sv1za
As filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25,
2011
Registration No. 333-174405
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Amendment No. 3
to
Form S-1
REGISTRATION
STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933
CERES, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
100
(Primary Standard
Industrial
Classification Code Number)
|
|
33-0727287
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)
|
1535 Rancho Conejo Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
(805) 376-6500
(Address, including
zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
Registrants principal executive offices)
Richard Hamilton
President and Chief Executive Officer
Ceres, Inc.
1535 Rancho Conejo Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
Telephone:
(805) 376-6500
Facsimile:
(805) 498-1002
(Name, address,
including zip code, and telephone number, including area code,
of agent for service)
Copies to:
|
|
|
Danielle Carbone, Esq.
Shearman & Sterling LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone:
(212) 848-4000
Facsimile:
(212) 848-7179
|
|
Kevin P. Kennedy, Esq.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 251-5130
Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
|
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the
public: As soon as practicable after the
effective date of this Registration Statement.
If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be
offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to
Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the
following
box. o
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an
offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act,
please check the following box and list the Securities Act
registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in Rule
12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
Large
accelerated
filer o
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
Non-accelerated
filer þ
|
Smaller reporting
company o
|
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on
such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective
date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this Registration Statement shall
thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the Registration
Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission,
acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.
The
information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and
may be changed. These securities may not be sold until the
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission is effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an
offer to sell nor does it seek an offer to buy these securities
in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.
|
Subject to Completion. Dated
July 25, 2011.
Shares
Common Stock
This is an initial public offering of shares of common stock of
Ceres, Inc. All of
the shares of common
stock are being sold by the Company.
Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for the
common stock. It is currently estimated that the initial public
offering price per share will be between
$ and
$ . We have applied to list our
common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol
CERE.
See Risk Factors on page 12 to read about
factors you should consider before buying shares of the common
stock.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state
securities commission has approved or disapproved of these
securities or passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this
prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal
offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Initial public offering price
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Underwriting discount
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Proceeds, before expenses, to Ceres
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
To the extent that the underwriters sell more
than shares
of common stock, the underwriters have the option to purchase up
to an
additional shares
from Ceres at the initial public offering price less the
underwriting discount.
The underwriters expect to deliver the shares against payment in
New York, New York
on ,
2011.
|
|
Goldman,
Sachs & Co. |
Barclays Capital |
|
|
|
|
|
Piper Jaffray
|
|
Raymond James
|
|
Simmons & Company
International
|
Prospectus
dated ,
2011.
Ceres staff walk among sorghum plants near College Station, Texas.
Ceres, Inc. |
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Through and
including ,
2011 (the 25th day after the date of this prospectus), all
dealers effecting transactions in these securities, whether or
not participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a
prospectus. This is in addition to a dealers obligation to
deliver a prospectus when acting as an underwriter and with
respect to an unsold allotment or subscription.
We have not, and the underwriters and their affiliates have not,
authorized anyone to provide you with any information or to make
any representation not contained in this prospectus. We do not,
and the underwriters and their affiliates do not, take any
responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the
reliability of, any information that others may provide to you.
This prospectus is not an offer to sell or an offer to buy
shares of our common stock in any jurisdiction where offers and
sales are not permitted. The information in this prospectus is
accurate only as of the date of this prospectus, regardless of
the time of delivery of this prospectus or any sale of shares of
our common stock.
Neither we nor any of the underwriters have done anything that
would permit a public offering of the shares of our common stock
or possession or distribution of this prospectus in any
jurisdiction where action for that purpose is required, other
than in the United States. Persons outside the United States who
come into possession of this prospectus must inform themselves
about, and observe any restrictions relating to, the offering of
the shares of common stock and the distribution of this
prospectus outside of the United States.
i
PROSPECTUS
SUMMARY
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in
this prospectus and does not contain all of the information you
should consider in making your investment decision. You should
read this summary together with the more detailed information,
including our financial statements and the related notes,
contained in this prospectus. You should carefully consider,
among other things, the matters discussed in Risk
Factors, before making an investment decision. Unless
otherwise indicated in this prospectus, Ceres,
our company, the Company,
we, us and our refer to
Ceres, Inc. and our subsidiary, Ceres Sementes do Brasil
Ltda.
Business
Overview
Our
Company
We are an agricultural biotechnology company selling seeds to
produce renewable biomass feedstocks that can enable the
large-scale replacement of petroleum and other fossil fuels. We
use a combination of advanced plant breeding and biotechnology
to develop new crops, known as dedicated energy crops, that we
believe address the limitations of first-generation bioenergy
feedstocks, such as corn and sugarcane, increase biomass
productivity, reduce crop inputs and improve cultivation on
marginal land.
Our first large-scale commercial products are proprietary sweet
sorghum varieties that can be used as a drop-in
feedstock to extend the operating season of Brazilian
sugarcane-to-ethanol
mills, the operating days of which are currently limited due to
the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth
patterns. Our dedicated energy crops can also be used for the
production of second-generation biofuels and bio-based
chemicals, including cellulosic ethanol, butanol, jet fuel,
diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like molecules, from non-food
biomass. Finally, baseload utility-scale electric power can also
be generated from the biomass feedstocks grown from our seeds.
The seed industry has historically required very little capital
to manufacture seeds, and seeds have typically been sold at
prices that generate high gross margins. As a producer of
proprietary seeds, we believe we are in the most attractive
segment of the bioenergy value chain upstream from
the capital intensive refining and conversion of biomass. For
example, in 2009 corn seed providers maintained high margins
when volatile commodity prices significantly impacted corn
ethanol refining margins. Therefore, we believe our success is
tied to adoption of our products rather than the relative
profitability of downstream participants. Our upstream position
in the value chain also allows us to be largely independent of
the success of any particular conversion technology or end use.
Our
Technology
We develop low input dedicated energy crops capable of producing
high yields of biomass per acre using innovative plant breeding
and trait biotechnology. By developing these types of crops, we
enable the scalable, sustainable and economic production of
bioenergy, or the energy derived from biomass. Our proprietary
collection of energy crop parent lines, known as germplasm, in
combination with our pipeline of biotechnology traits allows us
to develop bioenergy feedstocks to meet the needs of both
biomass refineries and growers of biomass, all while using less
water and less fertilizer than row crops like corn or soybean,
even if grown on marginal land. We believe that the strength of
our technology has been validated by the receipt of multiple
competitive grants and collaborations, including a United States
Agency for International Development, or USAID, grant and one of
the U.S. Department of Energys first Advanced
Research Project Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E, grants in 2009,
as well as a $137 million multi-year collaboration with
Monsanto Company signed in 2002. We also have significant
intellectual property rights to our technology.
1
Our
Products
We recently began marketing sweet sorghum seeds in Brazil and
have sold switchgrass and high biomass sorghum seeds in the
United States under our brand, Blade Energy Crops, or Blade. Our
largest immediate commercial opportunity is the Brazilian
ethanol market, which currently uses sugarcane as its
predominant feedstock. Due to the inherent limitations of
sugarcane physiology and growth patterns, Brazilian mill
operators typically obtain sugarcane that makes mill operation
economically feasible approximately 200 days per year. This
results in an estimated 3.4 million metric tons per day of
crushing capacity, according to our estimate, which we derive
from a 2011 Brazil Agrianual report. Boa Vista / Nova
Fronteira, a joint venture of Grupo São Martinho S.A. and
Petrobras Biofuels, recently planted, harvested and processed a
commercial-scale planting of our sweet sorghum products and
produced both ethanol and power using the existing agricultural
equipment and processing infrastructure. Similar activities have
been completed with two other Brazilian ethanol producers, ADM
do Brasil Ltda. and Usina Rio Pardo S.A. We believe the success
of our first commercial-scale planting at the mill owned by Boa
Vista/Nova Fronteira, a joint venture of Grupo São Martinho
S.A. and Petrobras Biofuels, demonstrates the
drop-in nature of our sweet sorghum products, and
along with the seed-based propagation, shorter growing cycle and
lower water and fertilizer requirements of sweet sorghum
relative to sugarcane, will serve as the basis for expanded
adoption of this product line as a feedstock for ethanol and
power production in Brazil and other markets. Based on our trial
results to date and pipeline of products under development, we
believe the adoption of our sweet sorghum hybrids could extend a
mills operations by approximately 60 days.
We also work with refining technology companies in the emerging
cellulosic biofuels and bio-based chemicals markets. We believe
that dedicated energy crops will enable both individual
renewable energy projects and the industry as a whole to reach
greater scale and sustainability, at lower costs, than other
potential sources of biomass because of their yields, hardiness
and relatively low input requirements. We believe our dedicated
energy crop portfolio is compatible with a number of developing
cellulosic biofuels conversion technologies and we are working
with a number of companies to test our energy crops in their
respective production processes.
Our dedicated energy crops also can be used to generate
electricity in existing solid-fuel power facilities, such as
coal-fired generating plants. We believe we will see a material
increase in demand for biopower in the event that additional
renewable energy legislation is passed in the United States,
Europe or other countries that requires a higher percentage of
generation from low-carbon sources or provides equal production
incentives for the co-firing of biomass with coal, as are
currently available for wind and solar power.
Finally, due to the nature of biotechnology, we believe other
crops can benefit from many of the traits we are developing for
dedicated energy crops, such as traits that improve water use
efficiency and salt tolerance. By combining genes into a series
of stacks, we believe, and our initial results indicate, that we
can achieve step-change improvements to the productivity of many
row crops, including corn, soybean rice and wheat.
Market
Opportunity
The world continues to seek economic and environmentally sound
alternatives to fossil fuel-based transportation fuels and
power. We believe bioenergy is one of the few viable
replacements for fossil fuels. Unlike other renewable
technologies, biofuels are intended to utilize existing vehicles
and transportation fuel infrastructure. Similarly, biopower,
unlike wind and solar power, can provide baseload and
dispatchable generation of renewable electricity. Despite the
potential of biofuels, first-generation biofuel feedstocks have
demonstrated their limitations in terms of scale, perceived
competition with food production, net energy balance, and
dependence on government subsidies. Similarly, current sources
of biomass, such as forestry residues and agricultural wastes,
are limited in scale and are not optimized for use in bioenergy.
They are also by-products derived from other processes and
therefore subject to supply disruptions. Our dedicated energy
crops provide an
2
attractive combination of high yield density, high net energy
balances, low input requirements, the ability to grow on
marginal land and, as a dedicated source of feedstock, the
potential to be tailored for specific production and refining
processes. As a result, we believe that dedicated energy crops
will become a critical component for growth of the biofuel,
bio-based chemicals and biopower markets.
Biofuels and
Bio-Based Chemicals
Modern lifestyles and economies are highly reliant on petroleum
and its by-products across a wide variety of industries,
including light-duty transportation, aviation, diesel, shipping,
lubricants, polymers, resins and cosmetics. According to the
Energy Outlook Report published in April 2011 by the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, global oil
production averaged 87.9 million barrels per day in the first
quarter of 2011. The transportation fuel component of petroleum
is valued at over $2 trillion per year, according to EIA. The
vast majority of bio-based replacements for petroleum and
petroleum-based chemicals are currently produced by fermentation
of starch sources and free sugars primarily derived from corn
and sugarcane, respectively. Commonly referred to as
first-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals, the
production and conversion processes for these feedstocks are
well-established. However, as the world looks to increase its
consumption of biofuels and their derivatives, these
first-generation feedstocks face challenges to meet increased
demand.
In Brazil, where the country has recently been importing corn
ethanol to meet its demand, we believe that mill operators will
seek alternatives that will allow them to increase production
utilization of their existing mills beyond the average
200 days per year schedule in order to maximize their
market opportunity. On a global basis, we expect petroleum
consumption will be further replaced by products made from the
conversion of non-food biomass into biofuels and bio-based
chemicals. Today, there are multiple companies, including large
multinational companies, such as BP p.l.c., Royal Dutch Shell
plc, Total S.A. and Valero Energy Corporation, and independent
companies, such as KiOR, Inc. and Coskata, Inc., focused on
improving non-food biomass conversion technologies. According to
a 2011 report published by International Energy Agency, or IEA,
biofuel production could reach approximately 112 billion
gallons per year by 2030, up from 26 billion gallons in
2010. To meet these targets, the IEA believes feedstock
production would need to increase to 150 million acres in
2030, up from 75 million acres in 2010. We believe
quadrupling the volume of biofuels while only doubling the
feedstock production acres will require higher yielding
second-generation feedstocks.
Biopower
Globally, 7.92 trillion
kilowatt-hours
of electricity were generated from coal in 2007, or 42% of total
global power generation, according to the EIA, which we estimate
required 3.6 billion tons of coal. By comparison, a report
released in May 2010 by EIA states that globally,
approximately 235 billion
kilowatt-hours
of electricity were generated from biomass and wastes, or 57% of
all renewable energy generation, excluding hydropower, which we
estimate required 200 million dry tons of biomass. The
conversion of biomass to power has traditionally been fueled by
bio-based waste products and residues from the paper and timber
industries. As is the case for biofuels, we believe this
practice has limited the size, location, efficiency and scale of
biomass power generation because power producers can not
reliably secure long-term supplies and consistent quality
feedstock. We believe we will see a material increase in demand
for biopower in the event that additional renewable energy
legislation is passed in the United States, Europe or other
countries that requires a higher percentage of generation from
low-carbon sources, or that incentivizes the co-firing of
biomass.
Food and Feed
Crops
According to a 2010 report published by the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, or
ISAAA, approximately 366 million acres of biotechnology
crops were planted globally in 2010. The global market value of
biotechnology crop seeds was $11.2 billion, as reported in
the same report by ISAAA. In order to continue the productivity
gains made in many crops over the past 75 years, and to do
so in a more sustainable manner, we believe that advanced
breeding
3
methods, and biotech traits, in particular, will be required to
produce higher performance crops that make more productive use
of cultivated land, as well as to develop more robust,
stress-tolerant crops that can grow under more difficult
conditions and on marginal land. Our belief is consistent with
historical yield improvements achieved via plant breeding and
the adoption of agricultural biotechnology.
Our
Solutions
We believe that nearly all bioenergy and bio-based chemical
applications will ultimately depend on high yielding, low-cost,
low-carbon, scalable, reliable and sustainable sources of
feedstock. We believe biomass from our dedicated energy crops
and traits have the potential to become the common denominator
in a broad array of bio-based products, including ethanol,
butanol, jet fuel, diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like
molecules, as well as electric power and heat, and can enable
the development of larger-scale processing facilities given the
high yield density and conversion efficiency of dedicated energy
crops. Specifically, our dedicated energy crops have the
following characteristics, which we believe will make them a
critical component in the large-scale production of these
bio-based products:
Drop-in
Products
Our products are drop-in solutions because they can
be planted, harvested and processed using existing agricultural
equipment with little or no modification and are being developed
to be drop-in for all conversion technologies using
sugarcane or biomass feedstocks, facilitating their rapid
adoption.
High Yield
Density
Our dedicated energy crops are developed to produce high biomass
or sugar yields per acre. For cellulosic biofuels, bio-based
chemicals and biopower, energy grasses can yield significantly
more dry tons per acre per year compared to agricultural
residues and woody biomass. This maximizes the productivity of
available land and shortens the collection radius for a
conversion facility of a particular size.
Dedicated to
Bioenergy
Unlike many other bioenergy feedstocks, our dedicated energy
crops are currently not intended for other uses and are
typically grown exclusively to be harvested as part of the
bioenergy value chain, creating a stable supply that will appeal
to owners of conversion technologies who will have invested
significant capital in their infrastructure and will therefore
require reliable and cost-effective feedstocks.
Suited to
Marginal Land
Our dedicated energy crops can grow in a broad range of
environments, including those not well-suited for most food
crops. We are developing biotech traits that provide salt
tolerance, drought tolerance and greater nitrogen use efficiency.
Scalable to Meet
Demand
Our energy crops are highly scalable, allowing us to match our
production with growing demand for our seeds on relatively short
notice compared to sugarcane, which can take several years to
scale up commercially.
4
Competitive
Strengths
We believe that we possess a number of competitive strengths
that position us to become a leading provider of dedicated
energy crop seeds and traits, including:
Commercial
Products Available Today
We currently have a number of commercially available seed
products, including sweet sorghum, switchgrass and high biomass
sorghum. Our sweet sorghum hybrids have recently been
successfully planted, harvested and processed into ethanol and
power in Brazil in our first commercial-scale project. We have
received the necessary governmental variety registrations for
the sweet sorghum varieties we are marketing in Brazil for
planting in the 2011-2012 growing season. We are in active
discussions with a number of Brazilian ethanol producers for use
of our sweet sorghum seeds for the
2011-2012
growing season. Since other
sugarcane-to-ethanol
mills face the same limits on production, we believe our
demonstrated success in the 2010-2011 growing season will
facilitate the rapid development of this market and enable the
expansion of our market share in Brazil and in other geographies.
Attractive
Business Model
Seed businesses traditionally incur significant research and
development expenditures and have long product development time
lines, but benefit from a combination of high gross margins, low
capital expenditure requirements and intellectual property
protection. We believe we can position our business to take
advantage of low production costs relative to the high value of
our products to our customers.
Innovative
R&D Technology Platforms
In order to maintain the strong position we have established
with our combined strengths in germplasm and field-validated
traits, we use our research and development expertise to
continually improve our product offerings. We believe that our
innovative integrated breeding and biotechnology approach allows
us to efficiently identify traits, effectively express these
traits in crops, and more quickly commercialize new and improved
seeds and traits for the market. We have both biotech traits and
non-biotech
traits and some of our biotech traits have been successfully
evaluated in the field; however, they are still several years
away from commercialization.
Extensive
Proprietary Portfolios of Germplasm and Traits
While many companies have developed portfolios of germplasm or
traits, we believe we are one of the only companies focused on
dedicated energy crops with large portfolios of both germplasm
and field-validated traits. We believe new market entrants would
need to cultivate several generations of germplasm to achieve
performance equivalent to our current product portfolio by which
time we believe we will have further evolved our germplasm.
Therefore, we believe our proprietary position would be
difficult and time-consuming to replicate. We also believe that
we have established a strong intellectual property position in
plant genes, traits and energy crop germplasm.
Management Team
with Significant Industry Experience
Our experienced management team possesses a deep understanding
of a variety of agricultural, chemical and industrial
biotechnology businesses, including the seed industry, as well
as our regional markets of Brazil, the United States and Europe.
Our management team also includes top scientists and industry
experts, some of whom have served in leadership roles at large,
multinational corporations, served on advisory committees for
the U.S. Department of Energy, led ground-breaking research
studies and published numerous scientific articles.
For a list of the challenges and risks we face, see
Summary of Risk Factors.
5
Our
Strategy
Our objective is to be the leading provider of dedicated energy
crop seeds and traits to the renewable energy industry,
including first-generation biofuels such as ethanol as well as
cellulosic biofuels, biopower and bio-based chemicals by
employing the following strategies:
Expand Our
Presence in Brazil
We intend to use our recent success with leading ethanol
producers, including Boa Vista / Nova Fronteira, a
joint venture of Grupo São Martinho S.A. and Petrobras
Biofuels, to promote brand awareness and expand our presence in
Brazil.
Expand Strategic
Collaborations to Develop and Market Cellulosic
Biofuels
We plan to play a significant role in developing the
second-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals market, which
we believe represents a significant opportunity. We intend to
establish new collaborations and expand our current
collaborations with leading cellulosic biorefining companies,
technology providers and project developers to further validate
our products across various downstream technologies and to
produce optimized feedstocks that are tailored to meet the
specifications of existing and new refining technologies.
Expand Our
Business into New Markets
We intend to market our Blade Energy Crops brand as a symbol of
quality, innovation and value across multiple biofuel, bio-based
chemicals and biopower markets in a broad range of climates and
geographies. We intend to use our large portfolios of
field-validated traits and germplasm, combined with our advanced
technology platforms, to develop products for a wide variety of
niches and seize upon future market opportunities, regardless of
the fuel or chemical molecule or engine choice.
Build New
Relationships and Enhance Established Collaborations in the
Global Biopower Market
We intend to cultivate collaborations with new parties,
particularly those in Europe where we believe the market
opportunity for biopower is more established today and the
market need is more immediate in light of existing government
regulations.
Continue
Innovation and New Product Development
We are continuing to develop innovative solutions using a broad
range of technological tools, including genomics, biotechnology
and proprietary bioinformatics in order to produce crop
varieties with improved yields and other performance
characteristics. For example, we have identified traits that
will help optimize results for growers located in geographies
with varying day lengths, rainfall, temperatures and soil
composition (e.g., salt, aluminum and nitrogen).
Continue to Build
Our Intellectual Property Portfolio
We believe we have established a strong intellectual property
position in plant genes, traits and energy crop germplasm, based
on the nature, size and filing dates of our patent portfolio and
plant variety protection certificates. We believe we are one of
the few companies focused on dedicated energy crops that have
this combination of intellectual property assets. We use our
integrated technology platforms to continually improve our
products and develop innovations that will further strengthen
our intellectual property position.
Summary of Risk
Factors
Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties
that you should understand before making an investment decision.
These risks are discussed more fully in the section entitled
6
Risk Factors following this prospectus summary.
These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
We have a history of net losses; we expect to continue to incur
net losses and we may not achieve or maintain profitability.
|
|
|
|
Our products are in the early stages of commercialization.
|
|
|
|
The markets for some of our dedicated energy crops are not well
established and may take years to develop or may never develop
and our growth depends on customer adoption of our dedicated
energy crops.
|
|
|
|
Our crops are new and most growers will require substantial
instruction to successfully establish, grow and harvest crops
grown from our seeds.
|
|
|
|
Our largest immediate commercial opportunity is the Brazilian
ethanol market and we only recently completed our first
commercial-scale plantings of our sweet sorghum products in
Brazil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have not yet finalized pricing for our products, including
our sweet sorghum products, for the Brazilian market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our business will be adversely affected if the field trials
being conducted by our collaborators or potential customers fail
to perform as expected.
|
|
|
|
We face significant competition in all areas of our business,
and if we do not compete effectively, our business will be
harmed.
|
|
|
|
Our inability to adequately protect our proprietary technologies
and products could harm our competitive position.
|
|
|
|
Litigation or other proceedings or third party claims of
infringement could require us to spend time and money and could
severely disrupt our business.
|
Corporate
Information
We were incorporated in the State of Delaware in March 1996
under the name Ceres, Inc. Our corporate headquarters are
located at 1535 Rancho Conejo Boulevard, Thousand Oaks,
California 91320, and our telephone number is
+1(805) 376-6500.
Our website address is www.ceres.net. The information
contained on our website or that can be accessed through our
website is not part of this prospectus, and investors should not
rely on any such information in deciding whether to purchase our
common stock.
Our logos,
Ceres®,
The Energy Crop
Company®,
Blade Energy
Crops®,
Blade®
and
Skyscraper®
and other trademarks or service marks of Ceres, Inc. appearing
in this prospectus are the property of Ceres, Inc. This
prospectus contains additional trade names, trademarks and
service marks of other companies. We do not intend our use or
display of other companies trade names, trademarks or
service marks to imply relationships with, or endorsement or
sponsorship of us by, these other companies.
7
THE
OFFERING
|
|
|
Common stock offered |
|
shares. |
|
Common stock to be outstanding after this offering |
|
shares,
or shares
if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional
shares in full. |
|
Use of proceeds |
|
We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering for seed
production and commercialization expenses, research and
development, capital expenditures, working capital and other
general corporate purposes, which may include acquisitions of
other companies, assets or technologies. See Use of
Proceeds. |
|
Proposed Nasdaq Global Market trading symbol |
|
CERE |
The number of shares of common stock that will be outstanding
after this offering is based on 6,041,792 shares
outstanding as of July 20, 2011, and excludes:
|
|
|
|
|
7,801,428 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
options to purchase our common stock outstanding as of
July 20, 2011, at a weighted average exercise price of
$2.02 per share;
|
|
|
|
|
|
600,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
warrants to purchase our common stock outstanding as of
July 20, 2011, at a weighted average exercise price of
$10.00 per share that do not expire on the completion of this
offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,537 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
warrants to purchase our preferred stock outstanding as of
July 20, 2011, at a weighted average exercise price of
$6.50 per share that do not expire on the completion of this
offering; these preferred stock warrants will automatically
convert to common stock warrants upon the completion of this
offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,042 shares of common stock reserved as of July 20,
2011, for future issuance under our 2010 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
shares
of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2011
Equity Incentive Plan, which will become effective on the day
prior to the day upon which we become subject to the reporting
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act.
|
Except as otherwise indicated, all information in this
prospectus assumes:
|
|
|
|
|
the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our
convertible preferred stock into an aggregate of
46,059,819 shares of common stock effective immediately
prior to the completion of this offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the issuance
of shares
of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this
offering upon the net exercise of warrants outstanding to
purchase shares of common stock issued to investors holding our
Series F Convertible Preferred Stock, or the Series F
Warrants, and our Series G Convertible Preferred Stock, or
the Series G Warrants, which would otherwise expire upon
the completion of this offering, based upon an assumed initial
public offering price of $ per
share, the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover of this
prospectus;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the filing of our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation immediately prior to the completion of this
offering; and
|
|
|
|
no exercise by the underwriters of their right to purchase up to
an
additional shares
of common stock at the initial public offering price.
|
8
SUMMARY
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
The following table summarizes our consolidated financial data.
In 2009, we changed our fiscal year end from December 31 to
August 31. The change was effective for the eight-month
period ended August 31, 2009. We have derived the following
summary consolidated statement of operations data for the fiscal
years ended December 31, 2007 and 2008, the eight months
ended August 31, 2009, and the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2010, from our audited consolidated financial
statements appearing elsewhere in this prospectus. The summary
consolidated financial data for the nine month periods ended
May 31, 2010 and 2011 have been derived from our unaudited
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus. The unaudited consolidated financial statements have
been prepared on a basis consistent with our audited
consolidated financial statements and include, in the opinion of
management, all adjustments, consisting only of normal and
recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of such
consolidated financial data. Results for interim periods are not
necessarily indicative of results for a full fiscal year.
Historical results are not necessarily indicative of results for
future periods. You should read the summary of our consolidated
financial data set forth below together with the more detailed
information contained in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes
appearing elsewhere in this prospectus.
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
|
$
|
288
|
|
|
$
|
236
|
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,880
|
|
|
|
2,328
|
|
|
|
6,326
|
|
|
|
4,095
|
|
|
|
4,799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,944
|
|
|
|
2,426
|
|
|
|
6,614
|
|
|
|
4,331
|
|
|
|
4,896
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,777
|
|
|
|
2,690
|
|
|
|
2,946
|
|
|
|
2,217
|
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
20,309
|
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
16,697
|
|
|
|
12,639
|
|
|
|
13,837
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
9,811
|
|
|
|
8,784
|
|
|
|
6,645
|
|
|
|
9,207
|
|
|
|
6,844
|
|
|
|
6,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
29,031
|
|
|
|
32,870
|
|
|
|
21,732
|
|
|
|
28,850
|
|
|
|
21,700
|
|
|
|
22,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations
|
|
|
(21,851
|
)
|
|
|
(28,926
|
)
|
|
|
(19,306
|
)
|
|
|
(22,236
|
)
|
|
|
(17,369
|
)
|
|
|
(17,781
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(153
|
)
|
|
|
(91
|
)
|
|
|
(365
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,521
|
|
|
|
2,001
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(167
|
)
|
|
|
(1,450
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(20,448
|
)
|
|
|
(26,925
|
)
|
|
|
(18,907
|
)
|
|
|
(22,518
|
)
|
|
|
(17,606
|
)
|
|
|
(19,590
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (expense)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
$
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to common
stockholders(1)
|
|
$
|
(3.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.33
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.90
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.31
|
)
|
Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss per
share attributable to common stockholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted(1)
|
|
|
5,323,259
|
|
|
|
5,473,090
|
|
|
|
5,621,671
|
|
|
|
5,791,443
|
|
|
|
5,775,322
|
|
|
|
5,917,179
|
|
Pro forma net loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted (unaudited)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.46
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.38
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average outstanding common shares used in computing pro
forma net loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted (unaudited)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,339,144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,976,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
The basic and diluted loss per
share are computed by dividing the net loss attributable to
common stockholders by the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the period. For the periods where we
presented losses, all potentially dilutive common shares
comprising of stock options, warrants and convertible preferred
stock are anti-dilutive.
|
|
(2)
|
|
The unaudited pro forma basic and
diluted loss per common share have been computed as though the
conversion had occurred as of September 1, 2009 to give
effect to: (i) the automatic conversion of all outstanding
shares of our convertible preferred stock into an aggregate of
46,059,819 shares of common stock immediately prior to the
completion of this offering using the if-converted method and
(ii) the issuance
of shares
of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this
offering upon the net exercise of the Series F Warrants and
Series G Warrants, which would otherwise expire upon the
completion of this offering, based upon an assumed initial
public offering price of
$
per share, the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover of
this prospectus using the treasury stock method.
|
10
Our consolidated balance sheet data as of May 31, 2011 is
presented:
|
|
|
|
|
on an actual basis;
|
|
|
|
on a pro forma basis to give effect to (i) the conversion
of all outstanding shares of our convertible preferred stock
into 46,059,819 shares of our common stock and
(ii) the issuance
of shares
of our common stock upon the assumed net exercise of the Series
F Warrants and Series G Warrants that would otherwise
expire on the completion of this offering, based on an assumed
initial public offering price of $
per share, the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover of
this prospectus; and
|
|
|
|
on a pro forma as adjusted basis to give effect to the pro forma
adjustments and the sale
of shares
of common stock by us in this offering at an assumed public
offering price of $ per share, the
midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this
prospectus, and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts
and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of May 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma as
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
Adjusted(1)
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
17,717
|
|
|
$
|
17,717
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
31,594
|
|
|
|
31,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total indebtedness (including short-term indebtedness)
|
|
|
4,723
|
|
|
|
4,723
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common and preferred stock warrant liabilities
|
|
|
10,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
197,502
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders (deficit) equity
|
|
|
(188,526
|
)
|
|
|
19,337
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Each $1.00 increase or decrease in
the assumed public offering price of
$ per share, the midpoint of the
range reflected on the cover of this prospectus, would increase
or decrease, as applicable, our cash and cash equivalents, total
assets and total stockholders equity (deficit) by
approximately $ million,
assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth
on the cover of this prospectus, remains the same and after
deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions
and estimated offering expenses payable by us.
|
11
RISK
FACTORS
Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk.
You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties
described below, together with all of the other information in
this prospectus, including the consolidated financial statements
and the related notes appearing elsewhere in this prospectus,
before making an investment decision. If any of the following
risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition,
results of operations and future prospects could be materially
and adversely affected. The trading price of our common stock
could decline due to any of these risks, and, as a result, you
may lose all or part of your investment in our common stock.
Risks Related to
Our Business
We have a history
of net losses; we expect to continue to incur net losses and we
may not achieve or maintain profitability.
With the exception of the fiscal years ended December 31,
2003, 2005 and 2006, we have incurred net losses each fiscal
year since our inception, as well as for the nine months ended
May 31, 2011. From our inception to May 31, 2011, we
had an accumulated deficit of $195.9 million. We expect to
incur additional losses for at least the next several years as
we continue to invest in our research and development programs,
to develop new products and to move forward with our
commercialization activities. The extent of our future net
losses will depend, in part, on our product sales growth and
revenue from collaborations and government grants, and on the
level of our operating expenses. To date, substantially all of
our revenue has been derived from collaboration agreements and
government grants, and we have had very limited revenue from
seed sales. Over the next several years, we expect our revenue
will shift from being derived primarily from collaborations and
government grants to product sales. Our ability to generate
future revenue will depend upon our ability to meet our
obligations under our collaborations and government grants, to
enter into new collaborations or out-licensing agreements and to
successfully commercialize our products. The market for seeds
for dedicated energy crops is relatively new and still
developing and our success in generating revenue from product
sales depends in the near term in large part on the success of
our sweet sorghum products in Brazil and in the future on the
adoption of other dedicated energy crops as a biomass feedstock.
Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to
sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual
basis.
Our products are
in the early stages of commercialization.
Our existing products are in the early stages of
commercialization and our efforts to commercialize our products
may not be successful. Our product sales for the year ended
August 31, 2010 and the nine months ended May 31, 2011
were minimal and were derived mainly from sales to third parties
that were field testing our products. To date, we have not sold
any sweet sorghum seeds in the Brazilian market. Although we are
in discussions with various
sugarcane-to-ethanol
mill owners in Brazil for the purchase of our sweet sorghum
products as a drop-in feedstock, we do not know the
quantity they will ultimately purchase for the 2011-2012 growing
season or what the final price will be.
The markets for our other products, mainly switchgrass and high
biomass sorghum, are not fully developed. We completed our first
sale of switchgrass seeds in 2009 and high biomass sorghum seeds
in 2010 and to date have sold less than $0.5 million of
these products in the aggregate. In addition, our
seed-propagated miscanthus product is still under development
and is not yet available for commercial sale.
Our business strategy going forward heavily relies on our
ability to introduce crops with genetically engineered, or
biotech traits. The commercial development of biotech traits in
commercial crops is a multi-year process. Following
transformation, when the optimized gene is inserted in a target
crop, the resulting plants are evaluated in the greenhouse for
one to two years, and then in the field to confirm results for
two to four years. Following field trials, specific gene-trait
combinations are
12
selected and submitted for regulatory approval, or deregulation,
a process that has historically taken one to three years in the
United States and Brazil. Assuming these averages, we believe
that we could introduce our first biotech trait or traits to the
market in 2016 at the earliest. By contrast, our existing sweet
sorghum, switchgrass and high biomass sorghum products have all
been created through the use of conventional breeding. As a
result, even if these products are successfully sold and adopted
by customers, they do not necessarily demonstrate our ability to
successfully develop, market and sell biotechnology products. If
we are not able to bring our existing products or new products
with significant commercial potential to market in a timely
manner, we will not be successful in building a sustainable or
profitable business.
The markets for
some of our dedicated energy crops are not well established and
may take years to develop or may never develop and our growth
depends on customer adoption of our dedicated energy
crops.
We sell proprietary seeds to produce dedicated energy crops for
the renewable energy market, which is not well established and
is evolving. Although our sweet sorghum products are targeted
for use as a feedstock to produce ethanol, ethanol has
historically been produced from corn in the United States
and sugarcane in Brazil and we will need to demonstrate on a
commercial scale that sweet sorghum can reliably be used as a
cost-efficient feedstock for ethanol production. Cellulosic
biofuels have been produced on a limited scale from woody
biomass, such as wood chips, or agricultural residues, and we
will need to demonstrate on a commercial scale that biomass
grown from our seed products, including switchgrass and high
biomass sorghum, can be used as cost-efficient feedstocks for
the production of biofuels, biopower and other bio-based
products.
Currently the market for dedicated energy crops is not well
established, primarily because of the lack of infrastructure to
support the development of this market, including the lack of
commercial-scale production facilities capable of converting
cellulosic feedstocks, referred to as cellulosic biorefineries.
Existing first-generation ethanol biorefineries are not capable
of using cellulosic feedstocks to produce ethanol. The
development of this industry is also dependent, in large part,
upon the efforts of many companies to improve conversion
technologies which will play a significant role in enabling more
cost-effective means of converting biomass into energy. A delay
in the construction of cellulosic biorefineries or a failure to
meaningfully improve conversion technologies could curtail one
of our most significant market opportunities. Even if cellulosic
biorefineries are established in the future, they may elect to
use agricultural residues, waste material or woody biomass as
feedstocks rather than dedicated energy crops, resulting in the
lack of a robust market for our products.
Traditionally the market for biopower, which is the generation
of electric power from combusting biomass, has been fueled
mainly by bio-based waste products from the paper and timber
industries. We believe that expansion of this market will be
driven by governmental policies such as additional state and new
federal mandates that require a certain percentage or absolute
amount of electricity be generated from renewable sources by
specified dates or production tax credits for co-firing biomass.
