without prior written consent of a majority of the members of our board of directors until the later
of the end of the term of the Collaboration Agreement and November 23, 2018.

115

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

7. Stock-Based Awards

Equity Plans

In July 2015, we adopted the 2015 Stock Plan, or the 2015 Plan. Under the 2015 Plan, 4,681,544 shares of

our common stock were initially reserved for the issuance of stock options and restricted stock to employees,
directors, and consultants under terms and provisions established by the Board of Directors, or the Board, and
approved by our stockholders. As of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 there were 4,313,423 and
4,344,487 and shares available for future grant, respectively.

Under the terms of the 2015 Plan, options may be granted at an exercise price not less than fair market
value. For employees holding more than 10% of the voting rights of all classes of stock, the exercise prices for
incentive stock options may not be less than 110% of fair market value, as determined by the Board. The terms of
options granted under the 2015 Plan may not exceed ten years. All options issued to date have had a ten-year life.
To date, options granted generally vest in three ways: 1) over four years at a rate of 25% upon the first
anniversary of the issuance date and 1/48th per month thereafter, 2) over two years at a rate of 1/24th per month,
or 3) over four years at a rate of 1/48th per month. The 2015 Plan contains certain change of control provisions
and the employment offer letters of certain employees provide for varied acceleration of vesting in the event of a
change of control and/or termination without cause. It also contains a net exercise provision and allows for
cashless exercise upon the class of shares subject to the option becoming publicly traded in an established
securities market.

In August 2015, we adopted the 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2015 ESPP”), which
commenced on January 1, 2018. Under the 2015 ESPP our employees may purchase common stock through
payroll deductions at a price equal to 85% of the lower of the fair market value of the stock at the beginning of
the offering period or at the end of each applicable purchase period. The 2015 ESPP generally provides for
offering periods of six months in duration with purchase periods ending on either May 15 or November 15.
Contributions under the 2015 ESPP are limited to a maximum of 15% of an employee’s eligible compensation.
ESPP purchases are settled with common stock from the ESPP’s previously authorized and available pool of
shares.

Our 2013 Stock Plan, or the 2013 Plan, which was originally adopted during January 2013, was terminated

upon consummation of our IPO in August 2015. As a terminated plan, no further options can be granted from the
2013 Plan, and no further shares are reserved for issuance under the 2013 Plan.

Prior to its termination, the 2013 Plan allowed employees to exercise a stock option in exchange for cash

before the requisite service is provided (e.g., before the award is vested under its original terms); however, such
arrangements permit us to subsequently repurchase such shares at the exercise price if the vesting conditions are
not satisfied. Such an exercise is not substantive for accounting purposes. Therefore, the payment received by us
for the exercise price is recognized as an early exercise liability on the consolidated balance sheets and will be
transferred to common stock and additional paid-in capital as such shares vest. As of December 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, 46,973 and 199,538 unvested shares were legally issued and outstanding, respectively. In
connection with these unvested shares, we have recorded an early exercise liability as of December 31, 2017 and
2016 of $7,000 and $62,000, respectively, of which $7,000 and $55,000 is included in other current liabilities as
of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, with the remaining was included in other liabilities in the
consolidated balance sheets. These shares are excluded from basic and diluted net loss per share until our
repurchase right lapses and the shares are no longer subject to the repurchase feature.

116

Activity under the 2015 Plan and 2013 Plan is set forth below:

Balance, December 31, 2016

Options granted
Options exercised and shares vested
Options cancelled

Balance, December 31, 2017

Options vested and expected to vest as of December 31,

2017

Options exercisable as of December 31, 2017

Options Outstanding

Number of
Options
and
Unvested
Shares

Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price

Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual Life
(In years)

5,628,907
2,371,700
(1,021,997)
(349,499)

$ 9.50
$20.99
$ 6.38
$ 8.44

6,629,111

$14.15

6,373,599
3,241,314

$13.98
$ 8.77

9.0

8.2

8.2
8.2

Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(In
thousands)

$ 61,617

$156,900

$151,949
$ 94,168

The aggregate intrinsic values of options outstanding, exercisable, and vested and expected to vest were

calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the options and the market price for shares of our
common stock as of December 31, 2017. The 2013 Plan provided for early exercise, therefore, all of the
outstanding stock options issued under that plan are exercisable. The total intrinsic value of options exercised
during the year ended December 31, 2017 was $17.9 million.