We cannot predict the effect that existing legislation or the
lack of legislation will have on the development of the biopower
market in the United States or the European Union. To the extent
that the market does not develop or biopower producers elect to
continue to rely on bio-based waste products from the paper and
timber industries, rather than dedicated energy crops, our
market opportunity will be limited.
Our crops are new
and most growers will require substantial instruction to
successfully establish, grow and harvest crops grown from our
seeds.
As part of our product development activities and customer
support, we provide agricultural producers and biomass procurers
with information and protocols regarding the establishment,
management, harvest, transportation and storage of our energy
crops for use in bioenergy. In addition to seed selections, such
crop management recommendations may include equipment selection,
planting and harvest timing, application of crop protection
chemicals or herbicides and storage
13
systems. While some of our crops, such as sorghum and
switchgrass, have been grown for other uses, the crop management
practices required for energy crop production are still new and
are still evolving. Our general or specific protocols may not
apply to all circumstances, may not be sufficient, or may be
incorrect, leading to reduced yields, crop failures or other
production problems or losses by our customers or collaborators.
Such failures may harm our customer or collaborator
relationships, our reputation and our ability to successfully
market our products, and may lead to liability claims against
us. Further, the use of our seeds may require a change in
current planting, rotation or agronomic practices.
Our largest
immediate commercial opportunity is the Brazilian ethanol market
and we only recently completed our first commercial-scale
plantings of our sweet sorghum products in Brazil.
We recently concluded our first commercial-scale plantings of
sweet sorghum in Brazil. In general, the results from these
plantings indicate the plantings were successful. To the extent
that these results wholly or in part did not meet our
collaborators expectations, we may experience a
significant delay in commercializing our sweet sorghum products
in Brazil. We also worked with a number of other mill owners in
Brazil that have tested our sweet sorghum products. Certain of
these plantings deliberately occurred on marginal land and the
harvest has been delayed beyond the ideal time in order to
stress test the results and determine the level to which adverse
conditions will affect the yield and other performance
characteristics of our products. The results of these trials
were therefore less than optimal and could create the perception
that the planting was a failure. This could in turn discourage
other mill owners from trying our sweet sorghum products. The
future success of our drop-in sweet sorghum products
in Brazil will depend on mill owners ability or
willingness to devote proper resources, including land, to our
products and the timing of planting and harvesting of our sweet
sorghum products. The decision to devote land and resources to a
particular crop is dependent on many factors, some of which are
outside of our control. To the extent that our sweet sorghum
field trials do not result in expected yields or are not
replicable on a larger scale, we may have difficulty convincing
sugarcane-to-ethanol
mill owners to field test our products or purchase our sweet
sorghum products.
We have not yet
finalized pricing for our products, including our sweet sorghum
products, for the Brazilian market.
Our products are in the early stages of commercialization and
there is no established market for them. We intend to base the
pricing of our products on our assessment of the value that our
products provide to the customer, rather than on the cost of
production. We may include trait fees in our seed prices, but
our potential customers may be unwilling to pay such fees. If
our customers attribute a lower value to our products than we
do, they may not be willing to pay the premium prices we expect
to charge. Pricing levels may also be negatively affected if our
products are unsuccessful in producing the yields we expect. In
addition, if our competitors are able to develop competitive
products and offer them at lower prices, we may be forced to
lower our prices.
While we have established an initial price range for our sweet
sorghum products in the Brazilian market, we have not set a
final price. Although we are in active discussions with several
mill owners in Brazil, we have not entered into a purchase order
with any potential customer. To date, we have not charged for
our sweet sorghum seeds used in our commercial-scale plantings
in Brazil as our products were being field tested by the mills.
Because we have not sold any of our sweet sorghum seeds in
Brazil and there is no established market price for sweet
sorghum, we will need to negotiate final pricing with our
potential customers. The customers we intend to target in Brazil
are generally large mill owners with long operating histories in
the
sugarcane-to-ethanol
market that will have significant leverage in negotiating
commercial relationships with us. As a result, we do not know
whether these pricing negotiations will result in adequate
margins or accurately reflect our pricing strategies, which
could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations.
14
Our business will
be adversely affected if the field trials being conducted by our
collaborators or potential customers fail to perform as
expected.
We and our collaborators and potential customers are currently
conducting field trials of our products in various geographies
around the world. We have limited control over field trials that
are conducted by third parties and are dependent on their
ability to follow our suggested protocols. There are various
reasons these trials may fail to succeed, including planting our
seeds too late in the growing seasons or the incorrect use of
fertilizers, and we have in the past conducted trials that we
believe failed to fully meet the expectations of our
collaborators. For example, in September 2009 NRG Energy, Inc.
and Ceres began a pilot project at the Big Cajun II
electrical generating station near New Roads, Louisiana to
evaluate local conditions for growing our switchgrass and high
biomass sorghum as renewable fuels for co-firing in this plant.
In connection with this project, about 20 acres of energy
crops were planted and managed for us by a local grower. NRG has
publicly stated that this trial did not result in a usable crop
and otherwise failed to produce biomass of sufficient quantity
and quality for its purposes. Our investigations determined that
this trial was adversely impacted by undisclosed herbicide
residue in the soil and not by the quality of our products and
that the portions of the field unaffected by these residues
showed acceptable performance in line with our expectations. We
also believe that this particular trial was ultimately cancelled
more because of the lack of attractive U.S. government
incentives than because of any failure of the crops.
Nevertheless, these or other similar statements by our
collaborators or potential customers could harm our reputation
and the decision by these parties not to proceed with
large-scale trials or seed purchases based on these results
could harm our business, revenue and profitability.
Environmental
factors, including weather, moisture, and plant infestations,
may negatively affect the crops grown from our seeds or our seed
inventories.
The plants grown from our seeds are subject to the vagaries of
the weather and the environment, either of which can reduce crop
yields. Weather conditions and natural disasters, such as heavy
rains, hurricanes, hail, floods, tornados, freezing conditions,
drought, fire or other natural disasters, can affect the timing
of planting or harvesting and the acreage planted, as well as
yields. The effects of disease, pests, fungi, bacteria and
insect infestations can also be unpredictable and devastating to
crops, potentially rendering all or a substantial portion of the
affected harvests unsuitable for use. In addition, our crops and
harvests may be adversely affected by climate change resulting
from global warming, including changes in precipitation patterns
and the increased frequency of extreme weather events. Each of
these weather and environmental factors affects geographic
regions differently. Should these or other environmental factors
adversely affect the crops grown from our products, growers may
be unable or unwilling to purchase our seeds or they may choose
to purchase other seeds deemed better adapted to the particular
climatic or environmental conditions they are facing.
The quality of our seed inventory could deteriorate due to a
variety of factors, including the passage of time, temperature
variations, moisture, insects, fungi, bacteria, disease or
pests. If the quality of our seed inventory were to deteriorate
below an acceptable level, the value of our seed inventory would
decrease significantly and we might not be able to meet product
demand. Should a substantial portion of our seed inventory be
damaged by moisture, insects, fungi, bacteria, disease or pests,
our business and financial condition could be materially and
adversely harmed.
Our seed business
is highly seasonal and subject to weather conditions and other
factors beyond our control, which may cause our sales and
operating results to fluctuate significantly.
The sale of seeds is dependent upon planting and growing
seasons, which vary from year to year, and are expected to
result in both highly seasonal patterns and substantial
fluctuations in quarterly sales and profitability. Our product
sales for the year ended August 31, 2010 and the nine
months ended May 31, 2011 were minimal and, accordingly, we
have not yet experienced the full nature or extent to which our
business may be seasonal. We expect that sales of our seeds in
Brazil
15
will typically be higher in our first and fourth fiscal
quarters, due to the timing of the planting decisions made by
our customers. As we increase our sales in our current markets,
and as we expand into new markets in different geographies, it
is possible that we may experience different seasonality
patterns in our business. Weather conditions and natural
disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail, floods,
tornadoes, freezing conditions, drought or fire, also affect
decisions by our customers about the types and amounts of seeds
to plant and the timing of harvesting and planting such seeds.
Disruptions that cause delays by our customers in harvesting or
planting can result in the movement of orders to a future
quarter, which would negatively affect the quarter and cause
fluctuations in our operating results.
A decline in the
price of petroleum-based products may reduce the demand for many
of our products and adversely affect our business.
We believe that some of the projected demand for renewable
alternatives to fossil fuels is a result of the recent increase
and volatility of oil prices that has occurred over the past few
years. Oil and petroleum prices are currently at historically
high levels. We anticipate that most of our product sales will
be driven by the demand for alternatives to petroleum-based
products. If the price of oil falls, and periods of lower oil
prices are sustained, demand for biofuels or other bio-based
products could also decline. Declining oil prices, or forecasts
of a future decline in oil prices, may adversely affect the
prices for renewable energy products and the prices we can
obtain from our potential customers or cause potential customers
to not buy our products, which could materially and adversely
affect our operating results. We believe that our market
opportunity to sell sweet sorghum seeds in Brazil is based, at
least in part, on the recent shortages Brazil has encountered in
producing sufficient quantities of sugarcane-based ethanol to
satisfy local demand. We cannot predict whether these shortages
will be sustained or whether the Brazilian market will
experience periods of ethanol shortages in the future.
A significant
increase in the price of sugar relative to the price of ethanol
may reduce demand for our sweet sorghum and may otherwise
adversely affect our business.
We intend to market our sweet sorghum varieties in Brazil as a
drop-in feedstock to extend the operating season of
Brazilian
sugarcane-to-ethanol
mills, the operating days of which are currently limited due to
the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth
patterns. For example, our proprietary varieties of sweet
sorghum can be harvested from February to May while sugarcane,
which is grown year-round, is typically harvested from April to
December, depending on weather and market conditions. In
addition, we may market our sweet sorghum seeds for planting on
marginal land which would not otherwise be well suited for
sugarcane. However, if the price of sugar, which is produced
from sugarcane and which cannot be produced from sweet sorghum
today, rises significantly relative to the price of ethanol, it
may become more profitable for ethanol mill operators to grow
sugarcane even in adverse conditions, such as through the
expansion of sugarcane fields to marginal land or the extension
of the sugarcane harvesting season. During sustained periods of
significantly higher sugar prices, demand for our seeds may
decrease, which could materially and adversely affect our
operating results.
Our failure to
accurately forecast demand for our seeds could result in an
unexpected shortfall or surplus that could negatively affect our
results of operations or our brand.
Because of the length of time it takes to produce commercial
quantities of seeds, we must make seed production decisions well
in advance of product bookings. For example, we must determine
our expected demand for our sweet sorghum varieties
approximately six months in advance of delivery, on average,
while growers or mill operators make seed purchase decisions
sometimes as late as 30 days in advance of planting. Our
ability to accurately forecast demand can be adversely affected
by a number of factors outside of our control, including changes
in market conditions, environmental factors, such as pests and
diseases, and adverse weather conditions. A shortfall in the
supply of our
16
products may reduce product sales revenue, damage our reputation
in the market and adversely affect customer relationships. Any
surplus in the amount of seed we have on hand, may negatively
impact cash flows, reduce the quality of our inventory and
ultimately result in write-offs of inventory. For example, in
2009, we produced an excess of switchgrass seeds because market
demand for this product developed more slowly than anticipated.
Any failure on our part to produce sufficient inventory or
overproduction of a particular product could harm our business,
results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, our
customers may generally cancel an order or request a decrease in
quantity at any time prior to delivery of the seed, which may
lead to a surplus of our products. Even after delivery, a
customer may occasionally return our seeds.
The performance
of our sweet sorghum products in Brazil may be adversely
affected by delays to the start of the Brazilian ethanol
production season.
Once a mill owner begins to crush sugarcane or other feedstock
in its mill, it generally seeks a continuous supply of the
feedstock to run its mill without interruption until the
feedstock is depleted. Our sweet sorghum is intended to be used
as a season-extending crop. Should the sugarcane harvest season
be delayed due to weather or other factors, a mill may choose to
delay the harvest of sweet sorghum to avoid the downtime caused
by a supply gap between a season-extending crop like sweet
sorghum and sugarcane. Since our sweet sorghum grows quickly and
maintains its peak sugars for one to two weeks, depending on
growing conditions, delays in harvesting beyond this time period
may result in lower sugar volumes per acre as well as other
potential production issues as mature plants begin to decline
and may lodge. Such issues could impact growers perception
of the quality or usefulness of our products and, as a result,
their willingness to purchase these products from us in the
future.
Our product
development efforts use complex integrated technology platforms
and require substantial time and resources to develop and our
efforts may not be successful or the rate of product improvement
may be slower than expected.
The development of successful agricultural products using
complex technology discovery platforms such as ours requires
significant levels of investment in research and development,
including field testing, to demonstrate their effectiveness and
can take several years or more. For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008, the eight months ended August 31,
2009, the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010 and the nine
months ended May 31, 2011, we spent $20.3 million,
$12.4 million, $16.7 million and $13.8 million,
respectively, on research and development. We intend to continue
to spend significant amounts on research and development in the
future to continue to improve the performance of our products.
Our substantial investment in research and development may not
result in significant product revenues, particularly over the
next several years. To date, companies have developed and
commercialized relatively few dedicated energy crops, and no
genetically engineered dedicated energy crops.
Development of new or improved agricultural products involves
risks of failure inherent in the development of products based
on innovative and complex technologies. These risks include the
possibility that:
|
|
|
|
|
our products will fail to perform as expected in the field;
|
|
|
|
our products will not receive necessary regulatory permits and
governmental clearances in the markets in which we intend to
sell them;
|
|
|
|
our products will be viewed as too expensive by our potential
customers compared to competitive products;
|
|
|
|
our products will be difficult to produce on a large scale or
will not be economical to grow;
|
|
|
|
proprietary rights of third parties will prevent us, our
collaborators, or our licensees from marketing our
products; and
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
third parties may develop superior or equivalent products.
|
Loss of or damage
to our germplasm collection would significantly slow our product
development efforts.
We have access to a comprehensive collection of germplasm for
sweet sorghum, high biomass sorghum, switchgrass and miscanthus
through strategic collaborations with leading institutions.
Germplasm comprises collections of genetic resources covering
the diversity of a crop, the attributes of which are inherited
from generation to generation. Germplasm is a key strategic
asset since it forms the basis of plant breeding programs. To
the extent that we lose access to these germplasm collections
because of the termination or breach of our collaboration
agreements, our product development capabilities would be
severely limited. In addition, loss of or damage to these
germplasm collections would significantly impair our research
and development activities. Although we restrict access to our
germplasm at our research facilities to protect this valuable
resource, we cannot guarantee that our efforts to protect our
germplasm collection will be successful. The destruction or
theft of a significant portion of our germplasm collection would
adversely affect our business and results of operations.
The successful
commercialization of our products depends on our ability to
produce
high-quality
seeds cost-effectively on a large scale.
The production of commercial-scale quantities of seeds requires
the multiplication of the seeds through a succession of
plantings and seed harvests, and if the product is a hybrid, it
must be produced from parental lines, which are mated under
controlled conditions. The cost-effective production of
high-quality high-volume quantities of some of our products
depends on our ability to scale our production processes to
produce seeds in sufficient quantity to meet demand. We cannot
assure you that our existing or future seed production
techniques will enable us to meet our large-scale production
goals cost-effectively for the products in our pipeline. Even if
we are successful in developing ways to increase seed yields and
enhance seed quality, we may not be able to do so
cost-effectively or on a timely basis, which could adversely
affect our ability to achieve profitability. If we are unable to
maintain or enhance the quality of our seeds as we increase our
production capacity, including through the expected use of third
parties, we may experience reductions in customer demand, higher
costs and increased inventory write-offs.
We depend, in
part, on third parties to produce our seeds.
We produce commercial seed either on leased land managed by us
or with contract seed producers. Our current production sites
are located in the United States and Puerto Rico as well as
Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. In order to meet increased demand
for our seeds, we will need to enter into additional land leases
or arrangements with contract seed producers. If we need to
engage contract seed producers, we may not be able to identify
suitable producers in a specific region and if we do, we do not
know whether they will have available capacity when we need
their production services, that they will be willing to dedicate
a portion of their production capacity to our products or that
we will be able to enter into an agreement with them on
acceptable terms. If any contract seed producer that we engage
fails to perform its obligations as expected or breaches or
terminates their agreements with us, or if we are unable to
secure the services of such third parties when and as needed, we
may lose opportunities to generate revenue from product sales.
We are at the
beginning stages of developing our Blade brand and we have
limited experience in marketing and selling our products and
will need to expand our sales and marketing
infrastructure.
We are in the beginning phases of building brand awareness for
our dedicated energy crops. To date, we have had very little
experience selling our products. We currently have limited
resources to market and sell our products on a commercial-scale
across various geographic regions. As of May 31,
18
2011, our sales and marketing and business development
departments together had seven full-time employees. Developing
our sales and marketing infrastructure and gaining the necessary
expertise will require that we hire additional sales and
marketing personnel, which could take longer than we expect and
may require significant resources. We may be unable to grow our
sales and marketing or business development infrastructure to
adequately cover the geographic regions where we see the most
opportunity, which could slow the adoption of our products and
the growth of product revenue.
We face
significant competition in all areas of our business, and if we
do not compete effectively, our business will be
harmed.
The renewable energy industry is rapidly evolving and new
competitors with competing technologies are regularly entering
the market. We believe the primary competitive factors in the
energy crop seed industry are yield, performance, scale, price,
reliable supply and sustainability. We expect to face
competitors on multiple fronts. First, we expect to compete with
other providers of seed and vegetative propagation materials in
the market for sweet sorghum, high biomass sorghum, switchgrass
and miscanthus. While the competitive landscape in these crops
is limited at this time, we anticipate that as our products gain
market acceptance, other competitors will be attracted to this
opportunity and produce their own seed varieties. Second, we
believe that new as yet unannounced crops will be introduced
into the renewable energy market and that existing energy crops
will attempt to gain even greater market share. Existing crops,
such as corn, sugarcane and oil palm trees, currently dominate
the biofuels market. As new products enter the market, our
products may become obsolete or our competitors products
may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold,
than our products. Changes in technology and customer
preferences may result in short product life cycles. To remain
competitive, we will need to develop new products and enhance
and improve our existing products in a timely manner. Our
failure to maintain our competitive position could have a
material adverse effect on our business and results of
operations.
Our principal competitors may include major international
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporations, such
as Advanta India Limited, The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto
Company, Pioneer Hi Bred (DuPont), KWS and Syngenta, all of
which have substantially greater resources to dedicate to
research and development, production, and marketing than we
have. We also face direct competition from other seed companies
and biotechnology companies, and from academic and government
research institutions. New competitors may emerge, including
through consolidation within the seed or renewable energy
industry. We are unable to predict what effect evolution of the
industry may have on price, selling strategies, intellectual
property or our competitive position.
In the broader market for renewable energy, we expect to face
competition from other potential feedstocks, such as biomass
residues from food crops, forestry trimmings and municipal waste
materials, other renewable alternatives, such as algae, solar
and wind-generated electricity, and other energy crops. There
are multiple technologies that process biomass into biofuels and
we have yet to determine compatibility of our feedstocks with
all of these processes. Our failure to develop new or enhanced
products that are compatible with these alternative
technologies, or a lack of market acceptance of our products as
the common denominator in a broad array of bio-based products
that are alternatives to petroleum based products, could have an
adverse effect on our business. Significant developments in
alternative technologies, such as the inexpensive and
large-scale storage of solar or wind-generated energy, may
materially and adversely affect our business in ways that we do
not currently anticipate.
A significant
portion of our revenue to date is generated from our
collaboration agreements and we must meet our obligations under
these agreements in order to be entitled to the revenue streams
from these agreements.
Historically, a significant portion of our revenue has been
generated from payments to us under collaborative research
agreements with third parties and we continue to
opportunistically pursue new
19
strategic collaborations. We are obligated under these
agreements to perform research activities over a particular
period of time. Certain of our agreements entitle us to
milestone payments in the event the specified milestone is met.
If we fail to perform our obligations under these agreements or
any new collaborative research agreements we may enter into in
the future, our revenues may decrease, or our collaborative
partners may terminate or fail to renew the agreements. In
addition, any of our collaborators may fail to perform their
obligations as expected, which may hinder our research and
development efforts. We and our collaborators may disagree as to
which party had rights to intellectual property developed under
the agreements. Disagreements with our collaborators could
develop and any conflict with a collaborator may negatively
affect our relationship with one or more existing collaborators
or our ability to enter into future collaboration agreements.
Our results of
operations will be affected by the level of royalty payments
that we are required to pay to third parties.
We are a party to license agreements with third party
collaborators, including The Texas A&M University System
and The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., that require us
to remit royalty payments to these third parties if we
incorporate their licensed intellectual property into our
products. While we are currently working on developing numerous
products that incorporate aspects of this intellectual property,
we have to date only sold small amounts of such products. The
amount of royalties that we could owe under these license
agreements is a function of our sales and the applicable royalty
rates depend on a number of factors, including the portion of
our third-party collaborators intellectual property that
is present in our products.
Because of our historically limited volume of sales, we have
little experience in calculating royalties under these license
agreements and it is unclear exactly how much of this licensed
intellectual property will be included in any final products we
offer for commercial sale. As a result we cannot precisely
predict the amount, if any, of royalties we will owe in the
future. If, once we commence sales of these products, we
determine that the products include more intellectual property
of our third party collaborators than we had previously
determined, or if our calculations of royalty payments are
incorrect, we may owe more royalties, which could negatively
affect our results of operations. As our product sales increase,
we may, from
time-to-time,
disagree with our third party collaborators as to the
appropriate royalty rate and the resolution of such disputes may
be costly and may consume managements time. Furthermore,
we may enter into additional license agreements in the future,
which may also include royalty payments.
We are also a party to license agreements pursuant to which we
have received licenses on certain intellectual property related
to biotechnology products. When we commence sales of our
biotechnology products in the future, or grant licenses to third
parties to commercialize such products, we will be required to
remit royalty payments to the parties from whom we have licensed
intellectual property that covers such products.
A significant
portion of our revenue to date is generated from government
grants and continued availability of government grant funding is
uncertain and contingent on compliance with the requirements of
the grant.
Historically, a significant portion of our revenue has been
generated from payments to us from government entities in the
form of government grants whereby we are reimbursed for certain
expenses incurred in connection with our research and
development activities, subject to our compliance with the
specific requirements of the applicable grant, including
rigorous documentation requirements. To the extent that we do
not comply with these requirements, our expenses incurred may
not be reimbursed. Any of our existing grants or new grants that
we may obtain in the future may be terminated or modified.
Our ability to obtain grants or incentives from government
entities in the future is subject to the availability of funds
under applicable government programs and approval of our
applications to participate in such programs. The application
process for these grants and other incentives is highly
20
competitive. We may not be successful in obtaining any
additional grants, loans or other incentives. The recent
political focus on reducing spending at the U.S. federal
and state levels may reduce the scope and amount of funds
dedicated to renewable energy products, if such funds will
continue to be available at all. To the extent that we are
unsuccessful in being awarded any additional government grants
in the future, we would lose a potential source of revenue.
Our government
grants may subject us to government audits, which could expose
us to penalties.
We may be subject to audits by United States government agencies
as part of routine audits of our activities funded by our
government grants. As part of an audit, these agencies may
review our performance, cost structures and compliance with
applicable laws, regulations and standards and the terms and
conditions of the grant. If any of our costs are found to be
allocated improperly, the costs may not be reimbursed and any
costs already reimbursed for such contract may have to be
refunded. Accordingly, an audit could result in a material
adjustment to our results of operations and financial condition.
Moreover, if an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities,
we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and
administrative sanctions. In addition, we devote substantial
resources to our systems used to track expenditures funded by
our government grants.
The biofuel and
biopower industries are highly dependent upon government
subsidies and economic incentives, and any changes in such
subsidies or incentives could materially and adversely affect
the growth of the industry and our ability to sell dedicated
energy crops.
The market for renewable energy in the United States is heavily
influenced by government subsidies, economic incentives and tax
credits and other regulatory initiatives that impact the
production, distribution and adoption of renewable energy
products. For example, the United States Renewable Fuel Standard
program, or RFS, currently calls for 14 billion gallons of
the liquid transportation fuels sold in 2011 to come from
renewable biofuels, with proposed volumes of renewable fuel for
2012 to rise to 15 billion gallons. The U.S. Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 increases the volume of
renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel
to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. Of this amount, the
RFS currently states that 16 billion gallons of renewable
biofuels used annually by 2022 must be cellulosic biofuel, such
as could be created by our switchgrass product. The RFS has been
modified in the past and may be modified again in the future. In
the United States, the administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, or EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture may waive certain
renewable fuel standards to avert economic harm or in response
to inadequate supply. The administrator of the EPA is also
required to reduce the mandate for cellulosic biofuel use if
projected supply for a given year falls below a minimum
threshold for that year. For example, because the supply of
cellulosic biofuel was projected to be very limited in 2011, the
EPA determined that the final volume standard for cellulosic
biofuel for 2011 would be six million gallons and the projected
volume for cellulosic biofuel for 2012 is between three and
13 million gallons, well below the 250 million gallon
volume requirement target specified in the Energy Independence
and Security Act. Any reduction in, or waiver of, mandated
requirements for fuel alternatives may cause demand for
renewable biofuels to grow more slowly or decline. Our business
strategy in the United States is based, in part, on these
standards remaining in place. Waivers of, or reduction in, the
RFS or similar mandates, could have a material adverse affect on
our ability to successfully grow demand for our cellulosic
feedstock products in the United States.
In biopower, the reduction of, or failure to implement, certain
government mandates, such as Renewable Electricity Standards in
the U.S. or taxes on carbon emissions, as well as incentives,
subsidies and tax credits to generate electric power from
low-carbon sources, may adversely affect the viability of the
field trials we conduct with our collaborators. These
collaborators may terminate existing field trials or elect not
to progress with planned field trials absent the implementation
of such incentives.
In addition, the United States Congress has passed legislation
that extends tax credits or other economic incentives for, among
other things, the production of certain renewable fuel products.
For
21
example, the United States adopted the Renewable Energy
Production Tax Credit that provides federal tax incentives for
renewable energy projects, and the Biomass Crop Assistance
Program, or BCAP, which provides risk mitigation and production
incentives to encourage growers to produce dedicated energy
crops. We believe that BCAP will influence the growth of the
switchgrass and miscanthus markets; however, unless extended,
BCAP expires in 2012. We cannot provide assurances that these
tax credits or other economic incentives will remain in place.
Any reduction in or phasing out or elimination of existing tax
credits, subsidies and other incentives in the United States and
foreign markets for renewable biofuels, or any inability of us
or our prospective customers to access such credits, subsidies
and other incentives, may adversely affect demand for, and
increase the overall cost of our renewable transportation fuels,
which would adversely the prospects for our business.
We believe that government incentives and economic initiatives
in Europe and other countries will also affect demand for our
dedicated energy crops. For example, in the United Kingdom,
which is a potential export market for
U.S.-grown
biomass, independent power providers are required to obtain a
certain portion of their power from renewable resources. Any
reduction or termination of government incentives or economic
initiatives outside the United States could also have a material
adverse effect on our business.
Compliance with
applicable government regulations, particularly with respect to
biotechnology products, is time-consuming and costly.
There are certain regulatory requirements affecting the field
testing and commercialization of our biotechnology products in
each of the markets in which we operate. In the United States,
the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, must
review and deregulate our biotechnology products prior to
commercial sale. The Biotechnology Regulatory Services, or BRS,
within the USDAs Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, or APHIS, has direct oversight of the field testing and
deregulation of our biotechnology products, The deregulation
process for biotechnology products is a costly, multi-year
process, with no guarantee of success. The length of the
deregulation process varies based on a number of factors,
including the extent of the supporting information required, the
nature and extent of review by the USDA, including the type and
scope of the environmental review conducted, and the number and
types of public comments received. For example, after the
initial filing of a petition for deregulation, the USDA may ask
for additional data, including data on new areas of inquiry that
might require us to conduct additional field tests or analyses,
which may cause delays in the deregulation process. Deregulation
of a product is not a guaranteed outcome. The USDA or other
regulators may also impose costly monitoring requirements on the
planting of our biotechnology products.
In Brazil, the commercialization of biotechnology products is
regulated by the National Technical Commission of Biosafety,
Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança, or
CTNBio under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The
approval process involves data collection and analysis,
environmental impact assessments and public hearings on certain
products. We are not currently subject to CTNBio oversight as
our current product offerings in Brazil do not include
biotechnology products. However, we do anticipate introducing
biotechnology products in Brazil in the future. At such time, we
will be subject to the approval processes dictated by CTNBio.
We have not yet applied for deregulation for any of our biotech
traits. Any delays in obtaining or failure to obtain
deregulation or regulatory approval, as the case may be, for any
of the biotechnology products in our pipeline could delay or
prevent the commercialization of our products. Regulatory
authorities can block the sale or import of our products or can
impose conditions that delay production and sale of our
products, or that make the sale of our products technically or
commercially unfeasible.
Before the USDA will review and deregulate our products, the
USDA requires us to obtain permits to plant and test our
biotechnology products, and there are similar permitting
requirements in Brazil. In determining whether to grant a field
test permit and what conditions to impose, regulators
22
consider any significant impacts that field tests may have on
the environment and on endangered or threatened species. In the
United States, the permitting process for the initial field
tests typically ranges from two to four months, but this time
period can be significantly longer for novel products or
circumstances. While to date our permits for our field trial
locations have been obtained with minimal delays, there can be
no assurance that we will not encounter material delays in the
future as we test new biotechnology products. If we are not able
to obtain the necessary field test permits or if there are
significant delays in the permitting process, the
commercialization of our products may be delayed or prevented
and our business and results of operations may be adversely
affected. A prolonged delay in the regulatory process could
adversely affect our ability to generate product revenues.
Ethical, legal
and social concerns about biotechnology products could limit or
prevent the use of our products and technologies, which could
negatively affect our ability to generate revenue.
Some of our products in development contain biotech traits. The
commercial success of our products that contain biotech traits
may be adversely affected by claims that biotechnology plant
products are unsafe for consumption or use, pose risks of damage
to the environment and create legal, social and ethical
dilemmas. For example, some countries, primarily in the European
Union, have instituted a de facto moratorium on the planting of
some genetically engineered seeds. The import of biomass grown
from genetically engineered seeds may also be regulated by the
European Union. While we are not currently selling seeds
containing biotech traits into the European Union, we plan to do
so in the future. In addition, Brazils biosafety law
prohibits the use, sale, registration, patenting and licensing
of genetic use restriction technologies, which are a class of
genetic engineering technologies that allow companies to
introduce seeds whose sterile offspring cannot reproduce,
preventing farmers from re-planting seeds from their harvest.
While our current sweet sorghum products are not subject to this
restriction, we may in the future introduce biotech traits that
may be subject to such regulation. If we are not able to
overcome these concerns and comply with these regulations, our
products may not achieve market acceptance. Any of the risks
discussed below could result in expenses, delays or other
impediments to our development programs or the market acceptance
and commercialization of our products that contain biotech
traits. Our ability to develop and commercialize one or more of
our technologies and products could be limited or prevented by
the following factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Public attitudes about the safety and environmental hazards of,
and ethical concerns over, genetic research and biotechnology
products, which could influence public acceptance of our
technologies and products;
|
|
|
|
Public attitudes regarding, and potential changes to laws
governing, ownership of genetic material, which could weaken our
intellectual property rights with respect to our genetic
material and discourage collaborators from supporting,
developing or commercializing our products and technologies;
|
|
|
|
Governmental reaction to negative publicity concerning
genetically engineered plants, which could result in greater
government regulation of genetic research and derivative
products; and
|
|
|
|
Failure to maintain or secure consumer confidence in, or to
maintain or receive governmental approvals for, our products.
|
We cannot predict whether or when any jurisdiction will change
its regulations with respect to biotechnology products. Problems
with any product could lead to increased scrutiny or regulation
for our products. Limitations on the development of
biotechnology products could be imposed that could delay,
prevent or make more costly the development of such products,
which would negatively affect our ability to commercialize
products using our traits.
Advocacy groups have engaged in publicity campaigns and filed
lawsuits in various countries against companies and regulatory
authorities, seeking to halt biotechnology approval activities
or
23
influence public opinion against genetically engineered
products. On occasion, there has been vandalism and destruction
of property of companies in the biotechnology industry.
Our
non-biotechnology products, the products of third parties or the
environment may be negatively affected by the unintended
appearance of our transgenes.
The development and commercial success of our non-biotechnology
products may be delayed or negatively affected because of
adverse public perception or regulatory concerns about the
safety of our products and the potential effects of these
products on other plants, animals, human health and the
environment. The potential for unintended but unavoidable trace
amounts, sometimes called adventitious presence, of
transgenes in conventional seed, or in the grain or products
produced from conventional or organic crops, is another factor
that could affect general public acceptance of these traits. For
example, our current sweet sorghum, high biomass sorghum and
switchgrass products have been produced exclusively through
conventional breeding and have not been genetically engineered
by us. It is possible, however, that trace amounts of our
transgenes are nevertheless in our conventional products. In
addition, trace amounts of transgenes may unintentionally be
found outside our containment area in the products of third
parties, which may result in negative publicity and claims of
liability brought by such third parties against us. Furthermore,
in the event of an unintended dissemination of our genetically
engineered materials to the environment, we could be subject to
claims by multiple parties, including environmental advocacy
groups, as well as governmental actions such as mandated crop
destruction, product recalls or additional stewardship practices
and environmental cleanup or monitoring.
Ethical, legal
and social concerns about land use could limit or prevent the
widespread adoption of our products, which could negatively
affect our ability to generate revenue.
The commercial success of our products also may be adversely
affected by claims that the production of bioenergy displaces
land that would otherwise be used for food and feed production,
leading to shortages and higher prices for food and feed
commodities. These claims are based, in part, on the assumption
that there is a scarcity of available land for crop production,
productivity is uniform across the globe and that productivity
will remain flat over time. While these assumptions are not
universally accepted, their acceptance by legislatures or
advocacy groups could harm our ability to sell our products. The
increased use of land for bioenergy production may also lead to
claims that the increased planting of other crops in other
regions may cause land clearing, such as in the Brazilian
rainforest, and subsequent greenhouse gas releases a
theory known as indirect land use change. This theory proposes
that such indirect effects, and their related greenhouse gas
emissions should be applied to the emissions life cycle of
bioenergy feedstocks, including dedicated energy crops. The
perception that our products are resulting in higher greenhouse
gas emissions could disadvantage our products related to other
potential energy sources, or make it more difficult for our
products to meet regulatory requirements for reduced emissions.
Development and
commercialization, if any, of our products may incur scrutiny
under the Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty.
The Convention on Biological Diversity, or the Convention, is an
international treaty that was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The treaty provides that if a
company uses genetic resources, such as an indigenous plant,
from a participating country to develop a product, then such
company must obtain the prior informed consent of the
participating country and owes fair and equitable compensation
to such country. Although the United States is not a
participating country, most countries where we currently obtain
or may obtain germplasm in the future, have ratified the treaty
and are currently participants in the Convention. We may fall
under scrutiny of the Convention with respect to the development
or commercialization of any of our products derived from the
germplasm originating from any of the countries that are
participants in the Convention. There can be no assurances that
the government of a participating country will not assert that
it is
24
entitled to fair and equitable compensation from us. Such
compensation, if demanded, may make commercialization of our
products not feasible.
Our business is
affected by changes in general economic conditions and a
prolonged downturn could affect the demand for our products and
our ability to fund our working capital.
Economic conditions in the United States, Brazil and Europe
could adversely affect our efforts to achieve profitability. The
purchasing decisions of utilities, mill operators, growers and
other potential customers, and their ability to timely pay for
our products, are impacted by their economic health. We may have
to regularly extend credit to our customers to enable them to
acquire seeds at the beginning of the growing season on terms
that permit payment following the sales of their products. These
credit practices may expose us to credit risk of utilities, mill
operators and growers and other potential customers, and
combined with the seasonality of our sales, make us dependent on
our ability to fund our working capital requirements through
other means. If the current difficult economic conditions
continue or worsen, the economic health of our customers and
potential customers could further deteriorate.
Our activities
are currently conducted at limited number of locations, which
makes us susceptible to damage or business disruptions caused by
natural disasters.
Our headquarters and certain research and development operations
are located at a single facility in Thousand Oaks, California.
Our main breeding station is located at our College Station
Research Center near College Station, Texas, with additional
breeding and agronomy trials situated in select locations across
the world, including the Americas, Europe and Asia. Our seed
production takes place primarily in the United States and Puerto
Rico, as well as Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. Warehousing for
seed storage is located primarily in Texas and the state of
São Paulo, Brazil. We take precautions to safeguard our
facilities, including insurance, health and safety protocols,
and off-site storage of critical research results and computer
data. However, a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, fire,
flood, tornado or earthquake, could cause substantial delays in
our operations, damage or destroy our equipment, inventory or
development projects, and cause us to incur additional expenses.
The insurance we maintain against natural disasters may not be
adequate to cover our losses in any particular case.
We rely on the
experience and expertise of our senior management team and other
key personnel.
We depend on the experience and expertise of our senior
management team and other key personnel, many of whom have been
with our company for more than a decade. Our senior management
team and key personnel bring extensive experience in the seed
industry, agricultural biotechnology and plant genetics. The
loss or unavailability of key members of our senior management
team or other key personnel could impact the execution of our
business strategy and make it more difficult to maintain and
expand our important relationships in the bioenergy industry.
The replacement of key members of our senior management team or
other key personnel likely would involve significant time and
costs.
If we are unable
to recruit or retain qualified personnel, particularly in
Brazil, our development and commercialization efforts may be
significantly delayed.
Competition for qualified personnel is intense among
agricultural biotechnology and other technology-based
businesses, particularly for personnel with the appropriate
level of education, experience and training. We may not be able
to recruit and retain such personnel at compensation levels
consistent with our existing compensation structure. The
continued appreciation of the Brazilian Real against the
U.S. dollar will make it more difficult for us to meet
compensation expectations of Brazilian personnel. In addition,
in making employment decisions, job candidates often consider
the value of equity they may receive in connection with their
employment. Therefore, significant volatility in
25
the price of our stock after this offering may adversely affect
our ability to attract or retain personnel. Competition for
qualified personnel in Brazil is particularly intense due to the
importance of the agricultural industry in Brazil and the recent
increased activity levels of U.S. agricultural or renewable
energy companies in Brazil, including Amyris Biotechnologies,
Inc. and Monsanto Company.
If we lose qualified personnel or are unable to attract, retain
and integrate additional highly trained and motivated personnel,
particularly for our research and development activities, our
ability to advance our product development and continue our
commercialization efforts may be delayed or unsuccessful.
Unexpected
fluctuations in our quarterly operating results may cause our
stock price to fluctuate widely.
A large proportion of our costs are fixed, due in part to our
significant research and development and production costs and
general and administrative expenses. Thus, even a small decline
in revenue could disproportionately affect our quarterly
operating results and could cause such results to differ
materially from expectations. If this occurs, we may fail to
meet analyst and investor expectations, which could cause our
stock price to decline. Other factors that could affect our
quarterly operating results or cause them to differ materially
from expectations include:
|
|
|
|
|
demand for and acceptance of our products;
|
|
|
|
weather conditions or the occurrence of natural disasters;
|
|
|
|
changes in government regulations and incentives;
|
|
|
|
competitive pressures resulting in lower selling prices; and
|
|
|
|
unanticipated delays or problems in the introduction of new
products.
|
We may require
additional financing in the future and may not be able to obtain
such financing on favorable terms, if at all, which could force
us to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development
activities.
We will continue to need capital to fund our research and
development projects and to provide working capital to fund
other aspects of our business. If our capital resources are
insufficient to meet our capital requirements, we will have to
raise additional funds. If future financings involve the
issuance of equity securities, our existing stockholders would
suffer dilution. If we are able to raise additional debt
financing, we may be subject to restrictive covenants that limit
our operating flexibility. We may not be able to raise
sufficient additional funds on terms that are favorable to us,
if at all. If we fail to raise sufficient funds and continue to
incur losses, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage
of strategic opportunities, develop and commercialize products
or technologies, or otherwise respond to competitive pressures
could be significantly limited. If this happens, we may be
forced to delay or terminate research and development programs
or the commercialization of products, curtail operations or
obtain funds through collaborative and licensing arrangements
that may require us to relinquish commercial rights, or grant
licenses to our technology on terms that are not favorable to
us. If adequate funds are not available, we will not be able to
successfully execute on our business strategy or continue our
business.
We expect to
derive a portion of our revenues from markets outside the United
States, including Brazil, which will subject us to additional
business risks.
Changes in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and other
currencies will result in increases or decreases in our costs
and earnings, and also may affect the book value of our assets
outside the United States. To date, most of our contracts have
been entered into in the United States and accordingly have been
denominated in U.S. dollars. Going forward we anticipate
that our sales will be denominated in the local currency of the
country in which the sale occurs. In addition, most of our
26
operating expenses to date have been denominated in the
currencies of the countries in which our operations are located,
primarily the United States and Brazil. As a result, while our
revenue and operating expenses are mostly hedged on a
transactional basis, the translation of our operating results
into U.S. dollars may be adversely impacted by
strengthening U.S. currency.
In addition, international operations are subject to a number of
other risks and uncertainties, including:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in political, social or economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
tariffs, trade protection measures and trade agreements;
|
|
|
|
import or export licensing requirements;
|
|
|
|
changes in regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
|
reduced protection for intellectual property rights in some
countries;
|
|
|
|
economic downturns, civil disturbances or political instability;
|
|
|
|
difficulties and costs of staffing and managing international
operations;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in currency exchange rights;
|
|
|
|
land reform movements;
|
|
|
|
price controls;
|
|
|
|
nationalization; and
|
|
|
|
potentially burdensome taxation.
|
In the past, the Brazilian economy was characterized by frequent
and occasionally extensive intervention by the Brazilian
government and unstable economic cycles. The Brazilian
government has changed in the past, and may change in the
future, monetary, taxation, credit, tariff and other policies to
influence the course of Brazils economy. For example, the
governments actions to control inflation have at times
involved setting wage and price controls, adjusting interest
rates, imposing taxes and exchange controls and limiting imports
into Brazil. The Brazilian government has also in the past
placed significant restrictions on the ability of foreign
persons and companies to acquire property in Brazil. We have no
control over, and cannot predict, what policies or actions the
Brazilian government may take in the future. Any of these
actions could adversely affect our international operations and,
consequently, our results of operations.
Our ability to
use our net operating loss carry forwards to offset future
taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.
As of August 31, 2010, we had approximately
$154.2 million of federal and $133.4 million of state
operating loss carry-forwards available to offset future taxable
income, which expire in varying amounts beginning in 2018 for
federal and 2016 for state purposes if unused. It is possible
that we will not generate taxable income in time to use these
loss carry-forwards before their expiration. In addition, under
Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, or Code, a
corporation that undergoes an ownership change is
subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change
net operating loss carry forwards, or NOLs, to offset future
taxable income. We have not completed a Section 382
analysis to determine if an ownership change has occurred. Until
such analysis is completed, we cannot be sure that the full
amount of the existing NOLs will be available to us, even if we
do generate taxable income before their expiration.
27
We use hazardous
materials in our business. Any claims relating to improper
handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time
consuming and costly.
Our research and development processes involve the controlled
use of hazardous materials, including chemical and biological
materials. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern
the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these
materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We
cannot eliminate entirely the risk of accidental contamination
or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. We
may face liability for any injury or contamination that results
from our use or the use by third parties of these materials,
which depending on the severity of the injury or contamination
could be significant. In addition, compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current
or future environmental regulations may impair our research,
development or production efforts.
We may suffer
liabilities relating soil and/or groundwater contamination at
current and former properties and at third-party sites to which
we sent hazardous wastes for disposal.
We are exposed to environmental risks associated with the
ownership and operation of real property and the disposal of
hazardous wastes. Environmental laws can require current owners
and operators of real property to remediate soil and groundwater
contamination even if such contamination was caused by another
party, such as a former owner or operator. These laws can also
require companies to clean up real property that they formerly
owned or operated if releases of hazardous materials or wastes
occurred during the period of their ownership or operation.
Moreover, in certain circumstances these laws require companies
to clean up third-party sites to which hazardous wastes were
sent for disposal, notwithstanding that the original disposal
activity accorded with all regulatory requirements. The
discovery of previously unknown contamination at our current or
former facilities, or at third-party sites to which we sent
hazardous wastes for disposal, could require us to conduct or
fund expensive cleanup efforts, which could materially and
adversely affect our operating results.
We may be sued
for product liability and if such lawsuits were determined
adversely, we could be subject to substantial damages.
We may be held liable if any product we develop, or any product
that uses or incorporates, any of our technologies, causes
injury or is found otherwise unsuitable during product testing,
production, marketing or sale. For example, the detection of
unintended biotechnology material in pre-commercial seed,
commercial seed varieties or the crops and products produced may
result in the inability to market the crops grown, resulting in
potential liability for us as the seed producer or technology
provider. In the event this was to occur, we could be subject to
claims by multiple parties based not only on the cost of our
products but also on their lost profits and business
opportunities. In addition, the detection of unintended
biotechnology material in our seeds or in the environment could
result in governmental actions such as mandated crop
destruction, product recalls or environmental cleanup or
monitoring. Concerns about seed quality related to biotechnology
could also lead to additional regulations being imposed on our
business, such as regulations related to testing procedures,
mandatory governmental reviews of biotechnology advances, or the
integrity of the food supply chain from the farm to the finished
product.
We currently have limited product liability insurance coverage
and additional insurance may be prohibitively expensive, or may
not fully cover potential liabilities. If we are unable to
obtain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or
otherwise or if the amount of any claim against us exceeds the
coverage under our policy, we may face significant expenses.
28
Risks Related to
our Intellectual Property
Our inability to
adequately protect our proprietary technologies and products
could harm our competitive position.
Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain patents and
maintain adequate protection of our other intellectual property
for our technologies and products in the United States and other
countries. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect
proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United
States, and many companies have encountered significant problems
in protecting their proprietary rights in these foreign
countries. These problems can be caused by, for example, a lack
of rules and methods for defending intellectual property rights.
Many countries, including Brazil, do not allow patenting of
plants, whether genetically engineered or traditionally bred.
Accordingly, our proprietary position for our products in
countries such as Brazil relies to a large extent on Plant
Variety Protection certificates. This type of protection is more
limited than patents in the United States. As a result, Plant
Variety Protection certificates may provide only a limited
competitive advantage in the marketplace. In many countries,
including Brazil, patentability criteria are generally more
restrictive and our filings more limited than in the United
States, weakening our prospects of obtaining an equal scope of
corresponding patent protection. Because Brazil is our initial
target market, the lack of more robust patent protection for
plant varieties in that country could expose us to the risk of
misappropriation of our intellectual property. In addition, the
legal systems of certain other countries do not favor the
enforcement of patents and other intellectual property
protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology. This
could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our
patents or misappropriation of our other intellectual property
rights. Proceedings to enforce our patents and other proprietary
rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial
costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of
our business. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our
intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate
to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the
intellectual property that we develop. Even if we enforce our
rights aggressively, injunctions, fines and other penalties may
be insufficient to deter violations of our intellectual property
rights. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations
of patent laws in the United States and other countries may
diminish the value of our intellectual property.
The patent positions of biotechnology companies, including our
patent position, are generally uncertain and involve complex
legal and factual questions. We will be able to protect our
proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only
to the extent that our proprietary technologies are covered by
valid and enforceable patents. We will apply for patents
covering both our technologies and products as we deem
appropriate. However, we cannot assure you that any pending or
future patent applications held by us will result in an issued
patent, or that if patents are issued to us, such patents will
provide meaningful protection against competitors or against
competitive technologies. Our existing patents and any future
patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent
others from practicing our technologies or from developing
competing products. Furthermore, others may independently
develop similar or alternative technologies or design around our
patented technologies. In addition, our patents may be
challenged, invalidated or fail to provide us with any
competitive advantages.
The value of our
intellectual property could diminish due to technological
developments or challenges by competitors, making our products
less competitive.
Our intellectual property rights are important to the operation
of our business and to our early mover advantage in crop
biotechnology. We rely on a combination of patents, plant
variety protection, plant breeders rights, copyrights,
trademarks, trade secret laws, confidentiality provisions, and
licensing arrangements to establish and protect our intellectual
property. However, the importance of technology development and
intellectual property protection in the agricultural industry
increases the
29
risk that technological advances by others could render our
products less competitive. Our business could be negatively
affected by any of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
our issued patents, Plant Variety Protection certificates, plant
breeders rights and trademark registrations may be
successfully challenged by our competitors;
|
|
|
|
our pending patent, Plant Variety Protection certificates, plant
breeders rights and trademark registration applications
may not be allowed or may be challenged successfully by our
competitors;
|
|
|
|
our products may inadvertently use the technology of others and,
therefore, require us to obtain intellectual property licenses
from other parties in order for us to sell our products;
|
|
|
|
we may be unable to obtain intellectual property licenses that
are necessary or useful to our business on favorable terms, or
at all;
|
|
|
|
new technology that is independently developed by others may
supersede our technology and make our products less desirable or
more costly in the marketplace;
|
|
|
|
competitors may design around our patented technologies or may
reverse engineer our trade secret technologies;
|
|
|
|
the scope of our plant variety protection certificates in Brazil
is narrow and subject to a breeders exemption, which
allows breeders to use our varieties in a breeding program; as a
result, these certificates may not provide a sustained
competitive advantage in the marketplace; and
|
|
|
|
the eventual scope of our patents in Brazil is uncertain due to
restrictions on plant claims under Brazilian patent laws and our
limited filings in Brazil, and may not be sufficient to deter
competition.
|
While we have exclusive rights to certain proprietary lines of
switchgrass, miscanthus, high biomass sorghum and sweet sorghum
through our collaborations with leading institutions, other
parties may have access to certain lines of switchgrass,
miscanthus, high biomass sorghum or sweet sorghum developed or
released by such institutions, proprietary lines of such crops
from other sources, and publicly available lines of such crops,
from which they may develop products that compete with our
products.
Litigation or
other proceedings or third party claims of infringement could
require us to spend time and money and could severely disrupt
our business.
Our commercial success depends on not infringing patents or
proprietary rights of third parties, nor breaching any licenses
or other agreements that we have entered into with regard to our
technologies, products and business. The patent positions of
biotechnology and seed companies involve complex legal and
factual questions and, therefore, enforceability cannot be
predicted with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged,
invalidated or circumvented. We cannot be sure that relevant
patents have not been issued that could block our ability to
obtain patents or to operate as we would like without infringing
patents or proprietary rights of other parties.
The biotechnology and seed industries have a history of
litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property
rights. Many biotechnology companies have employed intellectual
property litigation as a way to gain a competitive advantage. We
cannot assure you that we will not be sued by third parties for
infringement of patents they may have relating to
biotechnological traits or technologies in various crops.
Should any of our competitors have filed patent applications or
obtain patents that claim inventions also claimed by us, we may
have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority
of invention and, thus, the right to a patent for these
inventions in the United States. Such a proceeding could result
in substantial cost to us even
30
if the outcome is favorable. Even if successful on priority
grounds, an interference proceeding may result in loss of claims
based on patentability grounds raised in the proceeding. If we
become involved in litigation or interference proceedings
declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to defend
our intellectual property rights or as a result of alleged
infringement of the rights of others, or oppositions or other
intellectual property proceedings outside of the United States,
we might have to spend significant amounts of money to resolve
such matters. We are aware of a significant number of pending
patent applications relating to biotechnological traits or
technologies in various crops filed by third parties.
Even if we prevail, litigation, interference proceedings or
opposition proceedings could result in significant legal fees
and other expenses, could divert our management time and efforts
and could severely disrupt our business. Uncertainties resulting
from initiation and continuation of any patent or related
litigation could harm our ability to compete.
An adverse ruling arising out of any intellectual property
dispute could undercut or minimize our intellectual property
position. An adverse ruling that our operations violate a third
partys intellectual property rights could also subject us
to significant liability for damages, prevent us from using
processes or products, or require us to license disputed rights
from third parties. Claims of intellectual property infringement
against us may require us to enter into costly royalty or
license agreements, subject us to substantial damage claims or
cause us to stop using such technology absent a license
agreement. Although patent and intellectual property disputes in
the biotechnology area are often settled through licensing or
similar arrangements, costs associated with these arrangements
may be substantial and could include ongoing royalties.
Furthermore, necessary licenses may not be available to us on
satisfactory terms, if at all.
Third parties may
infringe on our intellectual property rights, and we may expend
significant resources enforcing our rights or be competitively
disadvantaged.
If we fail to protect our intellectual property rights from
infringement by third parties, our competitive position could
suffer, which could make it more difficult to grow our business.
We may not be able to detect or prevent infringement of our
intellectual property or may lose our competitive position in
the market before we do so.
Confidentiality
agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent
disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary
information.
In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we
also rely in part on trade secret protection for our
confidential and proprietary information. For example, we
consider our genetic transformation methods, markers for
marker-assisted breeding and sequence databases as trade
secrets. We have taken security measures to protect our trade
secrets and proprietary information. These measures may not
provide adequate protection for our trade secrets or other
proprietary information. We also seek to protect our proprietary
information by entering into confidentiality agreements with
employees, with potential and actual collaborators and licensees
and with consultants and other advisors. These agreements may
not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information
and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In
addition, others may independently develop substantially
equivalent proprietary information or techniques and trade
secret laws do not allow us to protect against such independent
development. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be
necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary
rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret
protection could adversely affect our competitive business
position.
31
We have received
funding from U.S. government agencies, which could negatively
affect our intellectual property rights.
Some of our research and development activities have been funded
by grants from U.S. government agencies. For example, a
portion of our research and development used to develop our
nitrogen use efficiency trait was funded by a
U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E grant. When new
technologies are developed with U.S. government funding,
the government obtains certain rights in any resulting patents
and technical data, generally including, at a minimum, a
non-exclusive, nontransferable license authorizing the
government to use the invention or technical data for
non-commercial purposes. U.S. government funding must be
disclosed in any resulting patent applications, and our rights
in such inventions will normally be subject to government
license rights, periodic progress reporting, foreign
manufacturing restrictions and march-in rights.
March-in rights refer to the right of the U.S. government,
under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant a
license to technology developed under a government grant to a
responsible applicant, or, if we refuse, to grant such a license
itself. March-in rights can be triggered if the government
determines that we have failed, within a reasonable time, to
take effective steps to achieve practical application of a
technology or, if action is necessary to alleviate health or
safety needs, to meet requirements for public use specified by
federal regulations or to give preference to U.S. industry.
We may also enter into collaborations with entities outside the
United States that receive government funding or, in the future,
we may apply for government funding from other countries.
Regulations in these countries may provide for similar march-in
rights. Any governments rights in our intellectual
property may lessen its commercial value, which could adversely
affect our business.
Risks Related to
this Offering and Ownership of our Common Stock
No public market
for our common stock currently exists and an active trading
market may not develop or be sustained following this
offering.
Prior to this offering, there has not been a public market for
our common stock. An active and liquid trading market for our
common stock may not develop following this offering or if it
does develop, it may not be sustained. The lack of a liquid
trading market may make it more difficult for you to sell your
shares when you wish to sell them or at a price that you
consider attractive. The lack of a liquid trading market may
also reduce the fair market value of your shares. Also, an
inactive trading market for our shares may negatively affect our
ability to raise equity capital in the future by selling shares
in a public offering or make it more difficult to acquire other
companies by using our common stock as consideration.
The price of our
common stock may be volatile and you may not be able to sell
your shares at or above the initial public offering
price.
The initial public offering price for our shares will be
determined by negotiations between us and representatives of the
underwriters and may not be indicative of prices that will
prevail in the stock market following this offering. The market
price for our common stock may decline below the initial public
offering price and you may not be able to sell your shares at or
above the initial public offering price. Our stock price may be
subject to wide fluctuations in response to the factors listed
in this section and others beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
actual or projected fluctuations in our financial condition and
operating results;
|
|
|
|
our cash and cash equivalents position;
|
|
|
|
actual or projected changes in our growth rate relative to our
competitors;
|
|
|
|
actual or projected fluctuations in our competitors
financial condition or operating results;
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
announcements of technological innovations by us, our
collaborators or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
announcements by us, our collaborators or competitors of
significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures
or capital commitments;
|
|
|
|
the entry into, modification or termination of collaborative
arrangements;
|
|
|
|
changes in our customer base;
|
|
|
|
additions or departures of key management or other key personnel;
|
|
|
|
competition from existing products or new products that may
emerge;
|
|
|
|
issuances of new or updated research reports by securities or
industry analysts;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in the share prices of companies perceived by
investors to be comparable to us;
|
|
|
|
disputes or other developments related to proprietary rights,
including patents, litigation matters, the countries in which we
source our germplasm, and our ability to obtain patent
protection for our technologies;
|
|
|
|
disputes or other developments relating to genetically
engineered products, including claims of adventitious presence
or environmental harm;
|
|
|
|
changes in existing laws, regulations and policies applicable to
our business and products, including the United States Renewable
Fuel Standard program, and the adoption or failure to adopt
additional carbon emissions regulations;
|
|
|
|
announcements or the expectation of raising additional financing;
|
|
|
|
sales of our common stock by us, our insiders or other
stockholders;
|
|
|
|
general market conditions in our industry; and
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions, including the impact of the recent
financial crisis.
|
The stock markets in general, and the market for renewable
energy stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility
that have affected and continue to affect the trading prices of
equity securities of many companies. These market fluctuations
often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating
performance of those companies. These fluctuations, as well as
general economic, political and market conditions such as
recessions, interest rate changes or international currency
fluctuations, may negatively impact the market price of our
common stock. In the past, companies that have experienced
volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject
to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of
this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation
against us could result in substantial costs and divert our
managements attention from other business concerns.
A significant
portion of our total outstanding shares of common stock is
restricted from immediate resale, but may be sold into the
public market in the near future. If there are substantial sales
of our common stock, or the perception that these sales could
occur in the future, the trading price of our common stock could
decline.
The trading price of our common stock could decline as a result
of sales of a large number of shares of our common stock in the
public market after this offering. The perception that these
sales could occur may also depress the trading price of our
common stock. Based on the number of shares outstanding as
of ,
2011, we will
have shares
of common stock outstanding after the completion of this
offering. Of these shares, the common stock sold in this
offering will be freely tradable in the United States, except
for any shares purchased by our affiliates as
defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act.
33
The holders
of shares
of common stock have agreed with the underwriters, subject to
certain exceptions, not to offer, sell, pledge or otherwise
dispose of any of their common stock during the period beginning
on the date of this prospectus and continuing through the date
180 days after the date of this prospectus (subject to
extension under certain circumstances), except with the prior
written consent of Goldman, Sachs & Co.
However, Goldman, Sachs & Co. can waive the provisions
of these
lock-up
agreements and allow these stockholders to sell their shares at
any time. After the expiration of the
180-day
restricted period (subject to extension under certain
circumstances), these shares may be sold in the public market in
the United States, subject to prior registration in the United
States, if required, or reliance upon an exemption from
U.S. registration under Rule 144 or Rule 701
under the Securities Act. See Shares Eligible for
Future Sale.
|
|
|
Number of Shares and
|
|
|
% of Total Outstanding
|
|
Date Available for Sale into Public Market
|
|
or %
|
|
Immediately after this offering.
|
or %
|
|
90 days after the date of this prospectus.
|
or %
|
|
180 days after the date of this prospectus.
|
or %
|
|
From time to time after the date 180 days after the date of
this prospectus.
|
In addition, as
of ,
2011, there
were shares
of common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding
options or warrants that will become eligible for sale in the
public market to the extent permitted by applicable vesting
requirements, the
lock-up
agreements discussed in Underwriting and
Rules 144 and 701 of the Securities Act.
Holders owning an aggregate
of shares
of common stock will be entitled, under contracts providing for
registration rights, to require us to register shares of our
common stock owned by them for public sale in the United States,
subject to the restrictions of Rule 144. See
Description of Capital Stock Registration
Rights. In addition, we intend to file a registration
statement to register
approximately shares
previously issued or reserved for future issuance under our
equity compensation plans and agreements. Upon effectiveness of
such registration statement, subject to the satisfaction of
applicable exercise periods and, in certain cases, the
lock-up
agreements discussed in Underwriting, the shares of
common stock issued upon exercise of outstanding options will be
available for immediate resale in the United States in the open
market.
If securities or
industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our
business or our industry, or publish negative reports about our
business or our industry, our stock price and trading volume
could decline.
The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by
the research and reports that securities or industry analysts
publish about us, our business, our industry or our competitors.
If one or more of the analysts who cover us change their
recommendation regarding our stock adversely, change their
opinion of the prospects for our company in a negative manner,
or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our
competitors, our stock price would likely decline. If one or
more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to
regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the
financial markets, which could cause our stock price or trading
volume to decline.
Purchasers in
this offering will experience immediate and substantial dilution
in the book value of their investment.
The initial public offering price will be substantially higher
than the net tangible book value per share of our outstanding
common stock immediately after this offering. Therefore, if you
purchase shares of our common stock in this offering, you will
experience immediate and substantial dilution of approximately
$ per share in the price you pay
for shares of our common stock as compared to
34
its net tangible book value, assuming an initial public offering
price of $ per share, the midpoint
of the range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus. If
outstanding options and the outstanding warrants that do not
expire upon completion of this offering are exercised, you will
experience further dilution. In addition, following this
offering, purchasers in this offering will have
contributed % of the total
consideration paid by our stockholders to purchase shares of
common stock, in exchange for acquiring
approximately % of our total
outstanding shares as
of ,
2011. To the extent that outstanding options and warrants to
purchase shares of common stock are exercised, there will be
further dilution. For further information on this calculation,
see the Dilution section of this prospectus.
We will incur
significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public
company, and our management will be required to devote
substantial time to comply with the laws and regulations
affecting public companies.
We have never operated as a public company. As a public company,
we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses
that we did not incur as a private company, including costs
associated with public company reporting and corporate
governance requirements, in order to comply with the rules and
regulations imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules
implemented by the SEC and the Nasdaq Global Market. Our
management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial
amount of time to these compliance initiatives and our legal and
accounting compliance costs will increase.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we
maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting
and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular,
commencing in 2012, we must perform system and process
evaluations and testing of our internal control over financial
reporting to allow management and our independent registered
public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our
internal controls over financial reporting, as required by
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our testing, or the
subsequent testing by our independent registered public
accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control
over financial reporting that are deemed to be material
weaknesses. Our compliance with Section 404 will require
that we incur substantial accounting expense and management time
on compliance-related issues. Moreover, if we are not able to
comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely
manner, or if we or our independent registered public accounting
firm identify deficiencies in our internal control over
financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses,
we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and
completeness of our financial reports, which could cause our
stock price to decline.
Anti-takeover
provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and
under Delaware law could delay or prevent an acquisition of our
company, even if the acquisition may be beneficial to our
stockholders.
Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation and our bylaws, both of which will become
effective upon the completion of this offering, may delay or
prevent an acquisition of our company deemed undesirable by our
board of directors. Among other things, our amended and restated
certificate of incorporation and bylaws will (i) provide
for a board of directors that is divided into three classes,
with staggered three-year terms, (ii) provide that all
stockholder action must be effected at a duly called meeting of
the stockholders and not by a consent in writing,
(iii) provide that only our board of directors, the
chairman of the board of directors, our chief executive officer
(or president in the absence of a chief executive officer) may
call a special meeting of the stockholders, (iv) provide
for the ability of our board of directors to issue undesignated
preferred stock, (v) require that any amendment to the
amended and restated certificate of incorporation be approved by
a
662/3
stockholder vote, and (vi) establish advance notice
requirements for nominations for election to our board of
directors and for proposing matters that can be acted upon at
stockholders meetings. These provisions may also frustrate or
prevent any attempt by our stockholders to replace or remove our
current management by making it more difficult for stockholders
to replace members of our board of
35
directors who are responsible for appointing the members of our
management team. As a Delaware corporation, we are subject to
the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, which prohibits, with some exceptions,
stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding stock
from merging or combining with us without board of directors or
stockholder approval. Although we believe these provisions
together provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by
requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of
directors, they would apply even if an offer to acquire our
company may be considered beneficial by some stockholders and
could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a
premium for their shares.
Concentration of
ownership among our existing officers, directors and principal
stockholders may prevent other stockholders from influencing
significant corporate decisions.
Based on the number of shares outstanding as of May 31,
2011, when this offering is completed, our officers, directors
and existing stockholders who hold at least 5% of our stock will
together beneficially own
approximately % of our outstanding
common stock and if the underwriters option to purchase
additional shares is exercised in full, such persons will
beneficially own, in the aggregate,
approximately % of our outstanding
common stock. If these officers, directors and principal
stockholders or a group of our principal stockholder act
together, they will be able to exert a significant degree of
influence over our management and affairs and exercise a
significant level of control over all matters requiring
stockholder approval, including the election of directors and
approval of mergers or other business combination transactions.
This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying
or preventing a change in control of our company or changes in
management and will make the approval of certain transactions
difficult or impossible without the support of these
stockholders.
After the
completion of this offering, we do not expect to declare any
dividends in the foreseeable future.
After the completion of this offering, we do not anticipate
declaring any cash dividends to holders of our common stock in
the foreseeable future. Our existing loan agreement prohibits us
from paying dividends on our capital stock. Consequently,
investors may need to rely on sales of their common stock after
price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to
realize any future gains on their investment. Investors seeking
cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.
Our management
may not apply the net proceeds from this offering in ways that
increase the value of your investment.
We currently intend to use the net proceeds from this offering
as described in the Use of Proceeds section of this
prospectus. However, our management may not apply the net
proceeds in ways that ultimately increase the value of your
investment. You will not have the opportunity to influence our
decisions on how to use the net proceeds from this offering.
36
SPECIAL
NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This prospectus, including the sections entitled
Prospectus Summary, Risk Factors,
Use of Proceeds, Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations, and Business, contains
forward-looking statements. All statements, other than
statements of historical facts contained in this prospectus,
including statements regarding our efforts to develop and
commercialize our products, our short-term and long-term
business strategies, market and industry expectations and future
results of operations and financial position, are
forward-looking statements. In many cases, you can identify
forward-looking statements by terms such as may,
will, should, expect,
plan, anticipate, could,
intend, target, project,
contemplate, believe,
estimate, potential,
continue or other similar words.
We based these forward-looking statements largely on our current
expectations and projections about future events or trends that
we believe may affect our business and financial performance.
These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks
and uncertainties that may cause our actual results, performance
or achievements to materially differ from any future results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by these
forward-looking statements. We have described in the Risk
Factors section and elsewhere in this prospectus the
material risks and uncertainties that we believe could cause
actual results to differ from these forward-looking statements.
Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to
risks and uncertainties, some of which we cannot predict or
quantify, you should not rely on these forward-looking
statements as guarantees of future results, performance or
achievements.
The forward looking statements in this prospectus represent our
views as of the date of this prospectus. We undertake no
obligation to update publicly, except to the extent required by
law, any forward-looking statements for any reason after the
date of this prospectus to conform these statements to actual
results or to changes in our expectations.
MARKET AND
INDUSTRY DATA
Market data and certain industry data and forecasts included in
this prospectus were obtained from internal company surveys,
market research, consultant surveys, publicly available
information, governmental agency reports and industry
publications and surveys, including reports by the following
authorities:
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. Energy Information Administration;
|
|
|
|
The International Energy Agency;
|
|
|
|
The Renewable Fuels Association; and
|
|
|
|
Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association.
|
This information involves a number of assumptions and
limitations. These industry and government publications, surveys
and forecasts generally indicate that the information has been
obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but that the
accuracy and completeness of such information is not guaranteed.
Although we believe the third party market and industry data and
forecasts included in the prospectus are generally reliable, we
have not independently verified any of the data from third party
sources nor have we ascertained the underlying economic
assumptions relied upon therein. Similarly, internally generated
industry forecasts, which we believe to be reliable based on our
managements knowledge of the industry, have not been
independently verified by a third party. We are responsible for
all of the disclosure in this prospectus.
37
USE OF
PROCEEDS
We estimate that the net proceeds from this offering will be
approximately $ million,
assuming an initial public offering price of
$ per share, the midpoint of the
price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, and after
deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and
estimated offering expenses payable by us.
A $1.00 increase or decrease in the assumed initial public
offering price of $ per share
would increase or decrease the net proceeds from this offering
by approximately $ million,
assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth
on the cover of this prospectus, remains the same and after
deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and
estimated offering expenses payable by us. If the underwriters
exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full, we
estimate that our net proceeds will be approximately
$ million, assuming an
initial public offering price of $
per share and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts
and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.
We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering for the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
$
|
|
|
Capital expenditures primarily relating to breeding stations,
production facilities, systems and agricultural equipment
|
|
$
|
|
|
Commercial activities, including increasing the number of sales
and marketing personnel, expanding our advertising and branding
efforts and pursuing government approvals
|
|
$
|
|
|
Working capital and other general corporate purposes, including
seed production efforts and operating as a public company
|
|
$
|
|
|
In addition, we may also use a portion of the net proceeds to
expand our business through acquisitions of other companies,
assets or technologies, which we expect would reduce the amount
of net proceeds available for working capital and other general
corporate purposes. However, we do not have any present
understandings, commitments or agreements to enter into any
potential agreements for any acquisitions. Pending the uses of
the net proceeds of this offering, as described above, we intend
to invest the net proceeds in short-term investment-grade,
interest-bearing securities.
Some of the other principal purposes of this offering are to
create a public market for our common stock, increase our
visibility in the marketplace and provide liquidity to existing
stockholders. Creating a public market for our common stock will
facilitate our ability to raise additional equity in the future
and to use our common stock as a means of attracting and
retaining key employees and as consideration for acquisitions.
38
DIVIDEND
POLICY
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common or
convertible preferred stock. We currently intend to retain any
future earnings and do not expect to declare or pay any cash
dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to
pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of
directors, subject to applicable laws, and will depend on our
financial condition, results of operations, capital
requirements, general business conditions and other factors that
our board of directors considers relevant. Our existing loan
agreement prohibits us from paying dividends on our capital
stock.
39
CAPITALIZATION
The following table sets forth our cash and cash equivalents and
our capitalization as of May 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
on an actual basis;
|
|
|
|
on a pro forma basis to give effect to:
|
(1) the filing of our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation immediately prior to the completion of this
offering;
(2) the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of
our convertible preferred stock into an aggregate of
46,059,819 shares of common stock immediately prior to the
completion of this offering;
(3) the issuance
of shares
of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this
offering upon the net exercise of warrants outstanding to
purchase shares of common stock issued to investors holding our
Series F Warrants and our Series G Warrants, which
would otherwise expire upon the completion of this offering,
based upon an assumed initial public offering price of
$ per share, the midpoint of the
range set forth on the cover of this prospectus; and
(4) the reclassification of the convertible preferred stock
warrant liability to stockholders (deficit) equity upon
the completion of this offering; and
|
|
|
|
|
on a pro forma as adjusted basis to give effect to the pro forma
adjustments and the sale
of shares
of common stock by us in this offering at an assumed public
offering price of $ per share, the
midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this
prospectus, and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts
and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.
|
The pro forma and pro forma as adjusted information below is
illustrative only and our capitalization following the
completion of this offering will be adjusted based on the actual
initial public offering price and other terms of this offering
determined at pricing. You should read this table together with
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations and our consolidated
financial statements and the accompanying notes appearing
elsewhere in this prospectus.