Stock Awards Granted

Stock options granted during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 had a per share weighted-
average grant-date fair value of $13.70, $10.53 and $6.11, respectively. The fair value is being expensed over the
vesting period of the options, which is either four years or two years on a straight-line basis as the services are
being provided. No tax benefits were realized from options during the periods. We issued one grant totaling
213,354 options to a non-employee during the year ended December 31, 2015. The fair value of the
non-employee options was measured using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model reflecting the same
assumptions as applied to employee options, other than the expected life, which was assumed to be the remaining
contractual life of the option. During 2016, we converted the non-employee to an employee, and converted the
grant from a non-employee grant to an employee grant. The conversion of the grant was treated as a modification
of the original grant; accordingly, for the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized $0.1 million of
modification expense.

As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, total unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to
options was $43.2 million and $27.3 million, respectively, which is expected to be recognized over the weighted-
average remaining vesting period of 2.4 years and 2.7 years, respectively.

Restricted stock unit, or RSU, activity under the 2015 Plan is set forth below:

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Unvested Balance, December 31, 2016

Awarded
Released
Forfeited

Unvested Balance, December 31, 2017

Weighted Average
Grant Date
Fair Value

$14.01
35.41
14.01
—

$35.41

Shares

17,000
16,638
(17,000)
—

16,638

RSUs are measured based on the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant and

recognized as expense on a straight-line basis over the employee’s requisite service period (generally the vesting

117

period). As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, total unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to
RSUs was $0.6 million and $0.1 million, respectively, which is expected to be recognized over the weighted-
average remaining vesting period of 3.7 years and 0.2 years, respectively.

Determining Fair Value of Stock Options

In determining the fair value of the stock options used to calculate stock-based compensation expense, we

use the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and assumptions discussed below. Each of these inputs is subjective
and generally requires judgment to determine.

• Expected Term. The expected term of stock options represents the weighted average period the stock

options are expected to be outstanding. We have opted to use the simplified method for estimating the
expected term as provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin,
SAB, 110 as our options grants are considered “plain vanilla”. The simplified method calculates the
expected term as the average time- to-vesting and the contractual life of the options. We plan to
continue to use the simplified method under SAB 110 until we have sufficient exercise history as a
publicly traded company.

• Expected Volatility. As we have limited trading history for our common stock, the expected stock price
volatility assumption is determined based on the historical volatilities of a group of industry peers as
well as the historical volatility of our own common stock since we began trading subsequent to our IPO
in August 2015. Industry peers consist of several public companies in the biopharmaceutical industry
with comparable characteristics including enterprise value, risk profiles and position within the
industry. We intend to continue to consistently apply this process using the same or similar public
companies until a sufficient amount of historical information regarding the volatility of our own
common stock share price becomes available, or unless circumstances change such that the identified
companies are no longer similar to us, in which case, more suitable companies whose share prices are
publicly available would be utilized in the calculation.

• Risk-Free Interest Rate. The risk-free interest rate is based on the Black-Scholes valuation model on
the implied yield available on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues in effect at the time of grant for
periods corresponding with the expected term of the option.

• Expected Dividend Yield. We have never paid dividends on our common stock and have no plans to

pay dividends on our common stock. Therefore, we used an expected dividend yield of zero.

The weighted-average assumptions used to estimate the fair value of stock options using the Black-Scholes option

valuation model and the resulting weighted average grant date fair value of stock options granted were as follows:

Expected volatility
Risk-free interest rate
Expected dividend yield
Expected term (in years)
Weighted average grant date fair value

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

73.1%
2.0%
—
6.0
$13.70

74.5% 74.1%
1.7%
—
6.0
$6.11

1.7%
—
6.0
$10.53

Stock-based compensation expense, net of estimated forfeitures, is reflected in the consolidated statements

of operations and comprehensive loss (in thousands) as summarized below:

Research and development
General and administrative

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

$ 5,077
11,642

$ 4,838
7,803

$2,522
3,635

Total stock-based compensation expense

$16,719

$12,641

$6,157

118

During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we recorded $0.4 million, $0.9 million and

$1.4 million of stock compensation expense related to the acceleration of certain former executives’ stock
options, respectively.