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of May 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma as
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
Adjusted(1)
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
17,717
|
|
|
|
17,717
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
$
|
2,552
|
|
|
$
|
2,552
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Preferred stock warrant liability
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock warrant liability
|
|
|
10,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convertible preferred stock, $0.01 par value; 50,854,383
authorized, 46,059,819 shares issued and outstanding,
actual; no shares authorized, issued or outstanding, pro forma
and pro forma as adjusted
|
|
|
197,502
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders (deficit) equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value; no shares authorized, issued
and outstanding,
actual; shares
authorized, pro forma and pro forma as adjusted; no shares
issued and outstanding, pro forma and pro forma as adjusted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value; 75,000,000 shares
authorized; 5,980,417 shares issued and outstanding,
actual; shares
authorized, pro forma and pro forma as
adjusted; shares
issued and outstanding, pro
forma; shares
issued and outstanding pro forma as adjusted
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
520
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
7,304
|
|
|
|
214,706
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(195,889
|
)
|
|
|
(195,889
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders (deficit) equity
|
|
|
(188,526
|
)
|
|
|
19,337
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization
|
|
$
|
21,889
|
|
|
$
|
21,889
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
A $1.00 increase or decrease in the assumed initial public
offering price of $ per share, the
midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this
prospectus, would increase or decrease each of cash and cash
equivalents, and total stockholders (deficit) equity by
$ , assuming that the number of
shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover of this
prospectus, remains the same, and after deducting estimated
underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering
expenses payable by us. Each increase of 1.0 million shares
in the number of shares of common stock offered by us would
increase each of cash and cash equivalents, and total
stockholders (deficit) equity by
$ , assuming an initial public
offering price of $ per share, the
midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this
prospectus. Similarly, each decrease of 1.0 million shares
in the number of shares offered by us would decrease each of
cash and cash equivalents, and total stockholders equity
(deficit) by $ . If the
underwriters option to purchase additional shares was
exercised in full, pro forma as adjusted cash, cash equivalents,
common stock and additional paid-in capital, stockholders
equity (deficit), and shares issued and outstanding as of
May 31, 2011, would be $ ,
$ ,
$
and ,
respectively. |
The table above does not include:
|
|
|
|
|
7,127,246 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
options to purchase our common stock outstanding as of
May 31, 2011 at a weighted average exercise price of $1.63
per share;
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
600,000 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise
of warrants to purchase our common stock at a weighted average
exercise price of $10.00 per share that do not expire on the
completion of this offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,537 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
warrants to purchase our preferred stock outstanding as of
May 31, 2011 at a weighted average exercise price of $6.50
per share that do not expire on the completion of this offering;
these preferred stock warrants will automatically convert to
common stock warrants upon the completion of this offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
759,599 shares of common stock reserved as of May 31,
2011 for future issuance under our 2010 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan as more fully described in Compensation
Discussion and Analysis Executive
Compensation Equity Compensation
Plans; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
shares
of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2011
Equity Incentive Plan, which will become effective on the day
prior to the day upon which we become subject to the reporting
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act.
|
42
DILUTION
If you invest in our common stock in this offering, your
ownership interest will be immediately diluted to the extent of
the difference between the initial public offering price per
share of our common stock and the net tangible book value per
share of our common stock immediately after this offering. As of
May 31, 2011, our pro forma net tangible book value was
$ million, or
$ per share of our common
stock. Pro forma net tangible book value per share represents
the amount of our total tangible assets less our total
liabilities, divided by the total number of shares of our common
stock outstanding, after giving effect to (i) the automatic
conversion of all of our outstanding convertible preferred stock
into shares of common stock upon the completion of this
offering, (ii) the reclassification of preferred stock
warrant liabilities to stockholders (deficit) equity
immediately prior to the completion of this offering and
(iii) the issuance
of shares
of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this
offering upon the net exercise of Series F warrants and
Series G warrants, which would otherwise expire upon
completion of this offering, based upon an assumed initial
offering price of $ per share, the
midpoint of the range set forth on the cover of this prospectus.
After giving effect to the above referenced adjustment and the
sale by us
of shares
of our common stock in this offering at an assumed initial
public offering price of $ per
share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of
this prospectus, and after deducting estimated underwriting
discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses
payable by us, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value
as of May 31, 2011, would have been approximately
$ million, or
$ per share of our common stock.
This amount represents an immediate increase in our pro forma as
adjusted net tangible book value of
$ per share to our existing
stockholders and an immediate dilution of
$ per share to new investors
purchasing shares of our common stock in this offering at the
initial public offering price.
The following table illustrates this dilution on a per share
basis:
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed initial public offering price per share
|
|
$
|
|
|
Pro forma net tangible book value per share as of May 31,
2011, before giving effect to this offering
|
|
$
|
|
|
Increase in pro forma net tangible book value per share
attributable to new investors purchasing shares in this offering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share after
giving effect to this offering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilution per share to investors in this offering
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A $1.00 increase or decrease in the initial public offering
price of $ per share, the midpoint
of the price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus,
would increase or decrease our pro forma as adjusted net
tangible book value per share after this offering by
approximately $ and would increase
or decrease dilution per share to new investors by approximately
$ , assuming that the number of
shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover of this
prospectus, remains the same. In addition, to the extent any
outstanding options or warrants are exercised, new investors
will experience further dilution.
If the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional
shares in full, based upon an assumed initial public offering
price
of
per share, the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover of
this prospectus, the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book
value will increase to $ per
share, representing an immediate increase to existing
stockholders of $ per share and an
immediate dilution of $ per share
to new investors.
The following table summarizes, as of May 31, 2011, on a
pro forma as adjusted basis, the number of shares purchased or
to be purchased from us, the total consideration paid or to be
paid to us, and the average price per share paid or to be paid
to us by existing stockholders and new investors purchasing
shares of our common stock in this offering at an assumed
initial public offering
43
price of $ per share, before
deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and
estimated offering expenses payable by us. As the table below
shows, new investors purchasing shares of our common stock in
this offering will pay an average price per share substantially
higher than our existing stockholders paid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Share Purchased
|
|
|
Total Consideration
|
|
|
Price per
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Existing stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
|
New investors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A $1.00 increase or decrease or in the assumed initial public
offering price of $ per share, the
midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this
prospectus, would increase or decrease the total consideration
paid to us by new investors by
$ million and increase or
decrease or the percent of total consideration paid to us by new
investors by %, assuming that the
number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover of
this prospectus, remains the same.
The above discussion and tables are based on our common stock
outstanding as of May 31, 2011, after giving effect to
(i) the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of
our convertible preferred stock into an aggregate of
46,059,819 shares of common stock immediately prior to the
completion of this offering and (ii) the issuance
of shares
of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this
offering upon the net exercise of Series F and
Series G warrants, which would otherwise expire upon
completion of this offering, based upon an assumed initial
public offering price of $ per
share, the midpoint range set forth on the cover of this
prospectus.
This number excludes:
|
|
|
|
|
7,127,246 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
options to purchase our common stock outstanding as of
May 31, 2011 at a weighted average exercise price of $1.62
per share;
|
|
|
|
|
|
600,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
warrants to purchase our common stock outstanding as of
May 31, 2011 at a weighted average exercise price of $10.00
per share that do not expire on the completion of the initial
public offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,537 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
warrants to purchase our preferred stock outstanding as of
May 31, 2011 at a weighted average exercise price of $6.50
per share that do not expire on the completion of this offering;
these preferred stock warrants will automatically convert to
common stock warrants upon the completion of this offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
759,599 shares of common stock reserved as of May 31,
2011 for future issuance under our 2010 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan as more fully described in Compensation
Discussion and Analysis Executive
Compensation Equity Compensation
Plans; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
shares
of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2011
Equity Incentive Plan, which will become effective on the day
prior to the day upon which we become subject to the reporting
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act.
|
If all our outstanding stock options and warrants outstanding
had been exercised as of May 31, 2011, our pro forma net
tangible book value as of May 31, 2011, would have been
approximately $ million or
$ per share of our common stock,
and the pro forma net tangible book value after giving effect to
this offering would have been $
per share, representing dilution in our pro forma net tangible
book value per share to new investors of
$ .
44
SELECTED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
In 2009, we changed our fiscal year end from December 31 to
August 31. The change was effective for the eight-month
period ended August 31, 2009. The selected consolidated
statement of operations data for fiscal years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2008, the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 and the fiscal year ended August 31,
2010 and the selected consolidated balance sheet data at
December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009 and 2010 are
derived from our audited Consolidated Financial Statements,
appearing elsewhere in this prospectus. The consolidated
financial data for the nine-month periods ended May 31,
2010 and 2011 have been derived from our unaudited consolidated
financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The
unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared
on a basis consistent with our audited consolidated financial
statements and include, in the opinion of management, all
adjustments, consisting only of normal and recurring
adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of such
consolidated financial data. Results for interim periods are not
necessarily indicative of results for a full fiscal year. The
selected consolidated statement of operations data for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 and the selected
consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2006
have been derived from our audited consolidated financial
statements, which are not included in this prospectus.
Historical results are not necessarily indicative of results for
future periods.
You should read the following selected consolidated financial
data in conjunction with Managements Discussion
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
and our Consolidated Financial Statements appearing elsewhere in
this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands except share and per share data)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
|
$
|
288
|
|
|
$
|
236
|
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
26,643
|
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,880
|
|
|
|
2,328
|
|
|
|
6,326
|
|
|
|
4,095
|
|
|
|
4,799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
26,643
|
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,944
|
|
|
|
2,426
|
|
|
|
6,614
|
|
|
|
4,331
|
|
|
|
4,896
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,777
|
|
|
|
2,690
|
|
|
|
2,946
|
|
|
|
2,217
|
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
18,101
|
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
20,309
|
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
16,697
|
|
|
|
12,639
|
|
|
|
13,837
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
8,079
|
|
|
|
9,811
|
|
|
|
8,784
|
|
|
|
6,645
|
|
|
|
9,207
|
|
|
|
6,844
|
|
|
|
6,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
26,180
|
|
|
|
29,031
|
|
|
|
32,870
|
|
|
|
21,732
|
|
|
|
28,850
|
|
|
|
21,700
|
|
|
|
22,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
|
(21,851
|
)
|
|
|
(28,926
|
)
|
|
|
(19,306
|
)
|
|
|
(22,236
|
)
|
|
|
(17,369
|
)
|
|
|
(17,781
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(204
|
)
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(153
|
)
|
|
|
(91
|
)
|
|
|
(365
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
760
|
|
|
|
1,521
|
|
|
|
2,001
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(167
|
)
|
|
|
(1,450
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
1,053
|
|
|
|
(20,448
|
)
|
|
|
(26,925
|
)
|
|
|
(18,907
|
)
|
|
|
(22,518
|
)
|
|
|
(17,606
|
)
|
|
|
(19,590
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (expense)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) before cumulative effect of a change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
1,052
|
|
|
|
(20,445
|
)
|
|
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle(1)
|
|
|
649
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
1,701
|
|
|
|
(20,445
|
)
|
|
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) allocable to preferred stockholders
|
|
|
(1,701
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
$
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands except share and per share data)
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to common
stockholders(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(3.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.33
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.90
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.31
|
)
|
Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss per
share attributable to common stockholders(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted
|
|
|
5,112,258
|
|
|
|
5,323,259
|
|
|
|
5,473,090
|
|
|
|
5,621,671
|
|
|
|
5,791,443
|
|
|
|
5,775,322
|
|
|
|
5,917,179
|
|
Pro forma net loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted (unaudited)(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.46
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.38
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average outstanding common shares used in computing pro
forma net loss per share(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted (unaudited)(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,339,144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,976,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Effective January 1, 2006 the
Company changed the manner in which it accounted for certain
warrants that were contingently redeemable.
|
(2)
|
|
The basic and diluted loss per
share are computed by dividing the net loss attributable to
common stockholders by the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the period. For the periods where we
presented losses, all potentially dilutive common shares
comprising of stock options, warrants and convertible preferred
stock are anti-dilutive.
|
(3)
|
|
The unaudited pro forma basic and
diluted loss per common share have been computed as though the
conversion had occurred as of September 1, 2009 to give
effect to: (i) the automatic conversion of all outstanding
shares of our convertible preferred stock into an aggregate of
46,059,819 shares of common stock effective immediately
prior to the completion of this offering using the if-converted
method, and (ii) the issuance
of shares
of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this
offering upon the net exercise of the Series F and G
warrants, which would otherwise expire upon the completion of
this offering, based upon an assumed initial public offering
price of
$
per share, the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover of
this prospectus using the treasury stock method.
|
Our stock-based compensation expense is as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
177
|
|
|
|
389
|
|
|
|
467
|
|
|
|
345
|
|
|
|
409
|
|
|
|
314
|
|
|
|
1,223
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
154
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
705
|
|
|
|
737
|
|
|
|
891
|
|
|
|
627
|
|
|
|
566
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation expense
|
|
$
|
331
|
|
|
$
|
727
|
|
|
$
|
1,172
|
|
|
$
|
1,082
|
|
|
$
|
1,300
|
|
|
$
|
941
|
|
|
$
|
1,789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
As of August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
4,661
|
|
|
$
|
13,863
|
|
|
$
|
12,145
|
|
|
$
|
14,960
|
|
|
$
|
33,055
|
|
|
$
|
17,717
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
15,773
|
|
|
|
70,029
|
|
|
|
41,297
|
|
|
|
27,543
|
|
|
|
28,325
|
|
|
|
11,738
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
30,683
|
|
|
|
84,500
|
|
|
|
57,718
|
|
|
|
41,094
|
|
|
|
46,648
|
|
|
|
31,594
|
|
Common and preferred stock warrant liabilities
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
2,944
|
|
|
|
8,911
|
|
|
|
10,361
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
546
|
|
|
|
358
|
|
|
|
290
|
|
|
|
3,197
|
|
|
|
13,310
|
|
|
|
13,075
|
|
Convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
112,106
|
|
|
|
183,079
|
|
|
|
183,079
|
|
|
|
183,079
|
|
|
|
197,502
|
|
|
|
197,502
|
|
Total stockholders deficit
|
|
$
|
(87,181
|
)
|
|
$
|
(103,358
|
)
|
|
$
|
(128,905
|
)
|
|
$
|
(149,577
|
)
|
|
$
|
(170,829
|
)
|
|
$
|
(188,526
|
)
|
46
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion and analysis of our financial
condition and results of operations should be read together with
our consolidated financial statements and the other financial
information appearing elsewhere in this prospectus. This
discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve
risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ
materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking
statements as a result of various factors, including those
discussed below and those discussed in the section entitled
Risk Factors included elsewhere in this
prospectus.
Overview
We are an agricultural biotechnology company selling seeds to
produce renewable biomass feedstocks that can enable the
large-scale replacement of petroleum and other fossil fuels. We
use a combination of advanced plant breeding and biotechnology
to develop new crops, known as dedicated energy crops, that we
believe address the limitations of first-generation bioenergy
feedstocks, such as corn and sugarcane, increase biomass
productivity, reduce crop inputs and improve cultivation on
marginal land.
Our first large-scale commercial products are proprietary sweet
sorghum varieties that can be used as a drop-in
feedstock to extend the operating season of Brazilian
sugarcane-to-ethanol
mills, the operating days of which are currently limited due to
the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth
patterns. Our dedicated energy crops can also be used for the
production of second-generation biofuels and bio-based
chemicals, including cellulosic ethanol, butanol, jet fuel,
diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like molecules, from non-food
biomass. Finally, baseload utility-scale electric power can also
be generated from the biomass feedstocks grown from our seeds.
We operate in one segment, and accordingly, our results of
operations are presented on a consolidated basis. During 2009,
we changed our fiscal year-end to August 31 from December 31 to
better match the seasonality of the production and selling
cycles related to the seeds and traits business. Therefore our
results of operations for the period ended August 31, 2009
reflect an eight-month period and are not comparable to the
prior twelve-month period.
To date the majority of our revenue and expense has been
denominated in U.S. dollars and foreign currency
fluctuations have not had a significant impact on our historical
results of operations. As we pursue and enter markets outside
the United States, we expect our product sales will be made in
local currencies and accordingly, that foreign currency
fluctuations will have a greater impact on our operating results.
We generate our revenues from government grants, research and
development collaboration agreements and from product sales. We
began selling products in 2008 and, while our product sales have
been minimal to date, we expect product sales to eventually
become the primary source of our revenues. We expect product
revenues to include a combination of seed sales and technology
fees, similar to current business models used for food crops
incorporating biotech traits. As we continue to develop traits
for our products, we expect that a significant portion of our
product revenues will be generated from the sale of seeds that
include our traits. We believe our largest immediate market
opportunity is selling sweet sorghum into the Brazilian biofuel
market. Our longer term strategies involve capitalizing on the
development of the emerging cellulosic biofuel and biopower
markets in the United States and Europe.
The sale of seeds is dependent upon planting and growing
seasons, which vary from year to year, and are expected to
result in both highly seasonal patterns and substantial
fluctuations in our quarterly sales and profitability. Our
product sales for the year ended August 31, 2010 and the
nine months ended May 31, 2011 were minimal and,
accordingly, we have not yet experienced the full nature or
extent to which our business may be seasonal. We expect that the
sale of our seeds in Brazil will typically be higher in our
first and fourth fiscal quarters, due to the timing of the
planting
47
decisions made by our customers. As we increase our sales in our
current markets, and as we expand into new markets in different
geographies, it is possible we may experience different
seasonality patterns in our business. Weather conditions and
natural disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail,
floods, tornadoes, freezing conditions, drought or fire, also
affect decisions by our customers about the types and amounts of
seeds to plant and the timing of harvesting and planting such
seeds. Disruptions that cause delays by our customers in
harvesting or planting can result in the movement of orders to a
future quarter, which would negatively affect any given quarter
and cause fluctuations in our operating results.
We have formed collaborations with major participants in the
bioenergy value chain to evaluate yields and other performance
or conversion characteristics of our products and the logistics
related to the use of our products. Our collaborators include
ethanol mills, utilities, independent power producers,
cellulosic biofuel companies, growers, grower cooperatives,
equipment manufacturers, enzyme or fermentation technology
companies and other support technology providers.
In row crops, like corn, cotton and soybean, we have
out-licensed a portion of our traits and gene technology and we
continue to pursue opportunities to out-license these
technologies in other crops. We have chosen to be a technology
provider or trait provider in these markets and our
collaborators and customers in this area consist primarily of
multi-national seed companies.
We will market our seeds and traits directly to ethanol mills,
utilities, independent power producers, cellulosic biofuel
companies, individual growers and grower cooperatives and to
date we have sold our seeds mainly to customers who are testing
them in various technologies and environments. We also work with
technology providers and other market participants such as
equipment manufacturers and enzyme or fermentation technology
companies, to encourage the use of our proprietary products. We
market our products to biorefineries and biopower facilities,
regardless of conversion technology, end-molecule or end-use. In
Brazil, where we have completed commercial-scale trials with
leading ethanol mills, we are marketing our sweet sorghum hybrid
seeds for the
2011-2012
growing season. In the United States and Europe, we have
launched the first energy crops seed brand, Blade Energy Crops,
under which we market proprietary switchgrass varieties and high
biomass sorghum hybrids to the emerging biomass market.
We have invested significantly in research, development and
technology and applied our proprietary technology platforms to
energy crops. To develop high performing seeds and traits, we
have integrated a suite of advanced research and development
methods, which include conventional breeding, marker-assisted
breeding, genomics and biotechnology, along with large,
proprietary collections of germplasm (the collections of genetic
resources covering the diversity of a crop, the attributes of
which are inherited from generation to generation). We have
utilized our existing germplasm assets along with our research
and development methods to create improved seeds and traits. As
a result, we believe that we have one of the leading pipelines
of proprietary crop traits, based on the number and nature of
our traits as well as the two-species approach we employ to
validate and successfully select gene-trait combinations. Our
research and development investments have been significant,
amounting to $19.2 million, $20.3 million,
$12.4 million and $16.7 million in the years ended
December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008, the eight
months ended August 31, 2009 and the year ended
August 31, 2010, respectively, and $12.6 million and
$13.8 million for the nine months ended May 31, 2010
and 2011, respectively.
The remainder of our operating expenses are related to selling,
general and administrative expenses incurred to establish and
build our market presence and business infrastructure as well as
seed production costs. For the periods prior to the commencement
of sales of our seeds, we expensed our seed production costs as
research and development. We began selling seeds in the
48
United States in 2008, and since then, seed production costs
have been computed on a
first-in,
first-out basis and valued at the lower of cost or market and
are included as cost of product sales. Due to the early stage of
commercialization of our seed products and lack of pricing data,
a full valuation reserve has been recorded against our inventory
value. Our sales and marketing expenses have not been
significant to date but we expect such expenses to increase as
we pursue, enter and expand our market opportunities.
Historically, we have funded our operations from the proceeds
from equity sales, debt financing, payments from collaborators
and government grants. We have experienced significant losses as
we invested heavily in research and development, and those costs
have exceeded revenues earned through collaboration agreements
and government grants and were incurred prior to generating
significant revenues through product sales. As of May 31,
2011, we had an accumulated deficit of $195.9 million. We
incurred net losses of $20.5 million, $26.8 million,
$18.7 million and $22.6 million in the years ended
December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008, the eight
months ended August 31, 2009 and the year ended
August 31, 2010, respectively, and $17.6 million and
$19.6 million for the nine months ended May 31, 2010
and 2011, respectively. We expect to incur additional losses
related to the continued development and expansion of our
business including research and development, seed production and
operations, and sales and marketing. There is no assurance that
profitable operations will be achieved, or if achieved, can be
sustained on a continued basis.
Key Components of
Our Results of Operations
Revenues
To date, our revenues have related to our product sales,
collaborative research and government grants.
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales. Product sales are primarily
composed of sales of seeds. Going forward, we may include trait
fees in our seed prices. We began selling products in 2008 and
our product sales have been minimal to date.
|
|
|
|
Collaborative Research. Collaborative research
revenues generally consist of payments for research and
development activities for specific projects. These arrangements
may include a combination of non-refundable technology license
fees, research and development fees,
and/or fees
for the achievement of contractually defined milestone events
and royalties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Grants. Government grant revenues
consist of payments from government entities. The terms of these
grants generally provide us with reimbursement for research and
development services and certain types of capital expenditures
over a contractually defined period.
|
Cost of Product
Sales
Cost of product sales consists principally of the cost of labor,
raw materials and third-party services related to growing,
harvesting, packaging and shipping our seeds. These costs are
comprised of the direct costs of our seed production employees,
as well as the temporary seasonal labor costs during planting
and harvesting times. Third-party services include contract
labor, grower payments, and other professional services related
to the cost of product sales. Cost of product sales also
consists of input costs such as chemicals and seed production
costs. Costs associated with collaboration, research and
government grants are not included in cost of product sales but
instead are included as research and development expenses.
Although historically not significant, future royalty expenses
associated with collaboration and license agreements with third
parties will be included in cost of product sales. The amount of
royalties we owe under these agreements is a function of our
sales and the applicable royalty rates depend on a number of
factors, including the portion of our third-party
collaborators intellectual property that is present in our
products. We believe that as we develop our agronomic production
operations, we will be able to achieve lower cost of product
sales. To date, we have relied principally on third parties for
the production of our sweet sorghum seed for use in Brazil. We
believe that as we
49
increase seed production volumes, we will be able to achieve
better economies of scale from these third parties. In addition,
we intend to produce more of our own seeds in Brazil, which will
allow us to further decrease our costs. For our switchgrass and
high biomass sorghum products, we are currently producing seeds
at our own facility in Texas and believe that we will be able to
decrease our costs over time by taking advantage of greater
economies of scale.
Research and
Development
Research and development expenses principally consist of
personnel costs related to our research and development staff in
support of exploratory research, breeding, agronomy and
technology development and protection. Research and development
expenses also include costs incurred for laboratory supplies,
reimbursable costs associated with government grants and our
collaborative agreements, third-party contract payments,
consultants and facility and related overhead costs. We expect
to increase our investments in research and development by
hiring additional research and development staff. As such, we
expect that our research and development expenses will increase
in absolute dollars. As a percentage of revenue, we expect our
research and development expenses to increase in the near-term
and eventually stabilize. Also included in research and
development expenses are expenses in connection with warrants
granted to The Texas A&M University System and The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. The warrants vest based on the
achievement of certain research and commercialization milestones
or the passage of time. The warrants are accounted for at fair
value at each quarter end until the vesting targets are met
using the Black Scholes option pricing model. Once our common
stock is publicly traded, the volatility of our stock price
could cause an increase in the warrant fair value and resulting
expense charges to research and development.
We do not track our research and development expenditures by
project. Our ongoing research and development activities are
dedicated to expanding our integrated platforms which consist of
a combination of genetic assets, specifically germplasm and
traits, and competencies in genomics and biotechnology. Our
research and development expenses consist principally of
personnel costs and at April 30, 2011, we had
58 full-time employees primarily engaged in our research
and development activities. Our employees work time is
spread across multiple research and development methods
continuously focused on our technology platforms and to a much
lesser extent areas for which we have received government grant
awards and collaboration funding. We do not intend to provide
forward-looking estimates of costs and time relating to our
research and development activities due to the many
uncertainties associated with genomics, conventional and
marker-assisted breeding, agronomy and other genomics-based
technologies. As we obtain data from our efforts, we may elect
to reprioritize, delay or discontinue activities in order to
focus our resources on more promising research and development
methods. As a result of the nature of our activities and these
uncertainties, we are unable to determine with any significant
degree of certainty the duration and completion costs of our
research and development activities. Additionally, when, and to
what extent, we will generate future cash flows from products
resulting from our research and development activities is
dependent on market opportunities, the most immediate of which
is the Brazilian biofuel market.
Selling, General
and Administrative
Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily
of personnel costs related to our executive, sales, legal,
finance, and human resources staff and professional fees
including legal and accounting. Selling costs relate to business
development and our sales and marketing programs to build brand
awareness. We improve our brand awareness through programs
including publication of crop management guides, speaking roles
at industry events, trade show displays and local-level grower
meetings. Costs related to these activities, including travel,
are included in selling expenses. While we expect our selling
expenses to increase in the near term, we believe that our focus
on a relatively small number of customers, particularly in
Brazil, where we plan to primarily market our
50
products to mill operators, should allow us to operate with
relatively modest overall selling expenses. We expect selling,
general and administrative expenses to increase in absolute
dollars in order to drive product sales and as we commence
operations as a public company. Such increases may include
increased insurance premiums, investor relations expenses, legal
and accounting fees associated with the expansion of our
business and corporate governance, financial reporting expenses,
and expenses related to Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory
compliance obligations. We expect to hire additional personnel,
particularly in the area of general and administrative
activities to support the growth of our business. As a
percentage of revenue, we expect our selling, general and
administrative expenses to increase in the near-term but to
eventually decline.
Interest
Expense
We recognize interest expense on notes payable and other debt
obligations. We expect interest expense to fluctuate in the
future with changes in our debt obligations.
Interest
Income
Interest income consists primarily of interest earned on
investments and cash balances. Our interest income will vary
each reporting period depending on our average investment and
cash balances during the period and market interest rates. We
expect interest income to fluctuate in the future with changes
in average investment and cash balances and market interest
rates.
Other Income
(Expense)
Other income (expense) consists primarily of the change in the
fair value of our convertible preferred warrants and certain of
our common stock warrants. Our preferred stock warrants and
certain of our common stock warrants that expire upon the
consummation of this offering are classified as liabilities. Our
preferred stock warrants convert to equity classified common
stock warrants upon the consummation of this offering. We expect
the impact to our results of operations from our preferred stock
and certain of our common stock warrant liabilities to be
eliminated from other income (expense) following our initial
public offering.
Provision for
Income Tax Benefits
Since our inception, we have been subject to income taxes
principally in the United States, and Brazil where we recently
established a legal presence. We anticipate that as we expand
our operations outside the United States, we will become subject
to taxation based on the foreign statutory rates and our
effective tax rate could fluctuate accordingly.
Income taxes are computed using the asset and liability method,
under which deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined
based on the difference between the financial statement and tax
bases of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in
effect for the year in which the differences are expected to
affect taxable income. Valuation allowances are established when
necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected
to be realized.
As of August 31, 2010 and May 31, 2011, based on the
available information, it is more likely than not that our
deferred tax assets will not be realized, and accordingly we
have taken a full valuation allowance against all of our United
States deferred tax assets. As of August 31, 2010, we had
approximately $154.2 million of federal and
$133.4 million of state operating loss carry-forwards
available to offset future taxable income, which expire in
varying amounts beginning in 2018 for federal and 2016 for state
purposes if unused. Federal and state laws impose substantial
restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss and tax
credit carry-forwards in the event of an ownership
change, as defined in Section 382 of the U.S.
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Internal
Revenue Code. We have not completed a 382 analysis to determine
if a change in ownership has occurred. Until an analysis is
completed, there can be no assurance that the existing net
operating loss carryforwards or credits are not subject to
significant limitation.
51
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and
results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial
statements, which have been prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted 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, liabilities, revenues, expenses and
related disclosures. We base our estimates and assumptions on
historical experience and on various other factors that we
believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. We evaluate
our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. The results
of our analysis form the basis for making assumptions about the
carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily
apparent from other sources. Our actual results may differ from
these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
We believe the following critical accounting policies involve
significant areas of managements judgments and estimates
in the preparation of our financial statements.
Revenue
Recognition
Revenues are recognized when the following criteria are met:
(1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists;
(2) transfer of product or technology has been completed or
services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or
determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured.
To date, our primary source of revenues is derived from research
collaborations and government grants. As our business continues
to grow, we expect product sales will be our primary source of
revenue.
Product
Sales
Product sales are derived from sales of seeds and trait fees.
Going forward, we may include trait fees in our seed prices.
Product sales are recognized, net of discounts and allowances,
once passage of title and risk of loss have occurred and
contractually specified acceptance criteria have been met,
provided all other revenue recognition criteria have also been
met.
Collaborative
Research and Government Grants
From time to time, we have entered into research and development
collaboration agreements with third parties including a large
agriculture supplier, consumer goods conglomerate and several
biofuel producers. In addition, we have received grants from
government agencies such as the Department of Energy and the
United States Department of Agriculture. The research and
development collaboration agreements typically provide us with
multiple revenue streams, which may include upfront,
non-refundable fees for licensing certain of our technologies,
fees for research and development activities, and contingent
milestone payments upon achievement of contractual criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Technology License Fees. For collaboration
agreements in which we have continuing involvement, license fees
are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the
arrangement. Licensing fees are non-refundable and not subject
to future performance.
|
|
|
|
Government Grants. We receive payments from
government entities in the form of government grants. Government
grants generally provide us with cost reimbursement for certain
types of expenditures in return for research and development
activities over a contractually defined period, as well as an
allocated portion of our overhead expenses. Revenues from
government grants are recognized in the period during which the
related costs are incurred, provided that substantially all
conditions under which the government grants were provided have
been met and we only have perfunctory obligations outstanding.
|
|
|
|
Research and Development Fees. Generally, fees
for research and development activities are recognized as the
services are performed over the performance period, as specified
in the respective agreements. Certain of our collaboration
agreements require us to deliver research data by specific dates
and that the collective program plan will result in reaching
specific crop
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
characteristics by certain dates. For such arrangements, we
recognize revenues based on the approximate percentage of
completion of services under the agreement, but the revenue
recognized cannot exceed the payments that have accrued to us to
date under the agreement. The research and development period is
estimated at the inception of each agreement and is periodically
evaluated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Milestone Payments. Fees that are contingent
upon achievement of substantive performance milestones at
inception of the agreement are recognized based on the
achievement of the milestone, as defined in the respective
agreements.
|
We recognize deferred revenue to the extent that cash received
under the collaboration agreement is in excess of the revenues
recognized related to the agreement since the work under the
agreement has not yet been performed at the time of cash receipt.
In April 2002, we entered into a multi-year discovery and
development collaboration with Monsanto Company, focused on
applying genomics technologies to identify genes that provide
improvements in corn, soybean and certain row crops. Pursuant to
this agreement, Monsanto licensed rights to a portion of our
trait discovery pipeline in certain other row crops in exchange
for license payments over several years. Monsanto also funded a
research program with us. Substantially all of our revenues
through December 31, 2007 were earned through this
agreement. The research and collaboration portion of the
agreement expired in April 2007. However, the license portion of
the agreement entitles us to royalties for any products that
Monsanto commercializes using our technology licensed under the
agreement. In 2010, we and Monsanto agreed to amend the
agreement. The amendment included an additional license fee
pertaining to an expansion of the license grant. In connection
with the collaboration agreement, Monsanto also purchased
3,333,333 shares of our Series E Preferred Stock.
In December 2007, we and a major consumer products company
entered into a development and license agreement. The agreement
provided that we would receive $7.5 million in payments
from this company over a five-year period provided milestones
were met. In addition, the agreement provided that we would be
entitled to receive a royalty based on the gross sales of crop
varieties created under the agreement. We recognized revenue of
zero, $1.0 million, $1.2 million and $1.9 million
under this agreement in the years ended December 31, 2007
and December 31, 2008, the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 and the year ended August 31, 2010,
respectively. Revenue recognized under this agreement for the
nine months ended May 31, 2010 and 2011, was
$1.4 million and $1.3 million, respectively.
We earn research funding revenues from several agreements with
the Department of Energy, or the DOE, the USDA, and several
leading biofuel producers whereby we perform research activities
and receive revenues that partially reimburse our expenses
incurred. Under such grants and agreements, we retain a
proprietary interest in the products and technology we develop.
These expense reimbursements primarily consist of direct expense
sharing arrangements. We recorded revenue related to these
grants of approximately $0.8 million, $2.0 million,
$0.9 million and $2.8 million in the years ended
December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008, the eight
months ended August 31, 2009 and the year ended
August 31, 2010, respectively, and $2.2 million and
$2.3 million for the nine months ended May 31, 2010
and 2011, respectively. The cumulative remaining amount to be
claimed through September 2012 for all grants outstanding as of
May 31, 2011 is approximately $5.0 million.
On December 16, 2008, we and a major agro-chemical company
entered into a software license and collaboration agreement
pursuant to which we provide software, software development and
customer support for certain research application-based
software. The agreement was structured into three phases and
under the agreement, we are entitled to receive
$1.5 million in payments over an approximate 4.5 year
period. The software delivered is comprised of multiple
elements, which include software, installation, training,
customization of software, and software support. Software
support is considered post-contract customer support, or PCS. We
recognize revenues equal to the amount of
53
expense recognized as services are rendered until the date that
the PCS is the only undelivered element. Beginning on such date,
the unrecognized revenue under the agreement will be recognized
over the remaining PCS period. We recognized revenue and an
equal amount of expenses totaling zero, $0.2 million and
$0.3 million under this agreement in the year ended
December 31, 2008, the eight months ended August 31,
2009 and the year ended August 31, 2010, respectively.
Revenue and related costs recognized for the nine months ended
May 31, 2010 and 2011, were $0.2 million and
$0.2 million, respectively.
For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010, Campbell Soup
Company, USAID and ARPA-E represented 28.5%, 13.5% and 12.7% of
our revenues, respectively. For the nine months ended
May 31, 2011, Campbell Soup Company, Amyris
Biotechnologies, Inc., USAID and ARPA-E represented 25.9%,
18.2%, 16.4% and 19.9% of our revenues, respectively.
Stock-based
Compensation
We account for stock-based awards granted to employees and
directors by recording compensation expense based on the
awards grant date estimated fair values. Stock options or
warrants granted to our non-employees are re-measured as they
vest. The fair value and the resulting change in value, if any,
is recognized in our consolidated statements of operations
during the period the related services are rendered. We expect
that our expense related to stock-based compensation will
increase over time.
We estimate the fair value of our stock-based awards as of the
date of grant using Black-Scholes option-pricing model.
Determining the fair value of stock-based awards under this
model requires judgment, including estimating the value per
share of our common stock adjusted for our status as a private
company, estimated volatility, expected term of the awards,
estimated dividend yield and the risk-free interest rate. The
assumptions used in calculating the fair value of stock-based
awards represent our best estimates, based on managements
judgment and subjective future expectations. These estimates
involve inherent uncertainties. If any of the assumptions used
in the model change significantly, stock-based compensation
recorded for future awards may differ materially from that
recorded for awards granted previously.
The determination of the estimated value per share of our common
stock is discussed below. We use the historical volatility of a
group of comparative companies as an estimate for our estimated
volatility. For purposes of determining the expected term of the
awards in the absence of sufficient historical data relating to
stock-option exercises for our company, we apply a simplified
approach in which the expected term of an award is presumed to
be the mid-point between the vesting date and the expiration
date of the award. We base the risk-free rate used in the model
on the United States Treasury zero coupon issues with remaining
terms similar to the expected term of the stock options. Our
estimated dividend yield is zero, as we have not and do not
currently intend to declare dividends in the foreseeable future.
Once we have determined the estimated fair value of our employee
stock-based awards, we recognize the portion of that value that
corresponds to the portion of the award that is ultimately
expected to vest, taking estimated forfeitures into account.
This amount is recognized as an expense over the vesting period
of the award using the straight-line method. We estimate
forfeitures based upon our historical experience and, at each
period, review the estimated forfeiture rate and make changes as
factors affecting the forfeiture rate calculations and
assumptions change.
54
Information related to our stock-based compensation activity,
including weighted average grant date fair values and associated
Black-Scholes option-pricing model assumptions related to
employee stock options, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended,
|
|
Year Ended,
|
|
Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Stock options granted (in thousands)
|
|
|
1,471
|
|
|
|
996
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
972
|
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
876
|
|
Weighted average exercise price
|
|
|
$2.19
|
|
|
|
$2.25
|
|
|
|
$2.25
|
|
|
|
$2.25
|
|
|
|
$2.25
|
|
|
|
$2.43
|
|
Weighted average grant date fair value per share of stock
options granted
|
|
|
$1.32
|
|
|
|
$1.59
|
|
|
|
$1.57
|
|
|
|
$1.51
|
|
|
|
$1.40
|
|
|
|
$1.61
|
|
Weighted average Black-Scholes model assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average grant date fair value of common stock
|
|
|
$2.11
|
|
|
|
$2.17
|
|
|
|
$2.16
|
|
|
|
$2.32
|
|
|
|
$2.17
|
|
|
|
$2.49
|
|
Estimated volatility
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
70
|
%
|
|
|
70
|
%
|
|
|
78
|
%
|
Estimated dividend yield
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Expected term (years)
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
Risk-free rates
|
|
|
3.41%-5.15
|
%
|
|
|
1.92%-3.41
|
%
|
|
|
2.10%-3.18
|
%
|
|
|
2.29%-2.69
|
%
|
|
|
2.56%-2.69
|
%
|
|
|
1.48%-2.44
|
%
|
In 2006, we granted a warrant to purchase 400,000 shares of
our common stock at an exercise price of $10 per share to The
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. The warrant vests in four
equal installments on each of May 2009, May 2011, May 2013 and
May 2015 and will remain exercisable for a period of two years
from the respective vesting date. These warrants are accounted
for at fair value and re-measured until vested. The fair value,
including the resulting change in value as a result of
re-measurement is recognized as research and development expense.
In 2007, we granted a warrant to purchase 200,000 shares of
our common stock at an exercise price of $10 per share to The
Texas A&M University System. The warrant vests in various
installments based on achievement of certain research and
commercialization milestones and expires in August 2017. These
warrants are accounted for at fair value and remeasured until
the vesting targets are met. The fair value, including the
resulting change in value as a result of re-measurement is
recognized as research and development expense. No warrants had
vested under this arrangement as of May 31, 2011.
Our stock-based compensation expense, including employee awards
and non-employee stock options and equity classified warrants,
is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
389
|
|
|
|
467
|
|
|
|
345
|
|
|
|
409
|
|
|
|
314
|
|
|
|
1,223
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
705
|
|
|
|
737
|
|
|
|
891
|
|
|
|
627
|
|
|
|
566
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation expense
|
|
$
|
727
|
|
|
$
|
1,172
|
|
|
$
|
1,082
|
|
|
$
|
1,300
|
|
|
$
|
941
|
|
|
$
|
1,789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant
Factors, Assumptions and Methodologies Used in Determining Fair
Value of Common Stock
We estimated the fair value of our common stock utilizing
methodologies, approaches and assumptions consistent with the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid,
55
Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities
Issued as Compensation, or the AICPA Practice Aid.
Given the absence of public market for our common stock, the
fair values of our common stock underlying stock option grants
were estimated by our board of directors, which intended all
stock options granted to be exercisable at a price per share not
less than the per share fair market value of our common stock
underlying those options on the date of grant. To assist our
board of directors in this determination and in order to set the
exercise price of each stock option grant, our management
informed them of the most recent available valuation analysis
prior to the dates of grant.
In these valuations, we first estimated enterprise value and
then allocated this value to the underlying classes of equity.
In estimating the enterprise value, we used a combination of an
income approach, which incorporated a discounted cash flow
valuation, and a market approach. To allocate the enterprise
value to the underlying classes of equity for all valuations
through February 28, 2011, we used the option-pricing
method as an initial public offering was not anticipated in the
near term. The allocation was performed because the convertible
preferred stockholders are entitled to certain preferences over
common stockholders, including noncumulative dividends and
liquidation preferences, which resulted in more of the
enterprise value being allocated to the convertible preferred
stockholders than common stockholders. The allocation model also
considered time until liquidity event, risk-free rate, expected
volatility and adjustment for the lack of marketability of our
common stock.
In April 2011, our board of directors approved plans to move
forward with an initial public offering of our common stock.
Accordingly, beginning with the May 31, 2011 common stock
valuation, we have used a probability-weighted expected return
method to allocate our enterprise value to the underlying
classes of equity. This probability-weighted expected return
method included the following steps:
|
|
|
|
|
We estimated the timing and likelihood of an IPO liquidity event
and continuing as a private company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the IPO scenario, we estimated our common stock value based
in part on information provided by our underwriters as to their
view of the possible estimated initial public offering price
range for a potential near term IPO offering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the continuing as a private company scenario, we determined
our enterprise value using a combination of an income approach
and a market approach. We determined the appropriate allocation
of value to the common stockholders based on the rights and
preferences of each class and series of our stock at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We then multiplied the value of our common stock under each
scenario by an estimated relative probability of each scenario
occurring determined by our management and board of directors;
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
We then calculated the probability-weighted value per share of
our common stock.
|
In order to determine the fair value of our common stock, we
then applied a discount for lack of marketability of our common
stock to the value derived from the probability-weighted
expected return method.
The most recent valuations were performed as of
December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009, August 31,
2010, February 28, 2011 and May 31, 2011. The
valuations as of August 31, 2010, February 28, 2011
and May 31, 2011 were performed with the assistance of a
third-party valuation firm. Prior to each grant date, the board
of directors considered the most recent valuation along with
other relevant objective and subjective factors it deemed
important in each valuation, exercising significant judgment and
reflecting the board of directors best estimates at the
time. These factors included:
|
|
|
|
|
the nature and history of our business;
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
our operating and financial performance;
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions and the specific outlook for our
industry;
|
|
|
|
the lack of liquidity for our common stock;
|
|
|
|
the market price of companies engaged in the same or similar
businesses with equity securities that are publicly traded;
|
|
|
|
the differences between the terms of our preferred and common
stock related to liquidation preferences, conversion rights,
dividend rights, voting rights and other features; and
|
|
|
|
the likelihood of achieving different liquidity events or
remaining a private company.
|
We believe that we have used reasonable methodologies,
approaches and assumptions in determining the fair value of our
common stock. If we had made different assumptions and
estimates, the amount of our recognized and to be recognized
stock-based compensation expense could have been materially
different.
The table below sets forth information regarding stock options
for grants between January 1, 2009 and July 20, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Fair Value of
|
|
Value
|
Grants by month
|
|
Shares
|
|
Price
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
per Share
|
|
March 2009
|
|
|
82,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
$
|
2.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2009
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
$
|
2.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 2009
|
|
|
234,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
$
|
2.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2009
|
|
|
17,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
$
|
2.24
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2010
|
|
|
721,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
$
|
2.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
October 2010
|
|
|
41,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
$
|
2.46
|
|
|
$
|
0.21
|
|
December 2010
|
|
|
554,500
|
|
|
$
|
2.44
|
|
|
$
|
2.48
|
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
January 2011
|
|
|
280,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.44
|
|
|
$
|
2.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.06
|
|
June 2011
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
$
|
5.59
|
|
|
$
|
5.72
|
|
|
$
|
0.13
|
|
July 2011
|
|
|
259,599
|
|
|
$
|
5.72
|
|
|
$
|
5.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table below sets forth the estimated fair value of our
common stock at each valuation date since December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Fair Value of
|
Date
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
2.17
|
|
August 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
2.16
|
|
August 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
2.44
|
|
February 28, 2011
|
|
$
|
2.52
|
|
May 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
5.72
|
|
Valuation as of
December 31, 2008
We estimated the fair market value of $2.17 per share of our
common stock as of December 31, 2008 using an
option-pricing method. We first estimated our enterprise value
of $210 million and then allocated this value to the
underlying classes of equity using the option-pricing method as
outlined in the AICPA Practice Aid. In estimating the enterprise
value, we used a combination of an income approach which
incorporated a discounted cash flow valuation, and a market
approach. To allocate the enterprise value to the underlying
classes of equity, we used the option-pricing method. Within the
allocation model, we estimated a time until liquidity event of
3 years, a risk-free rate of 1.34%, a volatility input of
85% and a 25% adjustment for the lack of marketability of our
common stock.
57
Valuation as of
August 31, 2009
We estimated the fair market value of $2.16 per share of our
common stock as of August 31, 2009 using an option-pricing
method. We first estimated our enterprise value of
$209 million and then allocated this value to the
underlying classes of equity. In estimating the enterprise
value, we used a combination of an income approach, which
incorporated a discounted cash flow valuation and a market
approach. To allocate the enterprise value to the underlying
classes of equity, we used the option-pricing method. Within the
allocation model, we estimated a time until liquidity event of
3 years, a risk-free rate of 1.49% a volatility input of
85% and a 25% adjustment for the lack of marketability of our
common stock.
Valuation as of
August 31, 2010
We obtained the assistance of a third-party valuation firm in
estimating the fair market value of our common stock as of
August 31, 2010 using an option-pricing method. We first
estimated our enterprise value of $264 million and then
used the option-pricing method to allocate the estimated
enterprise value between common and preferred stockholders. In
estimating the enterprise value, we used a combination of an
income approach, which incorporated a discounted cash flow
valuation and a market approach. Within the allocation model, we
used a volatility input of 70% based on the historically
observed volatilities of selected public guideline companies and
estimated a time until liquidity event of 3 years. Applying
an appropriate risk free interest rate of 0.72% and a 25%
adjustment for the lack of marketability of our common stock, we
estimated a fair market value at August 31, 2010 of $2.44
per share of our common stock.
Valuation as of
February 28, 2011
We obtained the assistance of a third-party valuation firm in
estimating the fair market value of $2.52 per share of our
common stock as of February 28, 2011 using an
option-pricing method. We first estimated our enterprise value
of $270 million and then allocated this value between
common and preferred stockholders using the option-pricing
method. In estimating the enterprise value, we used a
combination of an income approach, which incorporated a
discounted cash flow valuation and a market approach. Within the
allocation model, we estimated a time until liquidity event of
2.5 years, a risk-free rate of 0.94% a volatility input of
70% based on the historically observed volatilities of selected
public guideline companies, and a 25% adjustment for the lack of
marketability of our common stock.
As of February 28, 2011, we were considering a variety of
financing alternatives, including financing from existing
investors, debt financing and an initial public offering. As of
February 28, 2011, an initial public offering was not
anticipated in the near term. In April 2011, our board of
directors approved plans to move forward with an initial public
offering of our common stock. This determination was based in
part on macroeconomic events and the anticipated success of our
Brazilian seed trials scheduled for May 2011. We view the
successful completion of our seed trials in Brazil as a
significant value driving event and as such, we reasonably
expect our enterprise value and common stock value to increase
from the most recent valuation as of February 28, 2011.
Valuation as of
May 31, 2011
In April 2011, our board of directors approved plans to move
forward with an initial public offering of our common stock.
This determination was based in part on macroeconomic events and
the anticipated success of our Brazilian seed trials. Our
Brazilian sweet sorghum trials consist of planting sweet sorghum
seeds in November and December and, after waiting for 90 to 120
days until the crop matures, harvesting the crop, transporting
it to the mill, crushing the biomass and fermenting the
resulting juice into ethanol, with the remaining bagasse being
burned for production of electricity. By April 2011 we had
reasonable evidence to conclude that the crop would mature into
healthy biomass. The only steps remaining at that point involved
industrial processing. We had previously achieved
58
positive fermentation results with sweet sorghum at a
laboratory scale. Consequently, we had reason to assume that the
seed trials would be successful. We also needed to obtain
necessary governmental variety registrations before we could
deliver our sweet sorghum seeds that we are marketing to
potential customers in Brazil for planting in the 2011-2012
growing season, which we had not received as of May 31,
2011. We have since received such necessary governmental variety
registrations. Because our sweet sorghum seeds do not contain
biotech traits, they are not subject to a lengthy regulatory
process that can take up to three years. Accordingly, for
purposes of the May 31, 2011 common stock valuation, we
have used a probability-weighted expected return method to
allocate our enterprise value to the underlying classes of
equity. This probability-weighted expected return method
considered a 70% probability of an IPO scenario and a 30%
probability of continuing as a private company scenario. For the
IPO scenario, we estimated our common stock value based in part
on initial price indications provided by the investment banking
firms we were considering as underwriters of a potential initial
public offering as to their view of an estimated price range for
a near term initial public offering. This initial price
indication was received prior to engaging the underwriters for
this offering. For the private company scenario, we first
estimated our enterprise equity value to be $446 million
and then allocated this value to the underlying classes of
equity. In estimating the enterprise value, we used a
combination of an income approach, which incorporated a
discounted cash flow valuation, and a market approach. We then
applied a 20% discount for lack of marketability to the value
derived from the probability-weighted expected return method to
arrive at an estimated fair market value of $5.72 per share of
our common stock as of May 31, 2011. The increase in our
enterprise equity value from $270 million as of
February 28, 2011 to $446 million as of May 31,
2011 was primarily driven by increased long-term revenue and
cash flow projections as compared to our prior forecasts. The
higher projections were primarily driven by increasing our
long-term growth plan following a more favorable macroeconomic
environment for biofuels and anticipated higher demand for
alternatives to petroleum-based products due to higher oil
prices, as evidenced by a favorable IPO market for renewable
fuel offerings. Additionally, we recently concluded our first
commercial-scale trials of sweet sorghum in Brazil near the end
of May and had received results indicating that the trials were
successful. We view the successful completion of our seed trials
in Brazil in May 2011 as a significant driver of near term
value. In addition, the filing of our registration statement
with the SEC on May 23, 2011 increased the likelihood of a
near term liquidity event, resulting in an increase in our
common stock value due to a lower lack of marketability discount
as compared to the February 28, 2011 valuation.
Option Grants in
June and July 2011
On June 23, 2011, our board of directors approved the grant
of 500,000 stock options at an exercise price of $5.59 per
share. On July 20, 2011, our board of directors approved
the grant of 259,599 stock options at an exercise price of $5.72
per share. In order to estimate the fair value of our common
stock for the purposes of establishing the exercise price, our
board of directors considered an initial draft of the
May 31, 2011 third-party valuation report that indicated an
estimated fair value of our common stock of $5.59 as of
May 31, 2011. Subsequent to the grant date, the
May 31, 2011 third-party valuation report was finalized,
resulting in an estimated fair value of our common stock of
$5.72 as of May 31, 2011. As a result, for the financial
reporting purpose of determining the estimated fair value of the
options granted, we will use this $5.72 estimated fair value of
our common stock as an input to the Black-Scholes option-pricing
model.
Fair Value of
Warrants
Liability
Classified Warrants to Purchase Common Stock
We issued warrants to purchase our common stock in connection
with the issuances of our Series F and Series G
preferred stock. We have accounted for these warrants as
liabilities as the warrants are not considered indexed to our
common stock. We estimate the fair value of our liability
classified warrants to purchase common stock using an
option-pricing model, which incorporates
59
several estimates and assumptions that are subject to
significant management judgment. Changes in fair value at each
period-end are recorded in other income (expense) in our
consolidated statement of operations until the earlier of the
exercise or expiration of the warrants, or the completion of
this offering.
Upon the completion of this offering, these warrants to purchase
common stock will either expire or be exercised for shares of
common stock, and at that time, we will no longer record any
changes in the fair value of these liabilities in our
consolidated statement of operations.
Warrants to purchase the following shares of common stock were
outstanding as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
Exercise
|
Series
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
Series F
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
Series G
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,076,923
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,076,923
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
The fair value of the Series F warrants was calculated
using the following assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Expected term (in years)
|
|
6.0
|
|
5.0
|
|
5.26
|
|
1.6
|
Expected volatility
|
|
85%
|
|
90%
|
|
90%
|
|
84%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
3.21%
|
|
1.47%
|
|
2.18%
|
|
0.57%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
Estimated fair value (in thousands)
|
|
$2,931
|
|
$2,994
|
|
$3,012
|
|
$4,211
|
The fair value of the Series G warrants was calculated
using the following assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Expected term (in years)
|
|
9.8
|
|
3.1
|
Expected volatility
|
|
85%
|
|
76%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
2.70%
|
|
0.98%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
Estimated fair value (in thousands)
|
|
$5,584
|
|
$5,838
|
Liability
Classified Warrants to Purchase Convertible Preferred
Stock
We have issued warrants to purchase our convertible preferred
stock in connection with certain financing arrangements. We have
accounted for these warrants as liabilities because the
underlying shares of convertible preferred stock are redeemable
in the case of a deemed liquidation. We estimate the fair value
of our convertible preferred stock warrants using an
option-pricing model, which incorporates several estimates and
assumptions that are subject to significant management judgment.
Changes in fair value at each period end are recorded in other
income (expense) in our consolidated statement of operations
until the earlier of the exercise or expiration of the warrants,
or the completion of this offering.
Upon the completion of this offering, our warrants to purchase
convertible preferred stock will convert to warrants to purchase
common stock, and at that time, we will no longer record any
changes in the fair value of these liabilities in our statement
of operations.
60
Seed
Inventory
Seed inventory costs are computed on a
first-in,
first-out basis and valued at the lower of cost or market and
are included as cost of product sales. Due to the early stage of
commercialization of our seed products and with no established
market for our seed products, a full valuation reserve has been
recorded against our inventory.
Income
Taxes
Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability
method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for
the future tax consequences attributable to differences between
the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and
liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss
and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and
liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to
apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary
differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect
on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates
is recognized in income in the period that includes the
enactment date. We record a valuation allowance when it is more
likely than not that some of our net deferred tax assets will
not be realized. In determining the need for valuation
allowances, we consider our projected future taxable income and
the availability of tax planning strategies. We have recorded a
full valuation allowance to reduce our net deferred tax assets
to zero except to the extent of federal credits refundable in
2009 because we have determined that it is not more likely than
not that any of our net deferred tax assets will be realized. If
in the future we determine that we will be able to realize any
of our net deferred tax assets, we will make an adjustment to
the allowance, which would increase our income in the period
that the determination is made.
We operate in various tax jurisdictions and are subject to audit
by various tax authorities. We recognize the effect of income
tax positions only if those positions are more likely than not
of being sustained. Recognized income tax positions are measured
at the largest amount that is greater than 50% likely of being
realized. Changes in recognition or measurement are reflected in
the period in which the change in judgment occurs.
Impairment of
Long-Lived Assets
Long-lived assets, such as property and equipment, are reviewed
for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be
recoverable. Our long-lived assets comprise a single asset group
for evaluation purposes. We evaluate whether an impairment
indicator occurs primarily based on progress achieved against
our business plans. To the extent that an impairment indicator
has occurred, recoverability of assets to be held and used is
measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to
estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to be
generated by the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset
exceeds its estimated undiscounted future cash flows, an
impairment charge is recognized in the amount by which the
carrying amount of the asset exceeds the fair value of the
asset. For all periods presented herein, no impairment
indicators have occurred and therefore no impairment charges
have been recognized.
61
Results of
Operations
The following table sets forth our consolidated results of
operations for the periods shown:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
|
$
|
288
|
|
|
$
|
236
|
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,880
|
|
|
|
2,328
|
|
|
|
6,326
|
|
|
|
4,095
|
|
|
|
4,799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,944
|
|
|
|
2,426
|
|
|
|
6,614
|
|
|
|
4,331
|
|
|
|
4,896
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,777
|
|
|
|
2,690
|
|
|
|
2,946
|
|
|
|
2,217
|
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
20,309
|
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
16,697
|
|
|
|
12,639
|
|
|
|
13,837
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
9,811
|
|
|
|
8,784
|
|
|
|
6,645
|
|
|
|
9,207
|
|
|
|
6,844
|
|
|
|
6,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
29,031
|
|
|
|
32,870
|
|
|
|
21,732
|
|
|
|
28,850
|
|
|
|
21,700
|
|
|
|
22,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations
|
|
|
(21,851
|
)
|
|
|
(28,926
|
)
|
|
|
(19,306
|
)
|
|
|
(22,236
|
)
|
|
|
(17,369
|
)
|
|
|
(17,781
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(153
|
)
|
|
|
(91
|
)
|
|
|
(365
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,521
|
|
|
|
2,001
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(167
|
)
|
|
|
(1,450
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(20,448
|
)
|
|
|
(26,925
|
)
|
|
|
(18,907
|
)
|
|
|
(22,518
|
)
|
|
|
(17,606
|
)
|
|
|
(19,590
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (expense)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
$
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison of
Nine Months Ended May 31, 2010 and 2011
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
236
|
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
|
$
|
(139
|
)
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
4,095
|
|
|
|
4,799
|
|
|
|
704
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
4,331
|
|
|
$
|
4,896
|
|
|
$
|
565
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our total revenues increased by $0.6 million to
$4.9 million in the nine months ended May 31, 2011
compared to the same period in the prior year. The increase was
primarily the result of an increase of $0.7 million and
$0.5 million in billings related to our collaboration
agreement with Amyris and one of our new government grants with
ARPA-E, which was partially offset by a decrease in billings of
$0.5 million under two of our grants with the USDA, along
with a $0.1 million decrease in product sales.
62
Cost and
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
$
|
2,217
|
|
|
$
|
1,940
|
|
|
$
|
(277
|
)
|
Research and development
|
|
|
12,639
|
|
|
|
13,837
|
|
|
|
1,198
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
6,844
|
|
|
|
6,900
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
$
|
21,700
|
|
|
$
|
22,677
|
|
|
$
|
977
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Product
Sales
Our cost of product sales decreased by $0.3 million to
$1.9 million in the nine months ended May 31, 2011
compared to the nine months ended May 31, 2010. Cost of
grower contracts and associated agricultural supplies decreased
by $0.4 million as we reduced our production and related
costs of production for our switchgrass product, which was
partially offset by a $0.1 million increase in personnel
costs.
Research and
Development Expenses
Our research and development expense increased by
$1.2 million for the nine months ended May 31, 2011
compared to the nine months ended May 31, 2010. Of the
$1.2 million increase, $0.9 million was related to the
mark to market valuation of our warrants and stock option
expense which resulted from an increase value of common stock
for the comparative periods. Additionally, our licensing fees
increased by $0.1 million and our consulting and travel
expense increased by $0.2 million.
Selling, General
and Administrative Expenses
Our selling, general and administrative expenses remained
relatively flat, increasing by $0.1 million to
$6.9 million in the nine months ended May 31, 2011
compared to the same period in the prior year. Legal and
accounting fees increased by $0.1 million in support of our
operations in Brazil.
Interest Expense,
Interest Income and Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
(91
|
)
|
|
$
|
(365
|
)
|
|
$
|
(274
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
(167
|
)
|
|
|
(1,450
|
)
|
|
|
(1,283
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(237
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,809
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,572
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense, interest income and other income (expense)
increased by $1.6 million in the nine months ended
May 31, 2011 compared to the same period in the prior year.
The increase was primarily the result of the fair value changes
associated with our liability classified warrants of
$1.3 million, and higher interest expense of
$0.3 million.
63
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased by $0.3 million in the nine
months ended May 31, 2011 compared to the same period in
the prior year. The increase was primarily related to borrowings
in February and August 2010 under our new Loan and Security
Agreement with a commercial bank.
Interest
Income
Interest income decreased by $15,000 in the nine months ended
May 31, 2011 compared to the same period in the prior year.
The decrease was primarily the result of lower average cash
invested balances.
Other Income
(Expense)
Other income (expense) increased by $1.3 million to
$1.5 million for the nine months ended May 31, 2011
compared to $0.2 million for the nine months ended
May 31, 2010. The increase is the result of the fair value
changes associated with our warrant valuations.
Comparison of
Eight Months Ended August 31, 2009 and Year Ended
August 31, 2010
During 2009 we changed our fiscal year-end from December 31 to
August 31 for financial reporting purposes. The change was
effective for the eight-month period ended August 31, 2009.
The discussion below compares the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 to the twelve months ended August 31,
2010.
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
|
$
|
288
|
|
|
$
|
190
|
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
2,328
|
|
|
|
6,326
|
|
|
|
3,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
2,426
|
|
|
$
|
6,614
|
|
|
$
|
4,188
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our total revenues increased by $4.2 million in the year
ended August 31, 2010 compared to the eight months ended
August 31, 2009. Collaborative research and government
grant revenue increased by $2.3 million, along with an
increase in revenue for two new government grants from USAID and
ARPA-E, which contributed $1.7 million to the 2010 period,
and an increase in product sales of $0.2 million.
Cost and
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
$
|
2,690
|
|
|
$
|
2,946
|
|
|
$
|
256
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
16,697
|
|
|
|
4,300
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
6,645
|
|
|
|
9,207
|
|
|
|
2,562
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
$
|
21,732
|
|
|
$
|
28,850
|
|
|
$
|
7,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
Cost of Product
Sales
Our cost of product sales increased by $0.3 million to
$2.9 million in the year ended August 31, 2010
compared to the eight months ended August 31, 2009. Our
cost of grower payments increased by $0.3 million which was
related to high biomass sorghum seed production in the United
States.
Research and
Development Expenses
Our research and development expense increased $4.3 million
to $16.7 million in the year ended August 31, 2010
compared to the eight months ended August 31, 2009.
Personnel and related expense increased by $2.2 million,
external research and development expense increased by
$1.4 million, and depreciation expense increased by
$0.7 million.
Selling, General
and Administrative Expenses
Our selling, general and administrative expenses increased by
$2.6 million to $9.2 million in the year ended
August 31, 2010 compared to the eight months ended
August 31, 2009. Personnel and related expenses including
travel, office expense and depreciation increased by
$2.2 million and professional fees for legal, accounting
and marketing increased by $0.4 million.
Interest Expense,
Interest Income and Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
(5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(153
|
)
|
|
$
|
(148
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
(220
|
)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(313
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
399
|
|
|
$
|
(282
|
)
|
|
$
|
(681
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Expense, Interest Income and Other Income (Expense)
increased by $0.7 million to $(0.3) million in the
year ended August 31, 2010 compared to the eight months
ended August 31, 2009. The increase in other (expense)
resulted from an increase in fair value of our warrants by
$0.3 million, a decrease in interest income from cash
investments by $0.2 million, and an increase in interest
expense by $0.1 million related to our debt financing
during 2010.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased by $0.1 million in the year
ended August 31, 2010 compared to the eight months ended
August 31, 2009. The increase was primarily due to the
higher outstanding principal balances on our bank loan in 2010
compared to 2009.
Interest
Income
Interest income decreased by $0.2 million in the year ended
August 31, 2010 compared to the eight months ended
August 31, 2009. The decrease in interest income was
primarily due to a more conservative investment of available
cash.
Other Income
(Expense)
Other income (expense) increased by $0.3 million in the
year ended August 31, 2010 compared to the eight months
ended August 31, 2009. The increase was primarily due to
higher expense related to the increase in the fair value of our
warrants in fiscal 2010.
65
Comparison of
Year Ended December 31, 2008 and Eight Months Ended
August 31, 2009
During 2009 we changed our fiscal year-end from December 31 to
August 31 for financial reporting purposes. The change was
effective for the eight-month period ended August 31, 2009.
The discussion below compares the year ended December 31,
2008 to the eight months ended August 31, 2009.
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
3,880
|
|
|
|
2,328
|
|
|
|
(1,552
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
3,944
|
|
|
$
|
2,426
|
|
|
$
|
(1,518
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our total revenues decreased by $1.5 million to
$2.4 million in the eight months ended August 31, 2009
compared to the year ended December 31, 2008. Revenue from
our grants and collaborative agreements was lower by
$1.3 million, and we completed one of our grants in August
2008 which resulted in $0.2 million of reduced billings.
Cost and
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
$
|
3,777
|
|
|
$
|
2,690
|
|
|
$
|
(1,087
|
)
|
Research and development
|
|
|
20,309
|
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
(7,912
|
)
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
8,784
|
|
|
|
6,645
|
|
|
|
(2,139
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
$
|
32,870
|
|
|
$
|
21,732
|
|
|
$
|
(11,138
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Product
Sales
Our cost of product sales decreased by $1.1 million to
$2.7 million in the eight months ended August 31, 2009
compared to the year ended December 31, 2008. During the
2008 and 2009 periods, our efforts were primarily focused on the
production of switchgrass. We increased capital expenditures at
our Texas facility which increased depreciation expense by
$0.1 million for the eight months ended August 31,
2009 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008.
Research and
Development Expenses
Our research and development expenses decreased by
$7.9 million to $12.4 million in the eight months
ended August 31, 2009 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008. Personnel and related expense decreased
by $5.3 million of which $1.1 million related to the
annual savings in personnel reductions that occurred in January
2009 as we transitioned our efforts from exploratory trait
research to agronomy, plant breeding, and field research in
support of our transition to a commercial seed business.
Additionally, laboratory and agricultural supply expense
decreased by $1.5 million, and external research and
development and licensing expense decreased by $1.1 million.
Selling, General
and Administrative Expenses
Our selling, general and administrative expenses decreased by
$2.1 million to $6.6 million in the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008. Personnel and
66
related expenses including travel, office expense and
depreciation decreased by $1.1 million and professional
fees for legal, accounting and marketing decreased by
$1.0 million.
Interest Expense,
Interest Income and Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
2,001
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
(1,758
|
)
|
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,001
|
|
|
$
|
399
|
|
|
$
|
(1,602
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense, interest income and other income (expense),
increased by $1.6 million to $0.4 million in the eight
months ended August 31, 2009 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008. This was largely due to the
$1.8 million reduction of interest income earned on
investments, which was offset by the $0.2 million increase
due to the change in fair value of our warrants.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased by $5,000 in the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008.
Interest
Income
Interest income decreased by $1.8 million in the eight
months ended August 31, 2009 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008. The decrease in dollars was primarily
due to a more conservative investment of available cash.
Other
Income
Other income increased by $0.2 million in the eight months
ended August 31, 2009 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008. The increase was due to the change in
the fair value of our warrants.
Comparison of
Years Ended December 31, 2007 and 2008
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,880
|
|
|
|
(3,300
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
7,180
|
|
|
$
|
3,944
|
|
|
$
|
(3,236
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our total revenues decreased by $3.2 million to
$3.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
compared to the year ended December 31, 2007. The decrease
was primarily the result of the completion of a discovery and
development collaboration agreement which represented
$6.3 million in revenue in 2007, which was offset by
$1.8 million of increased revenue from our collaborative
research agreements along with an increase of $1.2 million
in grant revenue, and $0.1 million in product sales.
67
Cost and
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,777
|
|
|
$
|
3,777
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
20,309
|
|
|
|
1,089
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
9,811
|
|
|
|
8,784
|
|
|
|
(1,027
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
$
|
29,031
|
|
|
$
|
32,870
|
|
|
$
|
3,839
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Product
Sales
Our cost of product sales increased to $3.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the same period in
the prior year. This increase was largely a result of commencing
commercial seed production activity, primarily in the United
States, for switchgrass in 2008. Prior to January 1, 2008,
we had not commenced commercial seed production.
Research and
Development Expenses
Our research and development expenses increased by
$1.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
compared to the same period in the prior year. This increase was
primarily the result of increased research payments to third
parties for field trials and related expenses in the
U.S. for switchgrass and high biomass sorghum.
Selling, General
and Administrative Expenses
Our selling, general and administrative expenses decreased by
$1.0 million to $8.8 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the same period in the prior
year. The decrease was primarily the result of a reduction in
patent expenses and legal and professional fees of
$1.4 million, partially offset by an increase in personnel
costs of $0.3 million.
Interest Expense,
Interest Income and Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
(123
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
123
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,521
|
|
|
|
2,001
|
|
|
|
480
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,403
|
|
|
$
|
2,001
|
|
|
$
|
598
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense, interest income and other income (expense),
increased by $0.6 million to $2.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 compared to the same period in the
prior year. The increase was the result of an increase in
interest income of $0.5 million from higher invested cash
balances and a decrease in interest expense of $0.1 million
from the reduction in debt and associated interest cost.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense decreased by $0.1 million for the year
ended December 31, 2008 as all debt and related interest
expense obligations were repaid during the year ended
December 31, 2007.
68
Interest
Income
Interest income increased by $0.5 million to
$2.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
compared to the same period in the prior year. This increase was
a result of increased levels of invested cash for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
Other Income
(Expense)
Other income (expense) remained relatively flat, decreasing by
$5,000 in the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the
same period in the prior year.
Liquidity and
Capital Resources
Since inception, we have funded our operations through the sale
of preferred stock and warrants, collaborative research and
government grant revenues, and borrowings under financing
arrangements. As of May 31, 2011, our cash and cash
equivalents totaled $17.7 million.
Since our inception, we have incurred significant net losses,
and, as of May 31, 2011, we had an accumulated deficit of
$195.9 million. We expect to incur additional losses
related to the continued development and expansion of our
business including research and development, seed production and
operations, and sales and marketing. There is also no assurance
that profitable operations will be achieved, or if achieved, can
be sustained on a continued basis.
In 2010, we entered into a Loan and Security Agreement, or the
Loan Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank. The Loan Agreement
provides financing for qualified equipment purchases. We
borrowed a total of $7.0 million in two tranches at
interest rates of Bank Prime plus 2.75% (6.75% as of
May 31, 2011). Monthly principal repayments on the first
tranche are $75,000 per month through the maturity date of June
2013. Monthly principal repayments on the second tranche total
$111,000 per month through the maturity date of August 2013.
Currently, we make monthly principal payments of approximately
$186,000 and interest payments of approximately $26,000 per
month based on the 6.75% borrowing rate. The Loan Agreement is
secured by all goods, accounts, equipment, inventory, contract
rights or rights to the payment of money, leases, license
agreements, franchise agreements, general intangibles (excluding
any intellectual property, other than related account
receivables and proceeds from intellectual property), commercial
tort claims, documents, instruments, chattel paper, cash,
deposit accounts, fixtures, letters of credit rights, securities
and all other investment property, supporting obligations and
financial assets. The Loan Agreement requires compliance with
covenants that require certain reporting obligations, the
maintenance of $3.0 million in restricted cash and a
minimum quick ratio, which is defined in the Loan Agreement as a
ratio of consolidated, unrestricted cash and cash equivalents,
net billed accounts receivable and investments with maturities
of fewer than 12 months determined according to GAAP
together with the aggregate balance of a cash collateral account
(with a minimum balance of $1.5 million) to current
liabilities of at least 1.50 to 1.0. At May 31, 2011, the
quick ratio was 2.27 and we were in compliance with all
covenants in the Loan Agreement.