8. Income Taxes

The following table presents loss before provision for income taxes (in thousands):

Income/(loss) before income taxes

Domestic
Foreign

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

$(100,107)
(31,162)

$(66,210)
(14,614)

$(17,489)
(18,327)

Total loss before provision for income taxes

$(131,269)

$(80,824)

$(35,816)

The federal, state and foreign income tax provisions for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

are summarized as follows (in thousands):

Current

Federal
State
Foreign

Total Current

Deferred

Federal
State
Foreign

Total Deferred

Total provision for income taxes

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

$—
—
56

$— $—
—
—
—
—

56

—

—
—
—

—

—
—
—

—

—

—
—
—

—

$ 56

$—

$—

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “2017 Tax Act”) was signed into law
making significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Changes include, but are not limited to, a federal
corporate tax rate decrease from 34% to 21% for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the transition of
U.S. international taxation from a worldwide tax system to a territorial system, and a one-time transition tax on
the mandatory deemed repatriation of foreign earnings. The 2017 Tax Act had no impact on tax expense
primarily due to us maintaining a full valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets.

On December 22, 2017, the SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118 (“SAB 118”) to address the

application of U.S. GAAP in situations when a registrant does not have the necessary information available,
prepared, or analyzed in reasonable detail to complete the accounting for certain income tax effects of the 2017
Tax Act. We did not identify items for which the income tax effects of the 2017 Tax Act have not been
completed and could not be reasonably estimated as of December 31, 2017, and as such, our financial results
reflect the income tax effects of the 2017 Tax Act for which the accounting under ASC Topic 740 is complete.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

119

Income tax expense for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 differed from the amount
expected by applying the statutory federal tax rate to the loss before taxes as summarized below (in thousands):

Federal tax benefit at statutory rate
State tax benefit, net of federal benefit
Stock compensation
Change in valuation allowance
Research and development credits
Foreign income taxed at different rates
Impact related to 2017 Tax Act
Other

Income tax expense

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

34.00% 34.00% 34.00%
0.54% 0.39% 3.02%
1.72% (1.75)% (1.59)%
(9.31)% (27.45)% (20.55)%
1.70% 2.53% 2.52%
(8.11)% (6.13)% (17.40)%
(20.46)% 0.00% 0.00%
(0.12)% (1.59)% 0.00%

(0.04)% 0.00% 0.00%

The significant components of our deferred taxes are as follows (in thousands):

Deferred tax assets (liabilities):
Net operating loss carryforwards
Start-up costs
Stock-based compensation
Tax credit carryforwards
Accruals
Other

Subtotal deferred tax assets

Less: valuation allowance

Total deferred tax assets
Basis differences in fixed assets

Net deferred income taxes

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

$ 38,626
740
3,115
6,353
1,153
35

$ 27,109
1,282
3,427
3,585
1,041
22

50,022
(49,934)

36,466
(36,466)

88
(88)

—

$ —

$ —

We recognize deferred income taxes for temporary differences between the basis of assets and liabilities for

financial statement and income tax purposes. We periodically evaluate the positive and negative evidence
bearing upon realizability of our deferred tax assets. Based upon the weight of available evidence, which includes
our historical operating performance, reported cumulative net losses since inception and difficulty in accurately
forecasting our future results, we maintained a full valuation allowance on the net deferred tax assets as of
December 31, 2017 and 2016. We remeasured our deferred tax assets and liabilities at the applicable tax rate of
21% in accordance with the 2017 Tax Act. The remeasurement resulted in a total decrease in the deferred tax
assets of $26.9 million with an equal reduction to the valuation allowance recorded against our net deferred tax
assets. We intend to maintain a full valuation allowance on the federal and state deferred tax assets until
sufficient positive evidence exists to support reversal of the valuation allowance. The net change in the valuation
allowance for the years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 was an increase of $13.5 million and
$22.1 million, respectively.

As of December 31, 2017, we had net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards for Federal, California and

other state income tax purposes of $177.9 million, $12.0 million, and $11.5 million, respectively. As of
December 31, 2016, we had NOL carryforwards for Federal, California and other state income tax purposes of
$81.0 million, $12.0 million, and $2.4 million, respectively, which will begin to expire in 2031, 2031, and 2030,
respectively, if not utilized.

120

As of December 31, 2017, we had Federal and California research credit carryforwards of $6.7 million and
$1.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, we had Federal and California research credit carryforward
of approximately $3.9 million and $0.9 million, respectively. The Federal research credits will begin to expire in
2032, while the California research credits have no expiration date.

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, if a corporation
undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in
its equity ownership over a rolling three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating
loss, or NOL, carryforwards to offset its post-change taxable income may be limited. Limitations may also apply
to the utilization of other pre-change tax attributes as a result of an ownership change.

Following the equity investment by Nestle Health Science in November 2016, we performed a Section 382
analysis and determined that we experienced multiple ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code prior to
July 31, 2017. Utilization of the NOL and tax credit carryforwards are subject to a substantial annual limitation
due to the ownership change limitations set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 382 and similar state
provisions. Such annual limitations could impact the utilization of NOL and tax credit carryforwards in the
future. We experienced no significant permanent losses of tax attributes due to these ownership changes.

In addition, we may experience more ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code as a result of future
changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside our control. As a result, our ability to utilize NOL
carryforwards or other tax attributes, such as research tax credits, in any taxable year may be further limited if we
have experienced an ownership change.

Tax benefits from uncertain tax positions are recognized when it is more likely than not that the position
will be sustained upon examination, including resolutions of any related appeals or litigation processes, based on
technical merits. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50%
likely of being realized upon effective settlement.

The following table summarizes the activity related to our unrecognized benefits (in thousands):

Beginning balance—unrecognized tax benefit, gross

Increases related to tax positions taken during a prior year
Decreases related to a tax position taken during a prior year
Increases related to tax positions taken during the current year
Decreases related to settlements with taxing authorities
Decreases related to expiration of statute of limitations

Ending balance—unrecognized tax benefits, gross

Year Ended December 31,

2017

$ 960
—

(2)
699
—
—

$1,657

2016

$—
—
—
960
—
—

$960

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

At December 31, 2017, the unrecognized tax benefits for uncertain tax positions were offset against the

deferred tax assets and would not affect the income tax rate if recognized due to our being in a valuation
allowance position. Our policy is to include interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits, if any,
within the provision for taxes in the consolidated statements of operations. We did not accrue any interest or
penalties for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. We do not have any tax positions for which it is
reasonably possible that the total amount of gross unrecognized tax benefits will significantly change within 12
months of December 31, 2017.

We file federal, state and foreign income tax returns in jurisdictions with varying statutes of limitations. Due
to our NOL carryforwards, our income tax returns remain subject to examination by federal and most state taxing
authorities for all tax years.

121

9. Defined Contribution Plan

We sponsor a 401(k) Plan, or the 401(k) Plan, which stipulates that eligible employees may contribute to the
401(k) Plan subject to certain limitations. We may match employee contributions in amounts to be determined at
our sole discretion. To date, we have not made any matching contributions.

10. Related Party Transactions

In June 2017, Mark McDade, a member of our Board of Directors, joined the Board of Directors of
MyHealthTeams, a private company that creates social networks for people living with chronic conditions by
partnering with pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. We entered into an agreement with MyHealthTeams
in 2015 under which they provide services to us. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, our
payments to MyHealthTeams pursuant to such agreement were $0.2 million, $0.2 million and less than
$0.1 million, respectively. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, there were no accrued liabilities due under the
MyHealthTeams agreement.

11. Selected Quarterly Results of Operations (Unaudited)

The following table presents our unaudited quarterly financial data. Our quarterly results of operations for

these periods are not necessarily indicative of our future results of operations.