We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents and the
net proceeds of this offering will provide adequate resources to
fund our operations, including research and development
expenses, planned capital expenditures and working capital
requirements for at least the next 18 months. In order to
fund our operations beyond that time, we may need to raise
additional funds through the issuance of equity, equity-related
or debt securities or through obtaining credit from government
or financial institutions. We cannot be certain that additional
funds will be available to us on favorable terms when required,
or at all.
Capital
Expenditures
For the year ended December 31, 2007, the year ended
December 31, 2008, the eight months ended August 31,
2009 and the year ended August 31, 2010, we used
$2.3 million, $3.8 million,
69
$1.6 million and $2.1 million, respectively, in cash
to fund capital expenditures. For the nine months ended
May 31, 2010 and 2011, we used $1.9 million and
$0.4 million to fund capital expenditures. We currently
anticipate that our aggregate capital expenditures will be
between $0.3 million and $0.5 million through the year
ended August 31, 2011, which will primarily relate to
agronomy and breeding. We currently anticipate making aggregate
capital expenditures between $1.1 million and
$2.5 million for the year ended August 31, 2012.
The following table sets forth a summary of our cash flows for
the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating
activities
|
|
$
|
(10,032
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,899
|
)
|
|
$
|
(13,508
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,846
|
)
|
|
$
|
(14,838
|
)
|
|
$
|
(13,437
|
)
|
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities
|
|
|
(53,817
|
)
|
|
|
23,433
|
|
|
|
16,329
|
|
|
|
10,372
|
|
|
|
12,070
|
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
73,050
|
|
|
|
(252
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
26,569
|
|
|
|
2,795
|
|
|
|
(1,627
|
)
|
Cash Flows from
Operating Activities
For all periods presented, we have incurred net losses and net
cash used in operating activities. The net cash used in
operating activities primarily resulted from significant
research and development expenses and seed production costs to
develop and produce our improved seeds and traits. Such expenses
and costs have exceeded our revenues, which have primarily been
generated from collaborative research and government grants and,
to a much lesser extent, product sales.
Net cash outflows of $13.4 million from operating
activities during the nine months ended May 31, 2011
primarily resulted from our net loss of $19.6 million,
which included non-cash items, including $1.6 million in
depreciation expense and $1.8 million in stock-based
compensation expense.
Net cash outflows of $14.8 million from operating
activities during the nine months ended May 31, 2010
primarily resulted from our net loss of $17.6 million, a
decrease of $0.5 million in accounts payable and accrued
expenses and increase of $0.5 million in deferred revenue.
The net loss of $17.6 million also included non-cash items,
including $1.8 million in depreciation expense and
$0.9 million in stock-based compensation expense.
Net cash outflows of $18.8 million from operating
activities during the year ended August 31, 2010 primarily
resulted from our net loss of $22.6 million, an increase in
accounts receivables of $0.7 million and a decrease in
accounts payable and accrued expenses of $0.3 million.
These uses of cash were partially offset by non-cash items,
including $2.4 million in depreciation expense and
$1.3 million in stock-based compensation expense, and a
$0.4 million increase in deferred revenue.
Net cash outflows of $13.5 million from operating
activities during the eight months ended August 31, 2009
primarily resulted from our net loss of $18.7 million which
included non-cash items of $1.5 million in depreciation
expense and $1.1 million in stock-based compensation
expense. These cash outflows were partially offset by a decrease
of $1.3 million in accounts receivable and an increase of
$0.9 million in accounts payable and accrued expenses.
Net cash outflows of $24.9 million from operating
activities during the year ended December 31, 2008
primarily resulted from our net loss of $26.8 million, an
increase in accounts receivables of $1.5 million, and a
decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses of
$0.8 million. These uses of cash were partially offset by
non-cash items, including $2.2 million in depreciation
expense and $1.2 million in stock-based compensation
expense, and a decrease of $0.5 million in other assets.
70
Net cash outflows of $10.0 million from operating
activities during the year ended December 31, 2007
primarily resulted from our net loss of $20.5 million, a
decrease of $1.0 million in deferred revenue, and an
increase of $1.0 million in other assets. These uses of
cash were partially offset by a decrease of $8.8 million in
accounts receivables primarily due to the collection of
receivables from Monsanto, an increase of $1.2 million in
accounts payable and accrued expenses, and by non-cash items,
including $1.9 million in depreciation expense and
$0.7 million in stock-based compensation expense.
Cash Flows from
Investing Activities
Our investing activities consisted primarily of net investment
purchases, maturities of investments and capital expenditures.
Net cash used in investing activities of $0.3 million
during the nine months ended May 31, 2011 was due to
purchases of property and equipment.
Net cash provided by investing activities of $12.1 million
during the nine months ended May 31, 2010 was primarily due
to $15.4 million in maturities of investments, partially
offset by a $1.4 million increase in restricted cash and
investments and $1.9 million in purchases of property and
equipment.
Net cash provided by investing activities of $10.4 million
during the year ended August 31, 2010 primarily resulted
from $15.4 million in maturities of investments, partially
offset by a $2.9 million increase in restricted cash and
investments and $2.1 million in purchases of property and
equipment.
Net cash provided by investing activities of $16.3 million
during the eight months ended August 31, 2009 primarily
resulted from $48.2 million in maturities of investments,
partially offset by $30.3 million in purchases of
investments, and $1.6 million in purchases of property and
equipment.
Net cash provided by investing activities of $23.4 million
during the year ended December 31, 2008 primarily resulted
from $74.0 million in maturities of investments and a
$2.6 million decrease in restricted cash and investments,
partially offset by $49.4 million in purchases of
investments, and $3.8 million in purchases of property and
equipment.
Net cash used in investing activities of $53.8 million
during the year ended December 31, 2007 primarily resulted
from $58.1 million in purchases of investments and
$2.3 million in purchases of property and equipment,
partially offset by $6.4 million in maturities of
investments.
Cash Flows from
Financing Activities
Net cash used in financing activities of $1.6 million
during the nine months ended May 31, 2011 was primarily due
to loan repayments.
Net cash provided by financing activities of $2.8 million
during the nine months ended May 31, 2010 was primarily due
to amounts received under a loan agreement with a bank.
Net cash provided by financing activities of $26.6 million
during the year-ended August 31, 2010 was primarily due to
$20.0 million in proceeds from the issuance of
Series G Preferred stock and common stock warrants and
$7 million in amounts received under a loan agreement with
a bank, partially offset by loan repayments totaling
$0.5 million.
Net cash used in financing activities was $6,000 during the
eight months ended August 31, 2009.
Net cash used in financing activities of $0.3 million
during the year ended December 31, 2008 was primarily due
to repayments on borrowings.
Net cash provided by financing activities of $73.1 million
during the year-ended December 31, 2007 was primarily due
to $74.2 million in proceeds from the issuance of
Series F Preferred stock and common stock warrants
partially offset by loan repayments totaling $1.5 million.
71
Contractual
Obligations
The following is a summary of our contractual obligations as of
August 31, 2010 (unaudited):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
2015 and
|
|
Contractual Obligations
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating Lease Obligations
|
|
|
2,831
|
|
|
|
905
|
|
|
|
824
|
|
|
|
620
|
|
|
|
367
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
Interest Payments Relating to Long-Term Debt
|
|
|
647
|
|
|
|
361
|
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research Collaboration Agreements
|
|
|
5,368
|
|
|
|
2,889
|
|
|
|
2,289
|
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Debt
|
|
|
6,380
|
|
|
|
2,182
|
|
|
|
2,174
|
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
15,226
|
|
|
|
6,337
|
|
|
|
5,502
|
|
|
|
2,889
|
|
|
|
383
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Balance Sheet
Arrangements
We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not
currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined
under SEC rules, such as relationships with unconsolidated
entities or financial partnerships, which are often referred to
as structured finance or special purpose entities, established
for the purpose of facilitating financing transactions that are
not required to be reflected on our consolidated balance sheets.
Seasonality
The sale of seeds is dependent upon planting and growing
seasons, which vary from year to year, and are expected to
result in both highly seasonal patterns and substantial
fluctuations in quarterly sales and profitability. Our product
sales for the year ended August 31, 2010 and the nine
months ended May 31, 2011 were minimal and, accordingly, we
have not yet experienced the full nature or extent to which our
business may be seasonal. We expect that the sale of our seeds
in Brazil will typically be higher in our first and fourth
fiscal quarters, due to the timing of the planting decisions
made by our customers. As we increase our sales in our current
markets, and as we expand into new markets in different
geographies, it is possible we may experience different
seasonality patterns in our business. Weather conditions and
natural disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail,
floods, tornadoes, freezing conditions, drought or fire, also
affect decisions by our customers about the types and amounts of
seeds to plant and the timing of harvesting and planting such
seeds. Disruptions that cause delays by our customers in
harvesting or planting can result in the movement of orders to a
future quarter, which would negatively affect the quarter and
cause fluctuations in our operating results.
Inflation
We believe that inflation has not had a material impact on our
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2007,
the year ended December 31, 2008, the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 and the year ended August 31, 2010, or
for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and 2011. There can
be no assurance that future inflation will not have an adverse
impact on our operating results and financial condition.
Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
We are exposed to the effect of interest rate changes, foreign
currency fluctuations and changes in commodity prices. We are
also exposed to changes in the general economic conditions in
the countries where we conduct business, which currently is
substantially all in the United States and Brazil. As of
August 31, 2010, we had only cash, cash equivalents and
restricted cash, and therefore we were not exposed to changes in
equity or debt prices. Our current investment strategy is to
invest in financial
72
instruments that are highly liquid, readily convertible into
cash and which mature within three months from the date of
purchase. To date, we have not used derivative financial
instruments to manage any of our market risks or entered into
transactions using derivative financial instruments for trading
purposes. All of the potential changes noted below are based on
sensitivity analyses performed on our financial position as of
August 31, 2010. Actual changes may prove to be greater or
less than those hypothesized.
We do not believe our cash equivalents have significant risk of
default or illiquidity. While we believe our cash equivalents do
not contain excessive risk, we cannot provide absolute assurance
that in the future our investments will not be subject to
adverse changes in market value. In addition, we maintain
significant amounts of cash and cash equivalents at one or more
financial institutions that are in excess of federally insured
limits. We cannot be assured that we will not experience losses
on these deposits.
Interest Rate
Risk
Our exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates
primarily relates to our equipment loans, which are
variable-rate debt obligations. As of August 31, 2010, we
had two tranches of equipment loans outstanding amounting to
$6.6 million at an interest rate of 6.75% (Prime Rate plus
2.75%). If interest rates increase by 100 basis points
related to the outstanding amounts as of August 31, 2010,
our interest expense would change by approximately $66,000 on an
annual basis prior to considering monthly principal repayment.
Foreign Currency
Risk
We have foreign currency risks related to our operating expenses
denominated in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar.
Changes in exchange rates between the U.S. Dollar and other
currencies will result in increases or decreases in our costs
and earnings, and also may affect the book value of our assets
outside the United States. To date, most of our contracts have
been entered into in the United States and accordingly have been
denominated in U.S. Dollars. Going forward we anticipate
that our sales will be denominated in the local currency of the
country in which the sale occurs. In addition, our operating
expenses to date have been denominated in the currencies of the
countries in which our operations are located, primarily the
United States and Brazil. As a result, while our revenue and
operating expenses are mostly hedged on a transactional basis,
the translation of our operating results into U.S. Dollars
may be adversely impacted by strengthening U.S. currency.
Through May 31, 2011, our operations in Brazil have not
been significant and therefore fluctuations in the Brazil Real
have had a minimal impact on our results of operations. As our
international operations in Brazil grow, the risks associated
with fluctuations in the Brazil Real will become greater, and we
will continue to reassess our approach to managing this risk.
Commodity
Risk
Our exposure to market risk for changes in commodity prices
currently is minimal. As our commercial operations grow, our
exposure will relate mostly to the demand side as our customers
are highly exposed to fluctuations in prices of sugar and crude
oil and somewhat exposed to fluctuations in agricultural
commodities, especially soybean. For example, if the price of
sugar, which is produced from sugarcane and which cannot be
produced from sweet sorghum today, rises significantly relative
to the price of ethanol, it may become more profitable for
ethanol mill operators to grow sugarcane even in adverse
conditions, such as through the expansion of sugarcane fields to
marginal land or the extension of the sugarcane harvesting
season. During sustained periods of significantly higher sugar
prices, demand for our seeds may decrease, which could
materially and adversely affect our operating results. We are
also indirectly exposed to fluctuations in soft commodities
prices like soybean when we negotiate production contracts with
seed producers. We currently do not use derivative financial
instruments to hedge any price volatility of agricultural
commodities.
73
Recent Accounting
Pronouncements
In October 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update, or
ASU,
No. 2009-13,
Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple Deliverable Revenue
Arrangements. ASU
No. 2009-13
addresses how to determine whether an arrangement involving
multiple deliverables contains more than one unit of accounting
and how to allocate consideration to each unit of accounting in
the arrangement. This ASU replaces all references to fair value
as the measurement criteria with the term selling price and
establishes a hierarchy for determining the selling price of a
deliverable. ASU
2009-13 also
eliminates the use of the residual value method for determining
the allocation of arrangement consideration. This standard was
adopted by us on September 1, 2010 and the adoption of this
standard did not have a material impact on our consolidated
financial statements.
Effective September 1, 2010, we adopted ASU
No. 2010-06,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, which requires
previous fair value hierarchy disclosures to be further
disaggregated by class of assets and liabilities. A class is
often a subset of assets or liabilities within a line item in
the balance sheet. In addition, significant reclassifications
between Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy are
required to be disclosed. These additional requirements became
effective September 1, 2011 for quarterly and annual
reporting. Their adoption did not have any impact on our
financial statements. In addition, ASU
2010-06
requires more detailed disclosures regarding changes in
Level 3 instruments. This disclosure change will be
effective September 1, 2012 and is not expected to have an
impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In April 2010, the FASB issued an ASU
No. 2010-17,
Revenue Recognition Milestone Method (Topic 605):
Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition. The standard
provides guidance on defining a milestone and determining when
it may be appropriate to apply the milestone method of revenue
recognition for research or development transactions. Research
or development arrangements frequently include payment
provisions whereby a portion or all of the consideration is
contingent upon milestone events such as successful completion
of phases in a study or achieving a specific result from the
research or development efforts. The amendments in these
standards provide guidance on the criteria that should be met
for determining whether the milestone method of revenue
recognition is appropriate. The standard is effective for fiscal
years and interim periods within those years beginning on or
after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted, and
applies to milestones achieved on or after that time. This
standard was adopted by us on September 1, 2010 and the
adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU
2011-04,
Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, to
provide largely identical guidance about fair value measurement
and disclosure requirements with the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB) IFRS 13, Fair Value Measurement.
The new standard does not extend the use of fair value but,
rather, provides guidance about how fair value should be applied
where it already is required or permitted under U.S. GAAP.
ASU 2011-04
is effective prospectively for interim and annual periods
beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is not
permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of
adoption of this standard, if any, on its consolidated financial
statements.
74
BUSINESS
Our
Company
We are an agricultural biotechnology company selling seeds to
produce renewable biomass feedstocks that can enable the
large-scale replacement of petroleum and other fossil fuels. We
use a combination of advanced plant breeding and biotechnology
to develop new crops, known as dedicated energy crops, that we
believe address the limitations of first-generation bioenergy
feedstocks, such as corn and sugarcane, increase biomass
productivity, reduce crop inputs and improve cultivation on
marginal land.
Our first large-scale commercial products are proprietary sweet
sorghum varieties that can be used as a drop-in
feedstock to extend the operating season of Brazilian
sugarcane-to-ethanol
mills, the operating days of which are currently limited due to
the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth
patterns. Our dedicated energy crops can also be used for the
production of second-generation biofuels and bio-based
chemicals, including cellulosic ethanol, butanol, jet fuel,
diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like molecules, from non-food
biomass. Finally, baseload utility-scale electric power can also
be generated from the biomass feedstocks grown from our seeds.
The seed industry has historically required very little capital
to manufacture seeds, and seeds have typically been sold at
prices that generate high gross margins. As a producer of
proprietary seeds, we believe we are in the most attractive
segment of the bioenergy value chain upstream from
the capital intensive refining and conversion of biomass. For
example, in 2009 corn seed providers maintained high margins
when volatile commodity prices significantly impacted corn
ethanol refining margins. Therefore, we believe our success is
tied to adoption of our products rather than the relative
profitability of downstream participants. Our upstream position
in the value chain also allows us to be largely independent of
the success of any particular conversion technology or end use.
We develop low input dedicated energy crops capable of producing
high yields of biomass per acre using innovative plant breeding
and trait biotechnology. By developing these types of crops, we
enable the scalable, sustainable and economic production of
bioenergy, or the energy derived from biomass. Our proprietary
collection of energy crop parent lines, known as germplasm, in
combination with our pipeline of biotechnology traits allows us
to develop bioenergy feedstocks to meet the needs of both
biomass refineries and growers of biomass, all while using less
water and less fertilizer than row crops like corn or soybean,
even if grown on marginal land. We believe that the strength of
our technology has been validated by the receipt of multiple
competitive grants and collaborations, including a United States
Agency for International Development, or USAID, grant and one of
the U.S. Department of Energys first Advanced
Research Project Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E, grants in 2009,
as well as a $137 million multi-year collaboration with
Monsanto Company signed in 2002. We also have significant
intellectual property rights to our technology.
We recently began marketing sweet sorghum seeds in Brazil and
have sold switchgrass and high biomass sorghum seeds in the
United States under our brand, Blade Energy Crops, or Blade. Our
largest immediate commercial opportunity is the Brazilian
ethanol market, which currently uses sugarcane as its
predominant feedstock. Due to the inherent limitations of
sugarcane physiology and growth patterns, Brazilian mill
operators typically obtain sugarcane that makes mill operation
economically feasible approximately 200 days per year. This
results in an estimated 3.4 million metric tons per day of
crushing capacity, according to our estimate, which we derive
from a 2011 Brazil Agrianual report. Boa Vista / Nova
Fronteira, a joint venture of Grupo São Martinho S.A. and
Petrobras Biofuels, recently planted, harvested and processed a
commercial-scale planting of our sweet sorghum products and
produced both ethanol and power using the existing agricultural
equipment and processing infrastructure. Similar activities have
been completed with two other Brazilian ethanol producers, ADM
do Brasil Ltda, and Usina Rio Pardo S.A. We believe the success
of our first commercial-scale planting at the mill owned by Boa
Vista/Nova Fronteira, a joint venture of Grupo São Martinho
S.A. and Petrobras Biofuels, demonstrates the
drop-in nature of our sweet
75
sorghum products, and along with seed-based propagation, shorter
growing cycles and lower water and fertilizer requirements of
sweet sorghum relative to sugarcane, will serve as the basis for
expanded adoption of this product line as a feedstock for
ethanol and power production in Brazil and other markets. Based
on our trial results to date and pipeline of products under
development, we believe the adoption of our sweet sorghum
hybrids could extend a mills operations by approximately
60 days.
We also work with refining technology companies in the emerging
cellulosic biofuels and bio-based chemicals markets. We believe
that dedicated energy crops will enable both individual
renewable energy projects and the industry as a whole to reach
greater scale and sustainability, at lower costs, than other
potential sources of biomass because of their yields, hardiness
and relatively low input requirements. We believe our dedicated
energy crop portfolio is compatible with a number of developing
cellulosic biofuels conversion technologies and we are working
with companies focusing on petroleum-refining technologies, such
as UOP, LLC, as well as chemical companies, such as Europe-based
Gruppo Mossi & Ghisolfi, or Gruppo M&G, to test
our energy crops in their respective production processes. We
have also conducted joint trials with, or sold seed to, AGCO
Corporation, EdeniQ, Inc. and Hawaii BioEnergy, LLC, among
others. We recently began a collaboration with Valero Services,
Inc. to further evaluate feedstock supply strategies with
dedicated energy crops.
Our dedicated energy crops also can be used to generate
electricity in existing solid-fuel power facilities, such as
coal-fired generating plants. We believe we will see a material
increase in demand for biopower in the event that additional
renewable energy legislation is passed in the United States,
Europe or other countries that requires a higher percentage of
generation from low-carbon sources or provides equal production
incentives for the co-firing of biomass with coal, as are
currently available for wind and solar power. Based on feedback
from customers, partners and industry participants, we believe
that our products can be used by existing growers, pellet mills
and utilities, and can be cost competitive with existing
biopower feedstocks, such as wood pellets.
Finally, due to the nature of biotechnology, we believe other
crops can benefit from many of the traits we are developing for
dedicated energy crops, such as traits that improve water use
efficiency and salt tolerance. By combining genes into a series
of stacks, we believe, and our initial results indicate, that we
can achieve step-change improvements to the productivity of many
row crops, including corn, soybean, rice and wheat. We have also
generated many biotech traits specifically for cereal crops,
such as rice, that increase grain yields and provide greater
yield stability across different environments. We are inserting
these and other traits into commercial rice varieties and plan
to trial them in multiple locations in Asia this year.
Market
Opportunity
The world continues to seek economic and environmentally sound
alternatives to fossil fuel-based transportation fuels and
power. We believe bioenergy is one of the few viable
replacements for fossil fuels. Unlike other renewable
technologies, biofuels are intended to utilize existing vehicles
and transportation fuel infrastructure. Similarly, biopower,
unlike wind and solar power, can provide baseload and
dispatchable generation of renewable electricity. Despite the
potential of biofuels, first-generation biofuel feedstocks have
demonstrated their limitations in terms of scale, perceived
competition with food production, net energy balance, and
dependence on government subsidies. Similarly, current sources
of biomass, such as forestry residues and agricultural wastes,
are limited in scale and are not optimized for use in bioenergy.
They are also by-products derived from other processes and
therefore subject to supply disruptions. Our dedicated energy
crops provide an attractive combination of high yield density,
high net energy balances, low input requirements, the ability to
grow on marginal land and, as a dedicated source of feedstock,
the potential to be tailored for specific production and
refining processes. As a result, we believe that dedicated
energy crops will become a critical component for growth of the
biofuel, bio-based chemicals and biopower markets.
76
Biofuels and
Bio-Based Chemicals
Modern lifestyles and economies are highly reliant on petroleum
and its by-products across a wide variety of industries,
including light-duty transportation, aviation, diesel, shipping,
lubricants, polymers, resins and cosmetics. According to the
Energy Outlook Report published in April 2011 by the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, global oil
production averaged 87.9 million barrels per day in the
first quarter of 2011. The transportation fuel component of
petroleum is valued at over $2 trillion per year, according to
EIA. The vast majority of bio-based replacements for petroleum
and petroleum-based chemicals are currently produced by
fermentation of starch sources and free sugars primarily derived
from corn and sugarcane, respectively. Commonly referred to as
first-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals, the
production and conversion processes for these feedstocks are
well-established. However, as the world looks to increase its
consumption of biofuels and their derivatives, these
first-generation feedstocks face challenges to meet increased
demand.
In Brazil, where the country has recently been importing corn
ethanol to meet its demand, we believe that mill operators will
seek alternatives that will allow them to increase production
utilization of their existing mills beyond the average
200 days per year schedule in order to maximize their
market opportunity. On a global basis, we expect petroleum
consumption will be further replaced by products made from the
conversion of non-food biomass into biofuels and bio-based
chemicals. Today, there are multiple companies, including large
multinational companies, such as BP p.l.c., Royal Dutch Shell
plc, Total S.A. and Valero Energy Corporation, and independent
companies, such as KiOR, Inc. and Coskata, Inc., focused on
improving non-food biomass conversion technologies. According to
a 2011 report published by International Energy Agency, or IEA,
biofuel production could reach approximately 112 billion
gallons per year by 2030, up from 26 billion gallons in
2010. To meet these targets, the IEA believes feedstock
production would need to increase to 150 million acres in
2030, up from 75 million acres in 2010. We believe
quadrupling the volume of biofuels while only doubling the
feedstock production acres will require higher yielding
second-generation feedstocks.
Biopower
Globally, 7.92 trillion
kilowatt-hours
of electricity were generated from coal in 2007, or 42% of total
global power generation, according to the EIA, which we estimate
required 3.6 billion tons of coal. By comparison, a report
released in May 2010 by EIA states that globally, approximately
235 billion
kilowatt-hours
of electricity were generated from biomass and wastes, or 57% of
all renewable energy generation, excluding hydropower, which we
estimate required 200 million dry tons of biomass. The
conversion of biomass to power has traditionally been fueled by
bio-based waste products and residues from the paper and timber
industries. As is the case for biofuels, we believe this
practice has limited the size, location, efficiency and scale of
biomass power generation because power producers can not
reliably secure long-term supplies of consistent quality
feedstock. We believe we will see a material increase in demand
for biopower in the event that additional renewable energy
legislation is passed in the United States, Europe or other
countries that requires a higher percentage of generation from
low-carbon sources, or that incentivizes the co-firing of
biomass.
Food and Feed
Crops
According to a 2010 report published by the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, or
ISAAA, approximately 366 million acres of biotechnology
crops were planted globally in 2010. The global market value of
biotechnology crop seeds was $11.2 billion, as reported in
the same report by ISAAA. As people in many countries become
more affluent, they tend to consume more of their dietary
protein in the form of meat and dairy products, driving the
demand for animal feed grains higher. Therefore, greater
production of food, feed, fiber and fuel will require higher
crop productivity levels among all crops over time. In order to
continue the productivity gains made in many crops over the past
75 years, and to do so in a more sustainable manner, we
believe that advanced breeding methods, and biotech traits, in
particular, will be required to produce higher performance crops
that make more productive use of cultivated land, as well as to
develop more
77
robust, stress-tolerant crops that can grow under more difficult
conditions and on marginal land. Our belief is consistent with
historical yield improvements achieved via plant breeding and
the adoption of agricultural biotechnology.
Our
Solutions
We believe that nearly all bioenergy and bio-based chemical
applications will ultimately depend on high yielding, low-cost,
low-carbon, scalable, reliable and sustainable sources of
feedstock. We believe biomass from our dedicated energy crops
and traits have the potential to become the common denominator
in a broad array of bio-based products, including ethanol,
butanol, jet fuel, diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like
molecules, as well as electric power and heat, and can enable
the development of larger-scale processing facilities given the
high yield density and conversion efficiency of dedicated energy
crops. Specifically, our dedicated energy crops have the
following characteristics, which we believe will make them a
critical component in the large-scale production of these
bio-based products:
Drop-in
Products
In Brazil, there is a well-established biomass-to-biofuel
industry. Our products are drop-in solutions because
they can be planted, harvested and processed using existing
agricultural equipment with little or no modification and are
being developed to be drop-in for all conversion
technologies using sugarcane or biomass feedstocks, facilitating
their rapid adoption. In collaboration with Boa Vista/Nova
Fronteira, a joint venture of leading ethanol producers Grupo
São Martinho S.A. and Petrobras Biofuels, we recently
completed a commercial-scale trial on approximately 250 hectares
of our sweet sorghum, which was planted and harvested using
existing planting and harvesting equipment, fermented into
ethanol without retrofitting or altering the existing mill and
the remaining biomass combusted for electricity production,
using existing boilers.
In other countries, there are a wide range of cellulosic to
biofuel conversion technologies currently being developed;
however none have any appreciable market share at this time. To
explore this opportunity, we have conducted smaller trials using
our other energy crops with numerous industry participants
involved in cellulosic biofuels and biopower production. For
example, our products have been tested in the respective
conversion processes of Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc., Choren USA
LLC, EdeniQ, Inc., Gruppo M&G, ICM, Inc., Novozymes North
America, Inc., ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc. and UOP,
LLC (a Honeywell company), among others. These tests have
confirmed that biomass from our energy grasses can be converted
and processed into various fuels or bio-based products, and have
provided data we have used to further enhance our energy crops
for use with these conversion technologies. For similar
purposes, DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC, or DDCE, also
plans to validate our products in their conversion process in
2011 as part of a publicly announced project with the University
of Tennessee.
High Yield
Density
Our dedicated energy crops are developed to produce high biomass
or sugar yields per acre. For cellulosic biofuels, bio-based
chemicals and biopower, energy grasses can yield significantly
more dry tons per acre per year compared to agricultural
residues and woody biomass. This maximizes the productivity of
available land and shortens the collection radius for a
conversion facility of a particular size. As transportation
costs can be a significant element in the total cost of biomass,
we believe our high yield density crops will facilitate the
construction of larger processing facilities because more
biomass could be collected from a defined area of land around
the facility. In turn, these larger facilities will benefit from
economies of scale, resulting in lower production and capital
cost per gallon produced.
Dedicated to
Bioenergy
Unlike many other bioenergy feedstocks, our dedicated energy
crops are currently not intended for other uses and are
typically grown exclusively to be harvested as part of the
bioenergy value
78
chain, creating a stable supply that will appeal to owners of
conversion technologies who will have invested significant
capital in their infrastructure and will therefore require
reliable and cost-effective feedstocks. Additionally, we are
working to tailor our products to improve the efficiency and
reduce the cost of certain conversion technologies. For example,
we are developing a trait that reduces enzyme requirements to
convert biomass into certain bio-based products. As high enzyme
costs continue to be an issue for some biochemical cellulosic
conversion technologies, this trait could be very valuable to
refineries employing those technologies. We believe that our
ability to deliver products such as these to our customers will
facilitate adoption of dedicated energy crops over other forms
of biomass.
Suited to
Marginal Land
Our dedicated energy crops can grow in a broad range of
environments, including those not well-suited for most food
crops. For example, our sweet sorghum hybrids need substantially
less water and fertilizer than sugarcane to grow to harvestable
maturity. We are developing biotech traits that provide salt
tolerance, drought tolerance and greater nitrogen use
efficiency. We believe that by facilitating the use of marginal
land, our crops will create opportunities for landowners who
previously could not use their land as productively.
Scalable to Meet
Demand
Our energy crops are highly scalable, allowing us to match our
production with growing demand for our seeds on relatively short
notice compared to sugarcane, which can take several years to
scale up commercially. Our products are generally
seed-propagated, similar to row crops such as corn and soybean,
which makes them cost-effective to plant on a large scale using
existing seed planting equipment. Several of our products also
have shorter growing cycles and can be rapidly cultivated as
compared to other feedstocks, such as trees or sugarcane. For
example, sweet sorghum has growth cycles ranging from 90 to
140 days, while sugarcane has a 12 to 18 month growth
cycle and a more laborious planting process because it is
vegetatively propagated.
Competitive
Strengths
We believe that we possess a number of competitive strengths
that position us to become a leading provider of dedicated
energy crop seeds and traits, including:
Commercial
Products Available Today
We currently have a number of commercially available seed
products, including sweet sorghum, switchgrass and high biomass
sorghum. Our sweet sorghum hybrids have recently been
successfully planted, harvested and processed into ethanol and
power in Brazil in our first commercial-scale project. We have
received the necessary governmental variety registrations for
the sweet sorghum varieties we are marketing in Brazil for
planting in the 2011-2012 growing season. We are in active
discussions with a number of Brazilian ethanol producers for use
of our sweet sorghum seeds for the
2011-2012
growing season. Since other sugarcane-to-ethanol mills face the
same limits on production, we believe our demonstrated success
in the 2010-2011 growing season will facilitate the rapid
development of this market and enable the expansion of our
market share in Brazil and in other geographies.
Attractive
Business Model
Seed businesses traditionally incur significant research and
development expenditures and have long product development time
lines, but benefit from a combination of high gross margins, low
capital expenditure requirements and intellectual property
protection. Once developed, seeds require little physical
infrastructure or production cost to be replicated for sale.
Seeds are typically priced, however, based on a share of the
value created to the customer as opposed to their cost of
production. In general, seed costs to a grower are a relatively
small percentage of their total production cost, but the
79
performance of those seeds are critical to the growers
economics. We believe we can position our business to take
advantage of low production costs relative to the high value of
our products to our customers.
Innovative
R&D Technology Platforms
In order to maintain the strong position we have established
with our combined strengths in germplasm and field-validated
traits, we use our research and development expertise to
continually improve our product offerings. To develop higher
performing varieties and traits, we use several advanced
research and development methods, including biotechnology,
marker-assisted breeding and genomics. We believe that our
innovative integrated breeding and biotechnology approach allows
us to efficiently identify traits, effectively express these
traits in crops, and more quickly commercialize new and improved
seeds and traits for the market. We have both biotech traits and
non-biotech traits. Our biotech traits for high biomass yield,
nitrogen use efficiency, water use efficiency, drought tolerance
and altered flower development, among others, have been
successfully evaluated in the field; however, they are still
several years away from commercialization. We believe we were
one of the first companies to implement the practice of
developing biotech traits using two test species, rather than
just one, which allows us to more successfully select gene-trait
combinations that enhance commercial crops. In order to
capitalize upon our internal catalog of genetic
information as well as information in the public realm, we
developed our own proprietary software, including our Persephone
genome viewer software, which serves as an important tool for
locating, mapping and annotating genetic information in plants.
This software program was recently licensed by a major
agro-chemical company. We believe that our ability to continue
to apply our advanced research and development methods will
enable us to further enhance our proprietary germplasm and
traits portfolios going forward.
Extensive
Proprietary Portfolios of Germplasm and Traits
While many companies have developed portfolios of germplasm or
traits, we believe we are one of the only companies focused on
dedicated energy crops with large portfolios of both germplasm
and field-validated traits, which includes thousands of
specimens and breeding lines, as well as multiple pools of
regionally adapted germplasm spanning northern temperate to
tropical climates. From our field evaluations in rice of genes
selected for their ability to promote enhanced traits in
Arabidopsis, we have identified to date 35 genes and their
relatives that significantly enhance agriculturally relevant
traits. Having both germplasm and field-validated trait
portfolios allows us to leverage the synergies created by
combining the two and facilitates innovation in a way that would
not be possible with germplasm or traits alone. We have
leveraged our access to leading germplasm for sweet sorghum,
high biomass sorghum, switchgrass and miscanthus through
strategic collaborations with leading institutions and
established in-house programs. We believe new market entrants
would need to cultivate several generations of germplasm to
achieve performance equivalent to our current product portfolio,
by which time we believe we will have further evolved our
germplasm. Therefore, we believe our proprietary position would
be difficult and time-consuming to replicate. We also believe
that we have established a strong intellectual property position
in plant genes, traits and energy crop germplasm. As of
April 30, 2011, we owned or had exclusive licensed rights
to approximately 110 issued patents and approximately 200
pending patent applications in the United States and in various
foreign jurisdictions.
Management Team
with Significant Industry Experience
Our Chairman, Walter De Logi, is one of the founders of Ceres.
Dr. De Logi and Richard Hamilton, our Chief Executive
Officer, have been with Ceres for 15 and 13 years,
respectively, and have extensive experience in the field of
agricultural biotechnology. Our experienced management team
possesses a deep understanding of a variety of agricultural,
chemical and industrial biotechnology businesses, including the
seed industry, as well as our regional markets of Brazil, the
80
United States and Europe. Our management team also includes
top scientists and industry experts, some of whom have served in
leadership roles at large, multinational corporations, served on
advisory committees for the U.S. Department of Energy, led
ground-breaking research studies and published numerous
scientific articles.
Our
Strategy
Our objective is to be the leading provider of dedicated energy
crop seeds and traits to the renewable energy industry,
including first-generation biofuels such as ethanol as well as
cellulosic biofuels, biopower and bio-based chemicals by
employing the following strategies:
Expand Our
Presence in Brazil
Boa Vista/Nova Fronteira, a joint venture of leading ethanol
producers Grupo São Martinho S.A. and Petrobras Biofuels,
recently planted, harvested and processed a commercial-scale
planting of our sweet sorghum products and produced both ethanol
and power using existing agricultural equipment and processing
infrastructure. We intend to use our recent success to promote
brand awareness and expand our presence in Brazil by partnering
with additional ethanol mills and other industry participants to
conduct field trials and larger-scale commercial plantings as
well as introduce new products into the Brazilian market. We
will continue to position our seeds in the Brazilian market as a
premium brand that incorporates the latest technology in energy
crops. We are in active discussions with a number of other
Brazilian ethanol producers for use of our sweet sorghum seeds
for the
2011-2012
growing season. We believe the adoption of sweet sorghum in
Brazil can follow similar rapid adoption curves seen for other
seed and agricultural innovations such as hybrid corn in the
United States and herbicide-tolerant soybean in the Americas.
Our belief is based on the drop-in nature of our sweet sorghum
products.
Expand Strategic
Collaborations to Develop and Market Cellulosic
Biofuels
We plan to play a significant role in developing the
second-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals market, which
we believe represents a significant opportunity. Our switchgrass
and high biomass sorghum products are specifically targeted at
this market. We intend to establish new collaborations and
expand upon our current collaborations with leading cellulosic
biorefining companies, technology providers and project
developers to further validate our products across various
downstream technologies and to produce optimized feedstocks that
are tailored to meet the specifications of existing and new
refining technologies. Our products have been tested in the
respective conversion processes of several companies, including
Choren USA LLC, EdeniQ, Inc., Gruppo M&G, ICM, Inc.,
Novozymes North America, Inc., ThermoChem Recovery
International, Inc. and UOP, LLC. DDCE also plans to validate
our products in their conversion process. We have also conducted
joint trials, or sold seed to, AGCO Corporation, EdeniQ, Inc.
and Hawaii BioEnergy, LLC, among others. We recently began
collaborating with Valero Services, Inc. to further evaluate
feedstock supply strategies with dedicated energy crops.
Expand Our
Business into New Markets
We intend to market our Blade Energy Crops brand as a symbol of
quality, innovation and value across multiple biofuel, bio-based
chemicals and biopower markets in a broad range of climates and
geographies. We intend to use our large portfolios of
field-validated traits and germplasm, combined with our advanced
technology platforms, to develop products for a wide variety of
niches and seize upon future market opportunities, regardless of
the fuel or chemical molecule (e.g., ethanol, butanol,
farnesene, biogasoline, biodiesel, biocrude), biochemical (e.g.,
bioplastics, lubricants) or engine choice (e.g., all electric,
E85, E15, diesel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid).
81
Build New
Relationships and Enhance Established Collaborations in the
Global Biopower Market
Our switchgrass, high biomass sorghum and miscanthus crops can
be used in power generation generally, and in particular, for
co-firing with coal using the existing power generation
infrastructure. To date, we have engaged in field trials of our
energy crops with utility companies and independent power
producers. We intend to cultivate collaborations with new
parties, particularly those in Europe where we believe the
market opportunity for biopower is more established today and
the market need is more immediate in light of existing
government regulations. We will work with utility companies and
independent power producers to drive demand for our dedicated
energy crops in the biopower market.
Continue
Innovation and New Product Development
We are continuing to develop innovative solutions using a broad
range of technological tools, including genomics, biotechnology
and proprietary bioinformatics in order to produce crop
varieties with improved yields and other performance
characteristics. We believe we can accomplish these goals by
finding innovative ways to utilize and combine traits and
germplasm to further enhance our products. In addition, we will
continue to develop varieties of seeds to meet the specific
needs of growers in different geographic regions. For example,
we have identified traits that will help optimize results for
growers located in geographies with varying day lengths,
rainfall, temperatures and soil composition (e.g., salt,
aluminum and nitrogen).
Continue to Build
Our Intellectual Property Portfolio
We believe we have established a strong intellectual property
position in plant genes, traits and energy crop germplasm, based
on the nature, size and filing dates of our patent portfolio and
plant variety protection certificates. We believe we are one of
the few companies focused on dedicated energy crops that have
this combination of intellectual property assets. We use our
integrated technology platforms to continually improve our
products and develop innovations that will further strengthen
our intellectual property position.
Our Technology
Platforms
Our integrated technology platforms are a combination of
existing genetic assets, specifically germplasm and traits, and
competences in genomics, biotechnology and bioinformatics.
Integration of these platforms allows us to improve our existing
genetic assets as well as develop and commercialize new products
from them. This combination of assets and research and
development capability has resulted in one of the largest
licensing transactions in the agricultural biotechnology
industry, multiple competitive grants and collaborations,
including a USAID grant to develop several traits in rice and
one of the U.S. Department of Energys first ARPA-E
grants in 2009. For the year ended December 31, 2008, the
eight months ended August 31, 2009, the year ended
August 31, 2010 and the nine months ended May 31,
2011, we spent $20.3 million, $12.4 million,
$16.7 million and $13.8 million, respectively, on
research and development, with the main emphasis on traits and
breeding.
Germplasm
We believe we have access to the most comprehensive germplasm
collections for our dedicated energy crops, and have assembled a
leading germplasm portfolio for dedicated energy crops. Our
belief is based on the diversity and nature of the entries we
have and how well they are characterized, which is the method by
which different characteristics are evaluated and measured, and
cataloged. Germplasm comprises collections of parental lines and
other genetic resources representing the diversity of a crop,
the attributes of which are inherited from generation to
generation. Germplasm is a key strategic asset since it forms
the basis of plant breeding programs.
Our early entry into the energy crop industry has allowed us to
acquire access to valuable germplasm through strategic
collaborations with leading institutions. We believe our
competitors would
82
need to cultivate several generations of germplasm to achieve
performance equivalent to our current product portfolio, by
which time we will have further evolved our germplasm.
Therefore, we believe that we have a strong proprietary position
that would be difficult and time-consuming to replicate. We are
currently involved in three major germplasm development
collaborations, each with a history of successful research and
germplasm development in an energy crop. When we sell varieties
developed during such collaborations, or based on the results of
such collaborations, we will typically pay our collaborators
royalties on net sales of such varieties. Any minimum royalty
payments due to these germplasm collaborators under our license
agreements with them are currently immaterial. Aggregate upfront
license fees that have been paid or have become due to these
germplasm collaborators for the year ended August 31, 2010
and the nine months ended May 31, 2011 have not been not
material.
Switchgrass The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation,
Inc. In May 2006, we entered into an agreement
with The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., or the Noble
Foundation, a non-profit agricultural institute, for the
development and commercialization of switchgrass. This
relationship provides us access to extensive breeding
infrastructure and exclusive licenses to elite switchgrass
varieties, breeding lines and advanced cultivars. We have
entered into exclusive license agreements with the Noble
Foundation for three switchgrass varieties, which the Noble
Foundation has licensed on an exclusive basis from the
University of Georgia Research Foundation, or UGARF. Such
agreements provide that we will file for intellectual property
protection on such varieties at our expense in the joint names
of the Noble Foundation and UGARF. The term of each such
exclusive license agreement is, on a
jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction
basis, the longer of the duration of the intellectual property
rights covering the licensed variety or 15 years from the
first sale of the licensed variety in such jurisdiction.
Pursuant to such agreements, we pay the Noble Foundation a
royalty on sales, a royalty on license income if we grant
sublicenses and minimum royalties creditable against royalties
on sales. Further, pursuant to our Master Research Agreement,
the Noble Foundation has agreed to grant us an exclusive
world-wide license with the right to grant sublicenses to
exploit commercially the results of our joint collaboration
program, subject to paying the Noble Foundation a reasonable
remuneration to be negotiated in good faith.
Miscanthus Institute of Biological,
Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth
University. In April 2007, we entered into an
agreement with the Institute of Biological, Environmental, and
Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University in Wales, U.K., or
IBERS, for morphological characterization, genetic evaluation,
and the development and commercialization of miscanthus species
as an energy crop. This relationship provides us access to an
extensive scientific research infrastructure. Pursuant to our
Collaboration Agreement, IBERS has agreed to grant us an
exclusive world-wide license with the right to grant sublicenses
to exploit commercially the results of our joint collaboration
program, subject to paying IBERS a reasonable remuneration to be
negotiated in good faith, including exclusive licenses to
miscanthus germplasm, breeding lines and varieties produced by
IBERS (for which royalty rates have been agreed), except that
IBERS has a non-exclusive license in the United Kingdom to
varieties resulting from the joint program. Unless otherwise
agreed, license agreements for released varieties will be based
on a model license agreement, the duration of which will be
until the expiration of the intellectual property rights
covering the variety in a given jurisdiction, or in those
jurisdictions in which the licensed variety is sold but no such
intellectual property rights are obtained, until the tenth
anniversary of the first sale of such variety in such
jurisdiction. To date, we have not entered into any specific
license agreements with IBERS.
Sorghum Texas A&M
University. In August 2007, we entered into an
agreement with The Texas A&M University System, or Texas
A&M, for the development and commercialization of high
biomass sorghum, sweet sorghum and selected related crops as
energy crops, together with the discovery of molecular markers
for certain traits. This relationship provides us with access to
a highly regarded sorghum breeding program and the extensive
sorghum genetics, breeding and genomics infrastructure of Texas
A&M. This agreement provides exclusive options and licenses
to elite sorghum breeding lines, parental lines, advanced
hybrids and genomic markers. We have entered into two
83
exclusive world-wide license agreement with Texas A&M for
sorghum lines. The terms of such exclusive license agreements
provide that the licenses expire on a
country-by-country
basis upon the expiration of all registered or patented
intellectual property rights of Texas A&M covering the
licensed line. Pursuant to such agreements, we pay Texas
A&M an upfront license fee, a royalty on sales of varieties
developed using the licensed line at a rate that decreases when
the licensed line is combined with lines from other sources to
develop a variety, a royalty on license income if we grant
sublicenses and minimum royalties creditable against royalties
on sales. We also bear reasonable expenses for intellectual
property protection. Further, pursuant to our Sponsored Research
Agreement and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, we have an
option to obtain an exclusive world-wide commercial license with
the right to grant sublicenses to the inventions and sorghum
lines resulting from our sponsored program.
Our
Traits
We are able to further improve the quality of our future product
offerings by adding our proprietary traits to our germplasm
collections. This can provide additional yield increases,
greater water use efficiency, increased nitrogen use efficiency,
salt tolerance, enhanced biomass-to-sugar conversion profiles
and other improved characteristics. We believe, and our results
have confirmed, that our integrated breeding and biotechnology
approach allows us to efficiently identify traits, effectively
express these traits in crops and more quickly commercialize new
and improved seeds and traits for the market. We target traits
with the greatest commercial potential in energy crops. We
believe these traits will enable the bioenergy industry to scale
more rapidly, by improving production and delivery economics,
making greater use of marginal land, providing greater yield
stability and increasing energy yield per acre.
We have both genetically engineered traits, or biotech traits,
and non-biotech traits. In some instances, a gene introduced
through biotechnology may confer more than one beneficial trait,
such as salt tolerance and drought tolerance, or increased
biomass yields through greater nitrogen use efficiency. Our
strategy is to focus on genes and gene stacks that have shown
large, step increases in performance, and whose benefits are
largely maintained across multiple species.
Biotechnology allows us to precisely add traits not readily
feasible through conventional breeding methods. In many cases,
the same trait can be added to multiple crops with similar
effect. For example, our genomics capabilities and proprietary
gene expression system have enabled us to expand from single
genes and traits to groups of genes and traits, or stacks. We
also have control over how, when and where genes are expressed
in plants. This system includes using recombinant DNA, cell
culture, and related technology as well as gene transfer systems
needed to create plants with biotech traits and optimized
gene-trait combinations identified by our trait pipeline.
To develop biotech traits, we have utilized a novel research and
development methodology. Similar to other companies, we use test
or model plant systems to speed discoveries and reduce risk and
technical uncertainty in the development of biotech traits. This
includes evaluating gene function, regulation, interaction and
potential usefulness. However, we typically utilize two test
species, rather than just one, as is more customary in the
industry. Our test or model plants represent the two principal
evolutionary branches of flowering plants commonly known as
dicots and monocots. This two-species approach allows us to more
successfully select gene-trait combinations which enhance
commercial crops. The small, fast-growing test plant called
Arabidopsis is our model dicot, and rice is our model monocot.
Rice is a grass species and a close relative of energy grasses.
Our evaluations in Arabidopsis are completed at our headquarters
in Thousand Oaks, California. Our high-throughput field
evaluations of rice are conducted in China by the Institute of
Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
or ICS. Pursuant to our Collaboration Agreement for rice, ICS
performs transformation of rice with our genes, evaluates the
transformed rice plants in the field according to detailed
protocols, and reports results and observations to us. We own
all results and intellectual property resulting from such
activities. We pay ICS for the services pursuant to an agreed
upon budget. The program is due to expire on November 14,
2012. We believe, and our results have
84
confirmed, that by selecting genes that perform similarly in
both our model plant species, we can readily identify superior
genes among thousands of candidates. We believe that, given the
large evolutionary distance between our model species, genes
that function similarly in both will likely have application in
a broad range of flowering crop plants. We have also identified
superior genes by utilizing rice and Arabidopsis alone.
We also intend to stack gene-trait combinations, such as those
conferring greater nitrogen or water use efficiency, together to
amplify the benefits. We describe the combination of such
complementary genes as synergistic trait stacks.
This differs from many current approaches which produce
incremental yield increases through the introduction of a single
novel gene.
The commercial development of biotech traits in commercial crops
is a multi-year process. Following transformation, when the
optimized gene is inserted in a target crop, the resulting
plants are evaluated in the greenhouse for one to two years, and
then in the field to confirm results for two to four years.
Following field trials, specific gene-trait combinations are
selected and submitted for regulatory approval, or deregulation,
a process that has historically taken one to three years in
the United States and Brazil. Assuming these averages, we
believe that we could introduce our first biotech trait or
traits to the market in 2016 at the earliest.
We intend to price our traits based on the added value they
create, which can vary by crop and geography. For our biotech
traits, we are considering various pricing models, including
separate annual trait fees per acre as well as blended seed and
trait prices. For our commercial Skyscraper trait, a per-bag
trait fee is included in the seed price. In row crops, we have
licensed and intend to license our traits to existing market
participants. These licensing agreements are expected to vary by
crop, geography, the nature and economic benefit of the trait,
and how well advanced the trait is within our pipeline. Future
payments to us may be based on a percentage of sales or other
performance metrics or milestones.
The following traits have been commercialized or are at various
stages of development in our trait development pipeline.
Individual commercialization timelines vary based on results of
evaluations and the de-regulation or approval process.
Skyscraper is a non-biotech trait and the remainder of the
traits discussed below are biotech traits.
Skyscraper
Skyscraper is a commercial trait that provides a significant
increase in biomass yields and is included in our proprietary
high biomass hybrids ES 5200 and ES 5201. Developed through our
collaboration with Texas A&M University, the Skyscraper
trait delays flowering and extends the growth phase of the
sorghum plants lifecycle. Plants with the Skyscraper trait
put more of their energy into growing rather than reproducing
(making seeds). Since Skyscraper was identified and developed
using molecular marker technology, we have been able to rapidly
incorporate it into our elite breeding lines.
High
Biomass
We have a number of genes that have been shown to substantially
increase biomass growth per plant. We are currently
field-trialing four of these genes in switchgrass in four states
in the United States. Second-year results have shown significant
yield increases over experimental control plants. We plan to
field test these genes in miscanthus and sorghum and then breed
them into elite varieties. We are also creating synergistic
trait stacks with these genes with the goal of achieving even
greater biomass yields per plant. Yield per acre can also be
increased through higher plant populations per acre. We are
evaluating biotech traits that make plants grow more upright,
allowing greater light capture at higher densities. We
anticipate that this trait could allow growers to greatly
increase the number of plants they sow per acre.
85
Nitrogen Use
Efficiency
We have genes that increase biomass under normal and reduced
nitrogen fertilizer conditions. In field trials, we have
recorded steady yields on significantly less nitrogen fertilizer
than normally used. In addition to greater efficiency in terms
of tons of biomass per unit of nitrogen, reducing nitrogen
fertilizer inputs would reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
increase lifecycle energy ratios, reduce run-offs and water
pollution, and lower production costs. We are currently
field-testing four nitrogen use efficiency genes in switchgrass
in four states in the United States. We also plan to field test
these genes in miscanthus and sorghum. We are also developing
synergistic trait stacks with these genes with the goal of
increasing efficiency and yields.
Water Use
Efficiency and Drought Tolerance
We have several genes that allow plants to use water more
efficiently
and/or
recover from water deficits more readily. We are currently
field-testing water use efficiency and drought tolerance genes
in switchgrass that have resulted in the production of steady
yields on less water in greenhouse tests. In addition to
producing more tons of biomass per unit of water, we believe
that in seasons of intermittent drought, this trait could
provide greater yield stability for rain-fed crops as well as
expand the geographic range where economic yields can be
obtained.
Salt
Tolerance
We have genes that have been shown in our greenhouse to provide
tolerance and enhanced recovery to both acute and prolonged salt
stress. If results are confirmed in the field, we believe that
this trait could return salt-damaged acres to productivity and
open more marginal land to bioenergy production. We also believe
that salt tolerance is complementary to drought tolerance since
salt stress tends to induce drought symptoms in plants. We are
currently evaluating these and other salt tolerance genes in
energy crops and rice in the greenhouse.
Aluminum
Tolerance
We are developing genes that allow plants to withstand toxic
levels of aluminum in the soil, a consequence of highly acidic
soils, such as those found in Brazil. We believe that this trait
could bring high aluminum soils into cultivation and open more
marginal land to bioenergy production. We are currently
evaluating these genes in multiple crops in the greenhouse.
Enhanced
Conversion of Biomass to Fermentable Sugars
We have developed genes that enable multi-fold decreases in the
cellulase enzyme cocktails required to release fermentable
sugars from plant biomass. Reducing the recalcitrance of biomass
to conversion could significantly reduce enzyme costs in certain
biochemical conversion processes, and could further reduce both
capital and operating costs for the biorefinery. For instance, a
more easily converted feedstock would impact installation costs
for biorefineries since smaller holding tanks would be required
for a given capacity. We believe therefore that this trait could
be a key enabler of the large-scale use of biochemical processes
and fermentation to produce biofuels and bio-based chemicals
from cellulosic biomass.
Altered Flower
Development
We are pursuing multiple approaches to regulate flower
development for the purpose of increasing biomass and sugar
accumulation, as well as rendering plants resistant to fungal
diseases that infect flowers. Similar to the impact of our
Skyscraper trait, preventing flowering or reproduction allows
plants to put more of their energy into biomass growth. We are
currently field-testing genes that impact different aspects of
flowering, pollen production and seed development. We believe
that by creating synergistic stacks of these traits we can
amplify such effects. In addition, when stacked with our other
traits, we believe these genes provide a stewardship advantage.
In the unlikely event of an
86
unintended outcross of a biotech trait to a wild plant, for
instance, the presence of a stack that included genes that
disrupt floral development and reproduction should put the
resulting plant at a severe reproductive disadvantage, thereby
limiting the spread of unintended progeny plants.
Research and
Development Programs
In order to maintain the lead we have established through our
combination of superior germplasm and field-validated traits, we
have developed research and development expertise that we
believe will allow us to continue to improve our offerings over
time. Our research and development investments have been
significant, amounting to $19.2 million,
$20.3 million, $12.4 million and $16.7 million in
the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31,
2008, the eight months ended August 31, 2009 and the year
ended August 31, 2010, respectively, and $12.6 million
and $13.8 million for the nine months ended May 31,
2010 and 2011, respectively. To develop higher performing seeds
and traits, we deploy a variety of research and development
methods and tools, including genomics, conventional and
marker-assisted breeding, agronomy and other genomics-based
technologies.
Genomics
Plant genomics involves the large-scale, simultaneous study of
large numbers of genes, their effects and their interactions.
One of our strengths in genomics involves our ability to
organize the genetic data we amass into actionable information
via proprietary relational databases, software and algorithms.
We believe that both our technological capabilities and
proprietary knowledge base in this area are highly advanced, and
their application to both our breeding program, through the
development of trait-linked molecular markers, and our trait
development program provides us a substantial competitive
advantage.
In general, we have focused our research efforts on determining
gene function, gene regulation and finding which genes enhance
desirable traits. In addition to identifying novel gene-trait
combinations, our genomics tools allow us to work with large
groups of genes and complex biological processes controlled by
multiple genes. To date, we have sequenced more than 100,000
full-length copies of DNA, called cDNA, from a variety of plant
species. We have also identified and characterized hundreds of
promoters that can be important for achieving the optimum
expression of traits. We believe we are one of the few companies
focused on dedicated energy crops with large portfolios of both
germplasm and field-validated traits. Having both germplasm and
trait portfolios allows us to leverage the synergies created by
combining the two and facilitates innovation in a way that would
not be possible with germplasm or traits alone.
Conventional and
Marker-Assisted Breeding
Plant breeding is the act of bringing together specific parent
plants to produce a new offspring plant. This
cross, as plant breeders call it, creates a new
plant that will contain a mixture of the characteristics of its
parents. The offspring are tested under various conditions to
determine which has the superior combination of desired
attributes. Further improvements are made by mating and
continuing selection of superior parents and offspring through
additional generations. Plant breeding allows researchers to
identify plants with the most favorable combination of desired
characteristics to serve as both parental lines and products.
In addition to conventional plant breeding, we believe that our
genomics expertise makes the identification of proprietary
molecular markers more direct and more comprehensive, which
allows us to select key crop characteristics more rapidly and
accurately than conventional plant breeding alone.
Marker-assisted breeding integrates molecular biology and
information systems with plant breeding to identify important
genetic sequences and flags them so that they can be readily
found in seeds or plant tissue at any stage of plant
development. This platform allows us to track and select the
most effective combination of genes, increase the number of
progenies and breeding lines created at early
87
stages in the breeding program, cull them using marker-based
selection and, hence, make greater gains per breeding cycle.
Markers are especially useful when seeking to combine multiple
non-biotech traits into elite commercial lines.
We have developed thousands of SNP-based (single nucleotide
polymorphism) molecular markers, which allow us to differentiate
individual plants based on variations detected at the level of a
single nucleotide base in the genome. SNPs allow us to automate
many processes and are especially useful for hybrid breeding
systems. Most importantly, we precisely map these SNPs onto the
chromosomes of switchgrass, sorghum and miscanthus, and then
link them to important traits by genetic analyses and then
deploy them in our breeding programs using proprietary
computational biology software systems. Furthermore, when an
important gene is developed in one crop, we can often find the
equivalent gene in another related crop using our genomics and
molecular marker platforms to gain breeding advantages across
crops.
Agronomy
The performance of plant varieties and traits is influenced by
the growing environment, which includes climate, day length,
soil quality, pests, length of the growing season and crop
management practices. We have established what we believe is one
of the industrys largest network of field trials for
energy grasses, based on the number of trials and geographic
diversity. Extending across numerous hardiness zones and
regions, including Europe, the Americas and Asia, this network
provides regional performance data and market fit information to
support our research and commercialization efforts.
88
Our Current
Products
We believe that a portfolio of energy crops will be required to
produce biofuel, biopower and bio-based chemicals at greater
scale than today. The mix of crops will be heavily dependent
upon geographic and climatic considerations, soil quality,
storage characteristics and harvest timing, among other
considerations.
The following table summarizes our current products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial
|
|
|
|
Crop
|
|
|
Status
|
|
|
Seed Varieties
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Key Advantages
|
Sweet Sorghum
|
|
|
Commercial
Ready
(2011-2012)
|
|
|
5 products
registered*
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
Season extension; fast growing; quick scale up; low water usage
|
High Biomass
Sorghum
|
|
|
Commercial
(2009)
|
|
|
ES 5200 with Skyscraper
ES 5201 with Skyscraper ES 5140 ES 5150 ES 5155
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
High yields; fast growing;
low water usage
|
Switchgrass
|
|
|
Commercial
(2009)
|
|
|
EG 1101
EG 1102
EG 2101
|
|
|
U.S. and
Europe
|
|
|
High yields; low water usage; perennial crop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
We selected five varieties for
registration among more than ten varieties in our registration
trials based on anticipated customer demand.
|
In addition, we have seed-propagated varieties of miscanthus
under development as detailed in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial
|
|
|
|
Crop
|
|
|
Status
|
|
|
Seed Varieties
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Key Advantages
|
Miscanthus
|
|
|
Under
development
|
|
|
Seed-propagated
varieties under
development
|
|
|
U.S. and
Europe
|
|
|
High yields; highly efficient, perennial crop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89
The following table summarizes our lead biotech traits under
development:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial
|
|
|
|
Target Crop
|
|
|
Traits
|
|
|
Status
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Field Evaluations
|
Sweet Sorghum
|
|
|
High soluble sugars; high
biomass/NUE+,
WUE+,
aluminum tolerance and insect resistance
|
|
|
Under
development
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
Greenhouse evaluations under way in 2011 in the U.S. We plan to
apply for field evaluation permits for some traits in the U.S.
and Brazil following the expected completion of greenhouse
evaluations in 2012
|
High Biomass Sorghum
|
|
|
High
biomass/NUE+,
WUE+,
enhanced biochemical conversion of biomass
|
|
|
Under
development
|
|
|
U.S. and
Brazil
|
|
|
Field evaluations to follow field validation in sweet sorghum
|
Switchgrass
|
|
|
High
biomass/NUE+,
WUE+,
enhanced biochemical conversion of biomass
|
|
|
Under
development
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Field evaluation permits granted in the U.S. Field validation
ongoing in AZ, GA, TN and TX for high
biomass/NUE+,
WUE+, and to begin in 2011 (in TX) for conversion
|
Miscanthus
|
|
|
High
biomass/NUE+
|
|
|
Under
development
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Field evaluation scheduled for 2011 in U.S.; permits for field
validation in AZ, GA, TN and TX pending
|
Row Crops
|
|
|
High grain yield,
NUE+
|
|
|
Under
development
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Greenhouse evaluations under way in 2011 and field observations
scheduled for 2011 and 2012, in China.
|
Rice
|
|
|
High grain yield,
NUE+,
WUE+,
salt tolerance
|
|
|
Under
development
|
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
Field evaluations under way in 2011 in China, and scheduled for
India in 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
NUE = nitrogen use efficiency; WUE
= water use efficiency
|
Sweet
Sorghum
Sweet sorghum is a type of sorghum that accumulates free sugars
in its stalk much like sugarcane. It is sown by seed, grows
faster than sugarcane, and typically requires substantially less
water and nitrogen fertilizer than sugarcane to grow to
harvestable maturity. Sweet sorghum plants can be harvested in
90 to 140 days after sowing compared to 12 to
18 months for sugarcane. Because sweet sorghum is an annual
crop, multiple harvests or crop rotations may be possible during
the season compared to sugarcane, a perennial crop. This
flexibility allows mill operators to use existing land more
efficiently. In general, yields of fermentable sugars from
improved sweet sorghum hybrids are comparable to sugarcane
during our targeted harvesting period; however, the sugary juice
is not well-suited to crystalline table sugar production today.
We believe that, based on our internal results and data from
Brazils Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e
Abastecimento, sweet sorghum yields in Brazil can range from 25
to 100 wet metric tons per hectare with sugar content, or juice
Brix values, from 10% to 20% today. This compares to typical
values for sugarcane of 50 to 90 wet tons per hectare on
average, and juice Brix values ranging from 14% to over 20%.
90
In Brazil, sweet sorghum can be planted from October through
January, and harvested from February to May, or later if
conditions permit. This complements sugarcane, which is grown
year-round, but harvested from April to December depending on
weather and market conditions. In practice, sweet sorghum juice
is extracted through crushing in existing sugarcane equipment,
and then fermented to fuel. The leftover biomass, called
bagasse, is combusted for biopower like sugarcane bagasse.
Because sweet sorghum plants mature more quickly than sugarcane,
and reach optimal sugar levels at different times of the year,
existing
sugar-to-ethanol
mills can extend their operational season through the use of our
sweet sorghum product by approximately 60 days. We also
believe that sweet sorghum will facilitate the geographic
expansion of sugar-based ethanol production into areas where
sugarcane is not well adapted; for instance, where there is
insufficient rainfall for sugarcane. Sweet sorghum is also
advantageous during the scale up of new facilities because its
seeds can be planted quickly and it has a shorter growing cycle
than sugarcane. In contrast, sugarcane requires a laborious
process to plant cuttings and, due to a low multiplication
factor, typically requires years to provide sufficient feedstock
for a mill to operate at full capacity. Therefore, we believe
that sweet sorghum can enable new or expanded mill facilities to
avoid long lead times or operate at their designed capacity
during their first few years of operation.
Historically, sweet sorghum has received less improvement
through modern breeding or biotechnology compared to commodity
crops such as corn or soybean. Existing varieties were not
developed for bioenergy, and generally have
low-to-moderate
sugar levels, are slower growing and have lower biomass than
high biomass types. We are developing a number of improved sweet
sorghum hybrids with high sugar content for immediate use in
both existing markets in Brazil as well as new markets in the
United States and elsewhere. In Brazil, we established agronomy
trials throughout major ethanol production areas with mills,
including ADM do Brasil Ltda., Usina Rio Pardo S.A. and Boa
Vista/Nova Fronteira, a joint venture of Grupo São Martinho
S.A. and Petrobras Biofuels. Most notably, Boa Vista/Nova
Fronteira recently planted, harvested and processed a
large-scale planting of our sweet sorghum products, and produced
both ethanol and power. These trials help us identify the best
varieties and traits for different local conditions. They also
allow us to better understand how different cultivation
practices impact harvest, transportation and processing
parameters. Based on the results of these trials, we have
selected our best performing seed varieties for sale during the
2011-2012
season in Brazil.
Concurrently, we are developing, through marker-assisted
breeding and biotechnology, a succession of improved hybrids and
traits that offer producers increased yields, better pest
management and greater tolerance to environmental stress, among
other features. Since sweet sorghum is a fast-growing annual
crop, with multiple breeding cycles possible each year, we
believe that product development cycles will outpace
improvements that can be made in sugarcane. It is much more
efficient to breed sweet sorghum varieties and hybrids than
commercial sugarcane varieties and hybrids, which suffer from
chromosomal instability and other factors that slow the pace and
increase the complexity of making improvements through plant
breeding and biotechnology.
High Biomass
Sorghum
High biomass sorghum is a type of sorghum which is primarily
developed for enhanced biomass yield potential as opposed to
sugar content. As such, high biomass sorghum is ideally suited
for the generation of renewable electric power and the creation
of cellulosic biofuels. Like other types of sorghum, high
biomass types are seed propagated, and generally require less
water and nitrogen fertilizer than corn. As an annual crop,
sorghum is harvested the year it is planted. This provides
bioenergy facilities with a quick growing and flexible source of
biomass, and a complementary feedstock to perennials, such as
sugarcane, which may require 12 to 18 months before the
first harvest, or switchgrass, which may require 12 to
24 months before the first harvest.
In 2009, we introduced our ES 5200 and ES 5201 products that
contain our Skyscraper trait. These hybrids, developed through
our partnership with Texas A&M University, are designed for
single-cut production systems that endeavor to maximize
per-acre
yields while minimizing crop input and management expenditures.
Using marker-assisted breeding, we expect to develop and
commercialize
91
sorghum hybrids that offer additional increases in biomass. We
are also developing hybrids with biotech traits that offer
increased yield, greater tolerance to environmental stress and
enhanced processing characteristics. We expect to field trial
our nitrogen use efficiency and high biomass biotech traits in
sorghum under our ARPA-E grant project in 2012.
Switchgrass
Switchgrass is a perennial grass indigenous to North America
that tolerates a wide range of environmental conditions and
offers high biomass yield potential compared to many other
perennial grasses and crop plants. It generally requires
substantially less water and nitrogen fertilizer than corn, and
can grow under semi-arid conditions. Like sorghum, switchgrass
is seed propagated. As a perennial, switchgrass is generally not
harvested for sale during the first year when the crop is being
established. A properly managed stand of switchgrass may persist
for a decade. However, we believe that producers will likely
choose to upgrade to a new variety in approximately 5 to
7 years as new generations of switchgrass seeds with even
higher yields or more desirable characteristics become available.
From 2009 to 2010, we introduced three proprietary products: EG
1101, EG 1102 and EG 2101. These high-yielding varieties,
developed through our partnership with The Samuel Roberts Noble
Foundation, Inc., have demonstrated higher biomass yields on
average over comparable varieties depending on the variety and
trial location. EG 1101 and EG 1102 have also shown improved
establishment characteristics and better disease resistance when
compared to the next best public varieties. Since switchgrass
has been subjected to fewer breeding efforts than most commodity
crops, we believe that rapid and significant improvements can be
made through advanced plant breeding and biotechnology. Current
yield increases observed in our breeding program support this
view. We plan to introduce a succession of enhancements to our
product portfolio, including additional increases in biomass
yield and other agronomic and compositional improvements. We are
currently field-testing biotech traits that improve nitrogen use
efficiency and biomass yields. We are also field-testing
drought-tolerance traits and traits that regulate floral
development. We believe that switchgrass revenue will ultimately
consist of both seed sales as well as annual trait fees.
Miscanthus
Miscanthus x giganteus is a tall perennial grass that grows well
in cooler climates. Unlike switchgrass and sorghum, it is
vegetatively propagated. It has been used as an energy crop on a
small scale across Europe for two decades. The Miscanthus genus
includes several perennial species that have potential as
dedicated energy crops. The variety adopted in the United States
and Europe to date, miscanthus x giganteus, is a sterile hybrid
of M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus. While
biomass yields for this variety may exceed those of switchgrass
within its region of adaptation, we estimate that, due to its
vegetative propagation system, very large-scale production is
not commercially feasible at this time since establishment costs
are as much as 10 times higher than seed-sown switchgrass or
sorghum.
In general, this miscanthus hybrid requires about the same water
as corn, but up to two-thirds less nitrogen depending on crop
management practices. As a perennial crop, miscanthus is
generally not harvested for sale during the first year when the
crop is being established. The focus of our work in miscanthus
is to develop seed-propagated varieties that have the same
high-yielding attributes of giant miscanthus, yet with
establishment costs more comparable to other energy crops. We
are also working on extending the region of adaptation. To these
ends, we are collaborating with the Institute of Biological,
Environmental, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University in
Wales, U.K. Under this collaboration, we have characterized
miscanthus accessions across the native range of these species.
These accessions are currently under evaluation for plant
performance in multiple locations. The highest performing lines
have been entered into our breeding program. As with
switchgrass, we believe that continued germplasm improvement
through marker-assisted breeding will increase biomass yield,
bioenergy conversion yield and agronomic performance. We are
also developing
92
miscanthus with biotech traits that have been validated in
switchgrass, rice and a model test plant. We are establishing
field trials of our nitrogen use efficiency and high biomass
traits in miscanthus in four states under our ARPA-E grant
project, and also a joint U.S. Department of Energy and
U.S. Department of Agriculture Biomass R&D Initiative,
or BRDI, grant.
Row
Crops
Due to the conservation across species of mechanisms underlying
traits, other crops can benefit from many of the biotech traits
developed for energy crops. This provides us with an additional
outlet for our technology and genes, and mitigates the cost and
risk of trait development. By combining these genes into a
series of stacks, which can amplify the effects, we believe we
may be able to make gains in the productivity in many row crops,
such as corn, soybean, rice and wheat. Given the number of
entrenched competitors in these markets and the high barriers to
entry, we have chosen to be a technology provider or a trait
provider to companies in this sector, rather than a direct
producer of seeds.
We have already generated many biotech traits specifically for
cereal crops such as rice that increase grain yields and provide
greater yield stability across environments. We have genes that
increase the number of seeds in a panicle (flower head),
increase the filling of the seeds, and increase the seed yield
per unit shoot mass (harvest index). Some of these have
demonstrated double-digit yield increases, relative to average
annual yield improvements for grain of approximately 1% as
reported by Economic Botany. We also have a number of genes that
make rice plants early flowering and smaller, or later flowering
and larger. These flowering-time genes can increase grain yields
as well. Flowering-time traits are important for rice breeders
since growing season lengths vary widely among different rice
cultivation regions. We have also identified genes in rice that
reduce lodging, or the bending or breaking of the stalk, and
provide more efficient hybrid production systems. We are moving
these and other traits into commercial rice varieties and plan
to trial them in multiple locations in Asia this year.