2017
Operating expenses:

Research and development
General and administrative

Quarter Ended

March 31

June 30

September 30

December 31

(In thousands, except per share data)

$ 17,417
8,924

$ 22,191
10,813

$ 21,063
11,226

$ 28,654
12,986

Total operating expenses

26,341

33,004

Loss from operations
Interest income, net

Loss before provision for income taxes

Provision for income taxes

(26,341)
471
(25,870)
—

(33,004)
507
(32,497)
—

32,289

(32,289)
497
(31,792)
—

41,640

(41,640)
530
(41,110)
56

Net loss

$(25,870)

$(32,497)

$(31,792)

$(41,166)

Net loss per common share, basic and diluted

$

(0.52)

$

(0.65)

$

(0.63)

$

(0.81)

2016
Operating expenses:

Research and development
General and administrative

Total operating expenses

Loss from operations
Interest income, net

Net loss

Quarter Ended

March 31

June 30

September 30

December 31

(In thousands, except per share data)

$ 9,976
5,723

$ 11,820
6,466

$ 15,888
6,353

15,699

18,286

(15,699)
176

(18,286)
147

22,241

(22,241)
155

$ 16,958
8,343

25,301

(25,301)
225

$(15,523)

$(18,139)

$(22,086)

$(25,076)

Net loss per common share, basic and diluted

$

(0.37)

$

(0.43)

$

(0.53)

$

(0.55)

122

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

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures.

As required by Rule 13a-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, our management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2017.
Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer have concluded that, as of December 31, 2017, our disclosure controls and procedures were
effective at the reasonable assurance level.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial

reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act). Internal control over financial
reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, and effected by our Board of Directors, management and other personnel, 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 and includes those policies and procedures
that:

•

•

•

Pertain to the maintenance of records that accurately and fairly reflect in reasonable detail the
transactions and dispositions of the assets of our company;

Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts
and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of our management and
directors; and

Provide reasonable assurances regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition,
use or disposition of our assets that could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2017 based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, or COSO 2013. Based on our
evaluation under the criteria set forth in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the COSO, our
management concluded our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting.

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended

December 31, 2017 identified in connection with the evaluation required by Rule 13a-15(d) and 15d-15(d) of the
Exchange Act that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over
financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls

Internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system,

no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the

123

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

objectives of the control system are met. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness of internal control
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. Accordingly, our disclosure
controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of our
disclosure control system are met.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

124

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

Information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the sections titled “Executive
Officers,” “Election of Directors,” “Corporate Governance” and “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership and
Reporting Compliance” in our Definitive Proxy Statement with respect to our 2018 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

Information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the section titled “Executive
Compensation,” “Director Compensation” and “Corporate Governance” in our Definitive Proxy Statement with
respect to our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the
fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

Information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the section titled “Security

Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information” in our
Definitive Proxy Statement with respect to our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the SEC
within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

Information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the section titled “Certain

Relationships and Related Party Transactions” and “Corporate Governance” in our Definitive Proxy Statement
with respect to our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end
of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

Information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the section titled “Ratification of

Selection of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in our Definitive Proxy Statement with respect to
our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal
year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

125

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

(a) The following documents are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

PART IV

1.

Financial Statements

See Index to Financial Statements at Item 8 herein.

2.

Financial Statement Schedules

All schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown in the
financial statements or notes thereto.

3.

Exhibits

126

Exhibit
Number

Exhibit Description

Form

Date

Number

Filed
Herewith

Exhibit Index

Incorporated by
Reference

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

10.1†

10.2(a)

10.3(b)

10.3(c)

10.4(a)†

10.4(b)

Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

8-K 8/11/2015

3.1

Amended and Restated Bylaws of Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc.

Reference is made to exhibits 3.1 through 3.2.

8-K 8/11/2015

3.2

Form of Common Stock Certificate.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

4.2

Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement,
dated January 20, 2015, by and among Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc. and the investors listed therein.

Registration Rights Agreement, dated November 23,
2016, by and between the Company and Nestle Health
Science US Holdings, Inc.

Standstill Agreement, dated November 23, 2016, by and
between the Company and Nestle Health Science US
Holdings, Inc.

Amended and Restated Supply Agreement, dated as of
January 10, 2017, by and between the Company and
Golden Peanut Company, L.L.C.

Office Lease, dated February 23, 2015, by and between,
the Company, Diamond Marina LLC and Diamond
Marina II LLC.

First Amendment to Office Lease, dated August 26, 2015,
by and between, the Company, Diamond Marina LLC
and Diamond Marina II LLC.

Second Amendment to Office Lease, dated June 27, 2017,
by and between, the Company, Diamond Marina LLC
and Diamond Marina II LLC.

S-1

7/6/2015

10.1

10-K

3/15/17

4.4

10-K

3/15/17

4.5

S-1

7/6/2015

10.3

10-Q 8/31/2015

10.2

10-Q

8/8/2017

10.2

Manufacturing Facility Lease, dated June 8, 2015, by and
between, the Company and MIDA Group, LLC.

S-1

7/6/2015

10.4

Amendment to Manufacturing Facility Lease, dated
June 8, 2015, by and between the Company and
Myerlake, LLC.

10-Q 8/10/2016

10.2

10.5(a)††

Strategic Collaboration Agreement, dated November 3,
2016, by and between the Company and Nestec Ltd.

10-K

3/15/17

10.5(a)

10.5(b)

Securities Purchase Agreement, dated November 3, 2016,
by and between the Company and Nestle Health Science
US Holdings, Inc.

10.6(a)#

2013 Stock Plan.

10-K

3/15/17

10.5(b)

S-1

7/6/2015

10.5(a)

127

X

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

Exhibit Description

Form

Date

Number

Filed
Herewith

Incorporated by
Reference

Exhibit
Number

10.6(b)#

10.6(c)#

10.6(d)#

Amendment to the 2013 Stock Plan, dated January 20,
2015.

Form of Stock Option Grant Notice and Stock Option
Agreement under the 2013 Stock Plan.

Form of Restricted Stock Purchase Grant Notice and
Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement under the 2013
Stock Plan.

S-1

7/6/2015

10.5(b)

S-1

7/6/2015

10.5(c)

S-1

S-8

7/6/2015

10.5(d)

8/11/2015

99.2(a)

10.7(a)#

2015 Equity Incentive Annual Plan.

10.7(b)#

10.7(c)#

Form of Stock Option Grant Notice and Stock Option
Agreement under the 2015 Equity Incentive Annual Plan.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.6(b)

Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement and
Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice under the 2015
Equity Incentive Annual Plan.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.6(c)

10.8#

10.9#

10.10#

10.11#

10.12#

10.13#

10.14#

10.15#

10.16#

10.17#

10.18#

Form of Indemnification Agreement for directors and
officers.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.7

Executive Employment Agreement, dated July 24, 2015,
by and between the Company and Stephen G. Dilly,
M.B.B.S., Ph.D.

Transition and Separation Agreement, dated November 5,
2017, by and between the Company and Stephen G.
Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.8

10-Q 11/6/2017

10.1

Executive Employment Agreement, dated July 24, 2015,
by and between the Company and Mary M. Rozenman.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.12

Aimmune Therapeutics UK Ltd. UK Employment
Agreement for Sue Barrowcliffe, dated February 19,
2016, by and between the Company and Susan E.
Barrowcliffe.

10-K

3/3/2016

10.14

Offer Letter, dated November 20, 2015, by and between
the Company and Jeffrey Knapp.

10-K

3/3/2016

10.15

Executive Employment Agreement, effective February 1,
2016, by and between the Company and Jeffrey H.
Knapp.

10-Q 5/16/2016

10.2

Executive Employment Agreement, dated April 4, 2016,
by and between the Company and Douglas T. Sheehy.

10-Q 5/16/2016

10.3

Executive Employment Agreement, dated June 16, 2016,
by and between the Company and Daniel Adelman.

10-Q 8/10/2016

10.3

Executive Employment Agreement, dated July 24, 2015,
by and between the Company and Warren L. DeSouza

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.9

Transition and Separation Agreement, dated February 3,
2017, by and between the Company and Warren L.
DeSouza.

8-K

2/3/2017

10.1

128

Exhibit Description

Form

Date

Number

Filed
Herewith

Incorporated by
Reference

Executive Employment Agreement, dated April 28, 2017,
by and between the Company and Eric H. Bjerkholt.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.11

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
Plan.

S-8

8/11/2015

99.3

Non-Employee Director Compensation Program.

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.16

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. Corporate Bonus Plan.

8-K 2/25/2016

List of subsidiaries

S-1/A 7/27/2015

10.1

21.1

Exhibit
Number

10.19#

10.20#

10.21#

10.22#

21.1

23.1

24.1

31.1

31.2

32.1**

32.2**

Consent of independent registered public accounting
firm.

Power of Attorney. Reference is made to the signature
page to the Registration Statement.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to
Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to
Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

101.INS

XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL

101.DEF

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase
Document

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase
Document

101.LAB

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase
Document

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

†

††

#

Confidential treatment has been granted for certain information contained in this exhibit. Such information
has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Portions of this exhibit (indicated by asterisks) have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential
treatment filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Indicates management contract or compensatory plan.

129

**

The certifications attached as Exhibit 32.1 and Exhibit 32.2 that accompany this Annual Report on Form
10-K are not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Annual
Report on Form 10-K, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.

Registrants may voluntarily include a summary of information required by Form 10-K under Item 16. We

have elected not to include such summary.

130

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the

Registrant has duly caused this Annual Report on Form 10-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.

Date: February 20, 2018

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

By:

/s/ Stephen G. Dilly
Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., PhD.
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below

constitutes and appoints each of Eric H. Bjerkholt and Douglas T. Sheehy his or her true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead,
in any and all capacities, to sign 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 attorney-in-fact and agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his
substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney as of the date

indicated opposite his/her name.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this Annual Report on
Form 10-K has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant in the capacities and on
the dates indicated.

Name

Title

Date

/s/ Stephen G. Dilly
Stephen G. Dilly

/s/ Eric H. Bjerkholt
Eric H. Bjerkholt

/s/ Gregory Behar
Gregory Behar

/s/ Patrick G. Enright
Patrick G. Enright

/s/ Kathryn E. Falberg
Kathryn E. Falberg

/s/ Mark T. Iwicki
Mark T. Iwicki

/s/ Mark D. McDade
Mark D. McDade

/s/ Stacey D. Seltzer
Stacey D. Seltzer

F
o
r
m
1
0
-
K

President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director (Principal Executive Officer)

February 20, 2018

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

February 20, 2018

Director

Director

Director

Director

Director

Director

131

February 20, 2018

February 20, 2018

February 20, 2018

February 20, 2018

February 20, 2018

February 20, 2018

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Corporate Information

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 300

Brisbane, CA 94005
TEL   650.614.5220
FAX  650.616.0075

Stockholder Information

ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
May 23, 2018 

9:00 a.m., Pacific Time

8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 300 

Brisbane, CA 94005

Transfer Agent

EQ Shareowner Services
1110 Centre Pointe, Suite 101
Mendota Heights, MN 55120

Stockholder Information

Symbol: AIMT
Exchange: Nasdaq

Legal Counsel

Latham & Watkins LLP
Menlo Park, CA

Independent Registered Public 
Accounting Firm

KPMG LLP
San Francisco, CA

Executive Officers

Stephen G. Dilly, MBBS, PhD
Chief Executive Officer

Daniel C. Adelman, MD
Chief Medical Officer

Susan E. Barrowcliffe
General Manager of Europe

Eric H. Bjerkholt
Chief Financial Officer

Jeffrey H. Knapp
Chief Operating Officer

Mary M. Rozenman, PhD
SVP, Corporate Development and Strategy

Douglas T. Sheehy
General Counsel and Secretary

Board of Directors

Stephen G. Dilly, MBBS, PhD
Chief Executive Officer 
Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

Gregory Behar
Chief Executive Officer
Nestlé Health Science S.A.

Patrick G. Enright
Managing Director, Longitude Capital

Kathryn E. Falberg
Former Executive Vice President and 
Chief Financial Officer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc. 

Mark T. Iwicki
Chief Executive Officer, Kala Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Mark D. McDade
Managing Partner, Qiming US Healthcare Fund, LP

Stacey D. Seltzer
Partner, Aisling Capital

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 300

Brisbane, CA 94005

TEL   650.614.5220

FAX   650.616.0075

www.aimmune.com