Seed Production
and Operations
Seed companies typically develop and produce three types of
commercial seed and plant lines: inbred, open-pollinated and
hybrid. Inbred lines maintain the characteristics indigenous to
the specific parent line over many generations. Open-pollinated
products are reproduced from a group of plants. These are often
populations of plants that are significantly different and vary
over generations. Hybrid seeds, called the F1 generation, are
the first-generation progeny of two different and distinct
parental lines. These seeds often possess the hereditary
characteristics of the parent lines as well as enhanced
performance characteristics over the parent lines due to a
genetic phenomenon called hybrid vigor. However,
subsequent generations from hybrid seeds will not inherit
equivalent enhanced performance characteristics of the hybrid F1
seed. Therefore, growers of hybrid crops generally purchase new
seed from seed companies for each new planting.
The production of commercial-scale quantities of seeds requires
the multiplication of seeds through a succession of plantings
and seed harvests, and if the product is a hybrid, it is
produced from parent lines that are mated under controlled
conditions to produce commercial hybrid seeds. For perennials,
like switchgrass, an established stand can produce saleable seed
for multiple years. Annual seed crops like sorghum are planted
for each seed harvest. In our experience, one acre of sorghum
seed production has yielded saleable seed for 500 acres of
commercial production, depending on the hybrid parents, and
growing conditions. In our experience, one acre of switchgrass
seed production has yielded saleable seed to plant approximately
80 acres of commercial production, depending on the variety
and growing conditions. We are developing ways to increase seed
yields and enhance seed quality, and have already made
significant gains. In addition, in switchgrass, we have
developed agronomic practices that allow us to harvest seed
during the same planting year, thus making it possible to
produce seed up to 12 months sooner than with common
production techniques.
93
We believe that these improvements provide us with a competitive
advantage in terms of both quality and also lower costs per unit
than other seed and vegetative propagation systems.
We produce commercial seed either on leased land managed by us
or with contract seed producers. Our current production sites
are located in the United States and Puerto Rico as well as
Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. Seed production sites in both the
northern and southern hemispheres allow us to schedule planting
on a year round basis and reduce inventory requirements. This
capability also enables us to scale up inventory to meet demand
for a new product in the opposing hemisphere. During the season,
we inspect seed fields for quality and anticipated seed yields.
When ready, seeds are harvested using specialized techniques,
cleaned, quality tested and packaged prior to sale to the
customer. Healthy seed can remain saleable for several years if
stored under optimal conditions.
In 2009, we purchased a 46,000 sq. ft. facility on a 32-acre
parcel in Amarillo, Texas to serve as a seed warehouse and order
fulfillment center. This site is used to receive, condition,
treat, package, and warehouse our high biomass sorghum,
switchgrass and sweet sorghum seed grown in the northern
hemisphere. The capacity of this site is 200 to 250 units
per hour of sweet sorghum or high biomass sorghum seed. This
translates into more than 2,000 acre sales per hour or more
than 80,000 acre sales of sweet sorghum or high biomass
sorghum per weekly shift. Switchgrass capacity is 50 to
100 units per hour. This translates into more than
500 acre sales per hour or more than 20,000 acre sales
of switchgrass per weekly shift. The seasonality of the seed
business would allow the plant to operate at those capacities
about six months a year. We currently warehouse and process
300,000 pounds of seed annually which is currently made up of
50% switchgrass, 35% high biomass sorghum and 15% sweet sorghum.
We anticipate that we will be able to warehouse and process up
to 10 million pounds of seed annually at this facility.
Due to the scalability described above, 300,000 pounds of
switchgrass can plant approximately 50,000 to 60,000 acres
of commercial switchgrass and 10,000,000 pounds of switchgrass
can plant 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 acres of commercial
switchgrass. For sorghum, those quantities of seed can plant
approximately the same number of acres. As our seed sales
increase, we believe we can rely on relationships with several
providers who are capable of supplying additional quantities of
seed based on market projections.
In Brazil, we have contracted with farmers to produce our seeds
on irrigated acres. In addition, we are working with several
third parties who have complete production and packaging
capabilities to complement our own production capabilities. All
of these seeds will be processed, packaged and warehoused by
third parties who are experienced in these functions. This
method of production is able to supply enough seeds to plant up
to 250,000 hectares of commercial sweet sorghum. In the event we
are able to generate orders in this range, we will plan to
invest in our own facilities to be able to handle production
amounts capable of planting 2,000,000 or more hectares of
commercial sweet sorghum.
Sales and
Marketing
We market our seed varieties and traits under the trade name
Blade Energy Crops, or Blade. We are positioning Blade in the
marketplace as a premium brand that represents the latest
technology in energy crops. As a result, we price our
proprietary products based on their added value, and not on
production costs. Our seed prices are determined based on a
series of complex considerations, including the best alternative
use of land and perceived added value to growers and mill
owners. Our pricing philosophy is to share a portion of the
added value we create with our customers.
To gain greater brand awareness, we actively promote our
products, capabilities and brand to the bioenergy and
agricultural industries. In the United States, in addition to
our direct relationship with bioenergy companies and project
developers, we take a leading role in teaching the grower
community about energy crops and related agronomic systems
through the publication of crop
94
management guides, speaking roles at industry events, trade show
displays and local-level grower meetings. We also use these
opportunities to build brand awareness and loyalty.
We sell and distribute our seed products directly to our
customers, which include ethanol mills, utilities, independent
power producers, cellulosic biofuel companies, individual
growers and grower cooperatives. We also work with technology
providers and other industry participants such as equipment
manufacturers, enzyme or fermentation technology companies, to
encourage the use of our products. We believe that, compared to
the corn or soybean seed industry, our sales force can be
significantly smaller due to the more consolidated nature and
more vertically integrated business models of the bioenergy
industry.
We are building our customer base primarily by forming
collaborations with biorefineries, power generators and biomass
users at their existing, planned and future facility locations.
We are in active discussions with a number of Brazilian ethanol
producers for the
2011-2012
season in Brazil. The expected price range for our sweet sorghum
seed in the Brazilian market is between $100 to $150 per
hectare. In the United States, our seed sales to date have been
driven primarily by pilot and demonstration-scale projects with
advanced biofuel and biopower companies as well as growers and
grower associations. Typically these multi-year collaborations
include agronomy trials, harvest and handling evaluations, test
conversions or burns, and various post-harvest assays. We
conduct similar activities in Europe, although to a lesser
extent than in the United States or Brazil at this time. In
addition to informing our market development and research
efforts, these trials allow participants in the value chain to
gain confidence with the yields and other performance
characteristics they should expect to see from our products.
Given the emerging nature of energy crop production and the lack
of publicly available energy crop data for many potential
growing regions, we believe that our expertise in feedstock
performance and production practices across many growing
regions, combined with our extensive relationships throughout
the bioenergy value chain, is a key competitive advantage.
In Brazil, we market and expect to sell our sweet sorghum
products directly to ethanol mills, rather than to growers,
which is the prevailing practice in the seed industry, as mill
operators typically manage all major aspects of feedstock
selection and production. Given the close-knit nature of the
ethanol industry in Brazil, we believe that successful trials
with several large mills will encourage other operators to
evaluate and adopt our sweet sorghum products. We have completed
trials with a number of large mill operators, including ADM do
Brasil Ltda., Usina Rio Pardo S.A. and Boa Vista/Nova Fronteira,
a joint venture of Grupo São Martinho S.A. and Petrobras
Biofuels. We also have collaborations with international
companies active in Brazil, including Amyris Biotechnologies,
Inc. and Novozymes North America, Inc.
In the biopower market, our current activities encompass field
trials, test burns and sales of commercial seed to project
developers and growers who sell or intend to sell biomass to
power plants or pellet mills. In the United States, we have
worked on a trial basis with major utilities and large
industrial producers of heat and power. We are also helping
European utilities identify U.S. suppliers of biomass
produced from our dedicated energy crops.
In Europe, we are also working with local institutions to build
brand recognition and to advance our research, especially in
miscanthus, through our collaboration with the Institute of
Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth
University, or IBERS. Specifically, we are developing miscanthus
crops through a research and development program that
incorporates trials for germplasm covering hot, dry climates in
the south through the colder, more northerly areas. This
strategy is based on both scientific research and potential
business opportunities. In addition to our collaboration with
IBERS, we are a member of the Sustainable Bioenergy Centre of
the UKs Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council (BBSRC).
Our activities in cellulosic biofuels encompass a wide range of
activities including field trials, co-evolution agreements, and
commercial sales. Our products have been tested in the
respective conversion processes of EdeniQ, Inc., Choren USA LLC,
Europe-based Gruppo M&G, ICM, Inc., and UOP, LLC (a
Honeywell company), among others. DDCE also plans to validate
our products in their
95
conversion process. We have also conducted joint trials with, or
sold seed to, AGCO Corporation, EdeniQ, Inc. and Hawaii
BioEnergy, LLC, among others. We recently began a collaboration
with Valero Services, Inc. to further evaluate feedstock supply
strategies with dedicated energy crops. We also work with
refining technology companies to optimize feedstock for their
refining processes. These collaborators include Novozymes North
America, Inc. and ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc.
For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010, Campbell Soup
Company, USAID and ARPA-E represented 28.5%, 13.5% and 12.7% of
our revenues, respectively. For the nine months ended
May 31, 2011, Campbell Soup Company, Amyris
Biotechnologies, Inc., USAID and ARPA-E represented 25.9%,
18.2%, 16.4% and 19.9% of our revenues, respectively.
Major Research
Collaborations
Monsanto
Company
In April 2002, we entered into a multi-year discovery and
development collaboration with Monsanto Company focused on
applying genomics technologies to identify genes that provide
improvements in corn, soybean and certain other row crops.
Pursuant to this agreement, Monsanto licensed rights to a
portion of our trait discovery pipeline in certain row crops in
exchange for license payments over several years. Monsanto also
funded a research program with us, which was completed in 2007.
The term of this agreement continues for the life of the last
patent licensed pursuant to the agreement. The licenses granted
to Monsanto are royalty-bearing, subject to patent protection.
The intellectual property rights on inventions conceived by us
pursuant to the collaboration vest in us and Monsanto has
certain exclusive and non-exclusive licenses to the results of
the collaboration activities for certain row crops. We believe
the $137 million transaction with Monsanto, a market leader
in crop biotechnology, validated our technology platforms and
provided us a channel to begin to deploy our traits into corn,
soybean and other commodity crops. We remain free under this
agreement to develop and commercialize the genes and traits
developed under this collaboration for deployment in our energy
crops and certain other crops such as rice. With respect to
corn, soybean and other row crops, we are free to license some
of the genes discovered during this collaboration on a
non-exclusive basis to third parties. We can also develop and
exclusively license to third parties genes not covered under
this agreement and which we have subsequently developed for use
in corn, soybean and other row crops.
In connection with entering into the collaboration agreement,
Monsanto also purchased 3,333,333 shares of our
Series E Preferred Stock.
The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc.
In May 2006, we entered into an agreement with the Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., or the Noble Foundation, a
non-profit agricultural institute, for the development and
commercialization of switchgrass. This relationship provides us
access to extensive breeding infrastructure and exclusive
licenses to elite switchgrass varieties, breeding lines and
advanced cultivars. We use our markers and other genomics
technologies to expand the conventional and molecular breeding
program in switchgrass at the Noble Foundation. The
collaboration further encompasses the development of agronomic
systems and management practices for switchgrass. Our funding
commitments under this agreement are determined jointly with the
Noble Foundation on a three-year project basis. All germplasm
and plant varieties resulting from the joint program are jointly
owned by us and the Noble Foundation, while the ownership of
other intellectual property rights is allocated based on
inventorship, except that Noble Foundation inventions resulting
from projects to which we provide a financial contribution are
jointly owned. We have exclusive rights to commercialize the
results of the joint program. The Noble Foundation has agreed
not to collaborate with or perform any activities for the
benefit of or grant any rights to third parties in the field of
switchgrass without our prior written consent, subject to
certain exceptions. This agreement expires in May 2026, unless
terminated earlier pursuant to customary contract termination
provisions or under certain circumstances, for example if
96
either party ceases substantially all activities in
switchgrass, if the institutional mission, purpose or structure
of the Noble Foundation changes substantially and adversely
affects the Noble Foundations ability to satisfy its
obligations under the agreement, or if no active collaborative
research projects exist for more than two years.
Institute of
Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth
University
In April 2007, we entered into an agreement with the Institute
of Biological, Environmental, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth
University in Wales, U.K., or IBERS, for morphological
characterization, genetic evaluation, and the development and
commercialization of miscanthus species as an energy crop. This
relationship provides us access to an extensive scientific
research infrastructure and includes exclusive licenses to
miscanthus germplasm, breeding lines and varieties produced by
IBERS, except that IBERS has a non-exclusive license in the
United Kingdom to varieties resulting from the joint program. We
use our expertise in genomics-based technologies and plant
breeding to expand the miscanthus breeding program at IBERS.
Our funding commitments under this agreement are determined
jointly with IBERS on a project basis. All germplasm and plant
varieties resulting from the joint program are jointly owned by
us and IBERS, while the ownership of other intellectual property
rights is allocated based on inventorship, except that IBERS
inventions resulting from projects to which we provide a certain
financial contribution are jointly owned. We have exclusive
rights to commercialize the results of the joint program, except
that IBERS has a non-exclusive license in the United Kingdom to
varieties resulting from the joint program. IBERS has agreed not
to collaborate with or perform any activities for the benefit of
or grant any rights to third parties in the field of miscanthus
without our prior written consent, subject to certain
exceptions. This agreement expires on March 31, 2022,
unless terminated earlier pursuant to customary contract
termination provisions or under certain circumstances, for
example if either party ceases substantially all activities in
miscanthus, or if no active collaborative research projects
exist for more than two years.
Texas A&M
University
In August 2007, we entered into an agreement with The Texas
A&M University System for the development and
commercialization of high biomass sorghum, sweet sorghum and
selected related crops as energy crops, together with the
discovery of molecular markers for certain traits. This
relationship provides us with access to a highly regarded
sorghum breeding program and the extensive sorghum genetics,
breeding and genomics infrastructure of Texas A&M
University. This agreement provides exclusive options and
licenses to elite sorghum breeding lines, parental lines,
advanced hybrids and genomic markers. We fund the majority of
the activities performed by Texas A&M University pursuant
to our Sponsored Research Agreement. Ownership of intellectual
property rights on results from the program work are allocated
based on inventorship. Pursuant to our Sponsored Research
Agreement and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, we have an
option to obtain an exclusive world-wide commercial license to
results of the program. Texas A&M University has agreed not
to conduct any activities in the field of our collaboration
under an agreement which would grant rights to a third party
during the term of our Sponsored Research Agreement. Our
Sponsored Research Agreement expires on September 2, 2012,
unless terminated earlier pursuant to customary contract
termination provisions. Our licenses on results of the joint
program survive termination of the Sponsored Research Agreement
and survive until, on a country-by-country basis, the expiration
of all registered or patented intellectual property rights of
Texas A&M covering the licensed line.
97
Research Activity
Costs
At May 31, 2011, the future minimum payments for our
budgeted costs of research activities under our collaboration
agreements are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Remaining three months of fiscal year 2011
|
|
$
|
1,154
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2,341
|
|
2013
|
|
|
440
|
|
2014 and beyond
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Grant
Awards
Grant awards help mitigate the costs and risks of developing new
products and have historically allowed us to broaden the scope
and speed of our research and development activities. Over the
past five years, we have received several grants from the DOE,
the USDA, the USAID, and BRDI program as well as state-level
grants. These have allowed us to investigate the use of our
biotech traits for increased yield, nitrogen use efficiency,
flowering regulation, improved carbon sequestration and
manipulation of cell wall composition in crops. Our grant
funding totaled $3.0 million in the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2010.
Our projects funded in whole or in part by grants during fiscal
year 2010-11
include:
|
|
|
|
|
A $5.1 million U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E grant
to develop high biomass, low-input energy crops;
|
|
|
|
A $3.0 million USAID grant to develop several traits in
rice for Asia;
|
|
|
|
A subcontract award of $2.2 million under a
$25 million DOE Integrated Biorefinery grant awarded to
Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. to conduct multi-site trials of
sweet sorghum;
|
|
|
|
A contract of $161,000 under a $250,000 Alabama Department of
Economic and Community Affairs, grant awarded to Amyris
Biotechnologies, Inc. to study the viability of sweet sorghum
and sugarcane;
|
|
|
|
A $491,000 subcontract award from the DOEs BioEnergy
Science Center to field trial traits to reduce recalcitrance and
improve conversion of switchgrass to biofuels;
|
|
|
|
A subcontract award of $86,000 under a $4.7 million BRDI
grant to the University of Tennessee together with DuPont
Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC to plant 1,000 acres of
switchgrass to investigate agronomy and biomass supply chain
logistics;
|
|
|
|
A $883,000 BRDI grant with Choren USA, LLC, a biorefining
company, to investigate desirable biomass compositional
characteristics for biomass gasification;
|
|
|
|
A $1.5 million BRDI grant with Rohm & Haas (now
part of Dow Chemical) to investigate the production of
methacrylate as a co-product in switchgrass; and
|
|
|
|
A contract of $22,000 under a $25 million DOE Integrated
Bio-Refinery, or IBR, grant to UOP, LCC, a Honeywell company, to
build a demonstration unit in Hawaii to convert cellulosic
biomass into renewable transportation fuels.
|
Intellectual
Property
Our success depends in large part on our proprietary products
and technology for which we seek protection under patent, plant
variety protection, plant breeders rights, copyright,
trademark and trade secret laws. Protection of products,
technology and trade secrets is also maintained using
confidential disclosure agreements entered into by our
employees, consultants and potential and actual third party
collaborators. Protection of our technologies enables us to
offer our customers and partners proprietary products
unavailable from our competitors, and to exclude our competitors
from practicing technology that
98
we have developed or exclusively licensed from other parties. If
competitors in our industry have access to the same technology,
our competitive position may be adversely affected.
We believe that we have established a broad intellectual
property position in plant genes, traits and energy crop
germplasm. As of April 30, 2011, we owned or had exclusive
licensed rights to approximately 110 issued patents and
approximately 200 pending patent applications in the
United States and in various foreign jurisdictions. The
patents for Ceres-developed inventions are set to expire
beginning in 2020. Our patents or patent applications generally
relate to compositions of matter for DNA and protein sequences,
plants and plant parts, and methods of improving plants. Our
patents and applications encompass more than 100,000
full-length, functionally annotated cDNA sequences from several
species, hundreds of gene-trait associations, and hundreds of
characterized promoters with specialized expression patterns. In
addition, we hold dozens of applications for patents, Plant
Variety Protection certificates and plant breeders rights
for our commercial varieties, hybrids and inbreds, as well as
for methods for the improvement, propagation, production, and
use of dedicated energy crops. Our filings in foreign
jurisdictions, such as Europe (approximately 25 pending patent
applications, pending plant breeders rights applications,
and patents registered in specific countries) and Brazil
(approximately 17 pending patent and plant variety protection
certificate applications), are generally targeted to the
products we plan to offer in those respective markets. We
continue to file new patent applications, for which terms
generally extend 20 years from the filing date in the
United States. The duration of plant variety protection and
plant breeders rights protection varies among
jurisdictions, e.g., the duration is 20 years from issue in
the United States, 25 years from filing in Europe, and
15 years from grant of a Provisional Certificate of
Protection in Brazil. Our registered and pending trademarks in
the United States and in selected foreign countries include
Ceres, The Energy Crop Company, Blade Energy Crops, Blade and
Skyscraper.
We will continue to file and prosecute patent, plant variety
protection certificate, plant breeders rights, and
trademark applications in the United States and foreign
jurisdictions, as well as maintain trade secrets as is
consistent with our business plan in an ongoing effort to
protect our intellectual property.
Competition
The renewable energy industry is rapidly evolving and new
competitors with competing technologies are regularly entering
the market. We expect to face competitors on multiple fronts.
First, we expect to compete with other providers of seed and
vegetative propagation materials in the market for sweet
sorghum, high biomass sorghum, switchgrass and miscanthus. While
the competitive landscape in these crops is limited at this
time, we anticipate that as our products gain market acceptance,
other competitors will be attracted to this opportunity and
produce their own seed varieties. Second, we believe that new as
yet unannounced crops will be introduced into the renewable
energy market and that existing energy crops will attempt to
gain even greater market share. Existing crops, such as corn,
sugarcane and oil palm trees, currently dominate the biofuels
market. Based on our experience with current and potential
customers, we believe the primary competitive factors in the
energy crop seed industry are yield, performance, scale, price,
reliable supply and sustainability. As new products enter the
market, our products may become obsolete or our
competitors products may be more effective, or more
effectively marketed and sold, than our products. Changes in
technology and customer preferences may result in short product
life cycles. To remain competitive, we will need to develop new
products and enhance and improve our existing products in a
timely manner. Our failure to maintain our competitive position
could have a material adverse effect on our business and results
of operations.
Our principal competitors may include major international
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporations, such
as Advanta India Limited, The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto
Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred (DuPont), KWS and Syngenta, all of
which have substantially greater resources to dedicate to
research and development, production or marketing than we have.
We also face direct competition from other seed companies and
biotechnology companies, and from academic and government
research institutions. New competitors may emerge, including
through consolidation
99
within the seed or renewable energy industry. We are unable to
predict what effect evolution of the industry may have on price,
selling strategies, intellectual property or our competitive
position.
In the broader market for renewable energy, we expect to face
competition from other potential feedstocks, including biomass
residues from food crops, forestry trimmings and municipal waste
materials as well as other energy crops. There are multiple
technologies that process biomass into biofuels and we have yet
to determine compatibility of our feedstocks with all of these
processes. Our failure to develop new or enhanced products that
are compatible with these alternative technologies, or a lack of
market acceptance of our products as the common denominator in a
broad array of bio-based products that are alternatives to
petroleum based products, could have an adverse effect on our
business. Significant developments in alternative technologies,
such as the inexpensive and large-scale storage of solar or
wind-generated energy, may materially and adversely affect our
business in ways that we do not currently anticipate.
Government
Policies and Incentives
There are numerous mandates, incentive programs, tax credits,
support schemes and pending legislation that impact the
establishment and growth of bioenergy markets. Some of the most
relevant to our near term business opportunities are highlighted
below:
Renewable Fuel Standard 2 The
U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA,
increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended
into transportation fuel to 36 billion gallons per year by
2022, representing an increase of 27 billion gallons from
the 2008 target level of 9 billion gallons. EISA also
established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate
volume requirements for each one, including a 16 billion
gallon per year target by 2022 for cellulosic biofuels. While
these targets have been adjusted periodically to take into
account cellulosic production capabilities, we believe this
target demonstrates the U.S. commitment to significantly
expand its use of cellulosic fuels. EISA required Environmental
Protection Agency to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance
threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable
fuel emits fewer greenhouse gases than the petroleum fuel it
replaces.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program, or BCAP
Established by the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill, BCAP provides risk
mitigation and production incentives to encourage growers to
produce dedicated energy crops. BCAP provides two categories of
assistance: (i) matching payments at a rate of $1 for each
$1 per dry ton paid by a qualified biomass conversion facility,
in an amount up to $45 per dry ton, for a period of
2 years, and (ii) establishment payments up to 75% of
costs of establishing a qualified perennial crop, including the
cost of seed and stock, to growers who enter into contracts with
the Commodity Credit Corporation, or CCC, to produce eligible
biomass crops on contract acres within BCAP project areas.
Annual payments, which are determined by CCC and based on local
land rental rates, are also available for both annuals and
perennials. Such payments are reduced if the biomass is sold to
a conversion facility. We believe that BCAP will be advantageous
to the growth of the switchgrass and miscanthus markets, in
particular. The program will expire in 2012, unless extended as
part of the next Farm Bill.
Renewable Electricity Standard Twenty-nine
states plus the District of Columbia have Renewable Electricity
Standards (also known as Renewable Portfolio Standards or RPS);
seven additional states have voluntary goals. There is no
federal standard currently. States with renewable portfolio
standards require that a certain percentage (or absolute amount)
of electricity be generated from renewable sources by a
specified date. Under existing state regulations, these
standards range from 8% to 40% of electricity production. To
comply, companies must typically own a qualified facility and
its output, purchase renewable energy credits or purchase
bundled renewable electricity. Contracted, closed-loop biomass
is an eligible renewable feedstock in all states with RPS.
100
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, or
PTC Originally enacted by the U.S. Energy
Policy Act of 1992, and updated by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, the PTC provides federal tax
incentives for renewable energy projects. In general, the PTC
reduces the federal income taxes of qualified tax-paying owners
of renewable energy projects based on output. In 2010 the credit
ranged from 1.1 to 2.2 cents per
kilowatt-hour.
Currently, a full PTC is available to dedicated biomass-fired
facilities utilizing 100% closed-loop biomass, which is biomass
grown exclusively for energy. A half-PTC is available for
dedicated biomass-fired facilities utilizing open-loop biomass
and other biomass sources, usually waste materials. The PTC is
not available for co-firing coal with open-loop biomass, but it
is technically available for co-firing closed-loop biomass with
coal or open-loop biomass. We believe our customers can utilize
our products to produce closed-loop biomass, thereby taking
advantage of these tax credits to improve the economics of their
operations. However, due to a legislative error, new PTC
applications for co-firing with closed-loop biomass, whether
with coal or in a dedicated biopower facility with open-loop
biomass, cannot be approved since the approving agencies no
longer exist despite multiple extensions of the biomass option
by Congress and an existing federal budget line item for the
program. We have joined utility industry representatives in
lobbying Congress for new legislation to correct the error.
Renewables Obligation Certificates The United
Kingdom, which is a potential export market for
U.S.-grown
biomass, favors biomass from energy grasses in its renewable
electricity mandates. Renewables Obligation Certificates, or
ROCs, are issued for each megawatt hour, or MWh, of renewable
electricity generated. These ROCs are tradable. Compliance can
be achieved by acquiring ROCs from generation or purchase, or
paying a buy-out price. On March 29, 2011, the average
price for ROCs was £49.89. ROCs are earned at various
rates, with different categories of generation receiving a
different number of ROCs per MWh generated. Co-firing of
non-energy crop biomass, for instance, currently receives 0.5
ROCs/MWh, while a full ROC/MWh is earned from co-firing of
contracted, closed-loop sources of biomass as well as open-loop
sources of pre-approved crops, such as miscanthus. Switchgrass
and high biomass sorghum are currently under review as possible
pre-approved feedstocks. These rates and categories are subject
to ongoing review by regulators. We believe that this regulatory
scheme, especially when paired with U.S. incentive
programs, provides attractive economics for U.S. growers
with nearby access to seaports.
Regulatory
Matters
Some of our products and operations are subject to complex
regulations.
U.S. Regulatory
Process for Our Biotechnology Products
Under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, regulatory approval is
required before the introduction, including the environmental
release, interstate movement, and importation, of certain
genetically engineered organisms, including our biotechnology
products. The primary U.S. regulatory agency overseeing
field testing and deregulation for commercialization of our
biotechnology products is the United States Department of
Agriculture, or USDA. Currently, our products do not include
pesticide or herbicide tolerant traits and, consequently, do not
require the involvement of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Moreover, our products are not intended for food or animal feed
uses and, consequently, do not require the involvement of the
Food and Drug Administration. The Biotechnology Regulatory
Services, or BRS, within the USDAs Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, or APHIS, has direct oversight of the field
testing and deregulation of our biotechnology products.
In the typical product development process for our biotechnology
products, approval by APHIS initially is required for field
testing of a new product. Field testing of our biotechnology
products is subject to a rigorous permit process that, if
successful, results in authorization by APHIS for a defined
field testing period in a specific location. As of
April 30, 2011, we have been granted permits for field
trials of certain of our biotechnology products in development
in four field test locations, located in
101
Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas. We are currently
trialing, or intend to trial, several traits in switchgrass,
miscanthus and sorghum.
The permit application must contain detailed information about
the product, including a description of the inserted genes,
their origin, the purpose of the test, how it will be conducted
and any actions taken to prevent the release of pollen or seed
from the test site. In determining whether to grant a permit and
what conditions to impose, APHIS considers any possible impacts
of the field test on the environment and any endangered or
threatened species. The permitting process for the establishment
of initial field tests typically ranges from two to four months,
but can be significantly longer for novel products or
circumstances.
We must petition APHIS to deregulate any of our biotechnology
products before being able to commercialize the product. The
petition process is a multi-year process that varies based on a
number of factors, including the extent of the supporting
information required, the nature and extent of review by APHIS,
including the type and scope of the environmental review
conducted, and the number and types of public comments received.
Deregulation of a product is not a guaranteed outcome when a
petition to deregulate a biotechnology plant is submitted to
APHIS.
The process for obtaining favorable action on petitions for
non-regulated status, as well as permits for field testing, has
become more complex and time consuming in recent years. In
October 2008, APHIS issued proposed regulations that would
significantly revise the permitting process; however whether or
when APHIS will issue final regulations is not known.
We are a founding member of the Excellence Through Stewardship,
or ETS, organization, which encourages implementation of
biotechnology-derived product stewardship practices, including
third-party audits of members to verify that stewardship
programs and quality management systems are in place and
consistent with ETS initiative. We successfully completed our
initial ETS third-party audit in December 2009. We continue to
conduct yearly internal audits and a third-party audit every
three years.
Brazilian
Regulatory Process for Our Biotechnology Products
In Brazil, the approval of biotechnology products is regulated
by the National Technical Commission of Biosafety, Comissão
Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança, or CTNBio, under
the Ministry of Science and Technology. CTNBio is composed of 27
members with specialists with scientific and technical knowledge
from four different areas, including specialists in animal,
plant, environment and health (12 members), ministerial
representatives of the federal government (9 members) and
specialists from other areas such as consumer defense and family
farming (6 members) that meet once per month to review
applications. CTNBio has developed guidance describing the
information required as part of an application for commercial
approval of a biotechnology product. Once an application is
submitted it is analyzed by a team of reviewers who then present
the application to the broader committee for a decision. The
review team or the committee can request additional information
from the applicant. The application process is generally an
iterative process with the applicant providing additional data
for review and consideration at subsequent monthly meetings
until all the reviewers and the committees questions
have been resolved. During the review process, CTNBio will
evaluate the need for further environmental impact assessments.
CTNBio may conduct public hearings on certain products to seek
additional input. CTNBio may refer applications to, among
others, the National Biosafety Council, or CNBS, to review any
socio-economic aspects or national interests that may be
implicated. We are not currently subject to CTNBio oversight as
our current product offerings in Brazil do not include
biotechnology products. However, we do anticipate introducing
biotechnology products in Brazil in the future. At such time, we
will be subject to the approval processes dictated by CTNBio and
a Certificate of Quality in Biosafety, or CQBs, must be obtained
from CTNBio prior to the commencement of field trials.
European
Regulatory Process for Our Biotechnology Products
The European Union, or EU, has established a legal framework for
activities with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and
some of our biotechnology products will fall within the scope of
this legislation. The GMO framework aims to provide guarantees
for the safety of human health and the
102
environment during research, development and commercial
deployment of GMOs, to allow consumers to make an informed
choice and to secure the availability of differentiated
agronomic options.
Development field trials and commercial introduction are
governed by European Directive 2001/18/EC on the introduction
into the environment of GMOs. This Directive requires activities
with GMOs in the open environment to obtain a mandatory approval
before the activity can be initiated and provides principles for
environmental risk assessment and evaluation of the risk
assessment by independent expert panels.
The procedure for field trials requires submission of an
application substantiated with scientific information to the
national authority of the Member State within whose territory
the experimental release is to take place. This authority will
typically request the advice of a national expert panel and
decide whether the trial can proceed, possibly with additional
conditions. While the procedure is harmonized, there are
differences between Member States.
Under Directive 2001/18/EC, a company intending to market a GMO
must first obtain a written authorization to this end. In this
case, the authorization procedure for placing the GMO on the
market involves all Member States as an authorization implies
the free movement throughout the EU territory. The application
is first submitted to the competent national authority of an EU
Member State. The notification must include a full evaluation of
the environmental risks. Having received the notification, the
national authority must issue an opinion which will take the
form of an assessment report. In the event of a
favorable opinion, the Member State that produced the assessment
report, informs the other Member States via the European
Commission. The other Member States and the Commission examine
the assessment report and may issue observations and objections.
If there are no objections by other Member States or by the
European Commission, the competent authority that carried out
the original assessment authorizes the placing on the market of
the product. The authorized product may then be placed on the
market throughout the European Union in conformity with any
conditions set out in the authorization. The authorization has a
maximum duration of ten years and may be renewed.
If objections are raised, the procedure provides for a
conciliation phase among the Member States, the Commission and
the notifier. The objective of this phase is to resolve the
outstanding questions. If at the end of the conciliation phase
the objections are maintained, a decision must be taken at
European level. The Commission first asks for the opinion of the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), composed of independent
scientists, highly qualified in the fields associated with
medicine, nutrition, toxicology, biology, chemistry and other
similar disciplines. The Commission then presents a draft
decision to the Regulatory Committee composed of representatives
of the Member States for an opinion. If the Committee gives a
favorable opinion, the Commission adopts the decision. If not,
the draft Decision is submitted to the Council of Ministers for
adoption or rejection by qualified majority. If the Council does
not act within three months, the Commission shall adopt the
decision.
We do not currently target any use as or inclusion in food or
feed products. While systems will be in place to direct
production to the intended uses, unintended as well as
unavoidable uses will be taken into account when seeking
regulatory approvals for our products. In case our products or
derivates thereof could end up in food or feed, then additional
legal requirements will have to be considered, in particular
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food
and feed that applies for the placing on the market of GMOs for
food and feed use and food and feed containing GMOs, consisting
of such organisms or produced from GMOs.
The Regulation puts in place a centralized, uniform and
transparent EU procedure for all applications for placing on the
market, whether they concern the GMO itself or the food and feed
products derived therefrom. This means that business operators
may file a single application for the GMO and all its uses: a
single risk assessment is performed and a single authorization
is granted for a GMO and all its uses (cultivation, importation,
processing into food/feed or industrial products). If one of
these uses concerns food or feed, all the uses may be treated
under Regulation 1829/2003.
103
The European regulatory framework for GMOs has been developing
since its introduction in 1990. The European Commission and
Member States review and adapt the framework regularly. Several
scientific advisory bodies, most prominently the EFSA, update
their guidance notes and recommendations on data requirements.
Finally, the political acceptance of biotechnology crops is
known to differ considerably between Member States and between
consecutive governments in a Member State. Therefore, it is not
possible to predict the outcome of any application made in the
EU.
We are not currently subject to the GMO oversight as our current
product offerings in the EU do not include biotechnology
products. However, we do anticipate introducing biotechnology
products in the EU in the future.
Other
Regulation
Phytosanitary Certification. Nearly all
countries, including the United States and Brazil, and many
local jurisdictions, require phytosanitary certificates to
import seed or plant materials. These certificates, issued by
government agricultural inspectors where seeds or plants are
produced or packaged, attest that seeds or plants are clean,
free of prohibited impurities and have been tested for the
presence of various pathogens that can be carried in or on the
seeds or plant tissue. We obtain such certificates when
necessary, including in connection with the use of our seeds for
research or sample testing.
Seed and Plant Variety Registration. Seed and
plant variety registration provides an organized system for
protecting seed and plant variety owners as well as growers from
misleading marketing practices. Registration of seed and plant
varieties is voluntary in the United States under the Federal
Seed Act. Applicants must attest that their product is
phenotypically unique; that is, verifiably different from
varieties that currently exist in the market. A similar system
exists in Brazil, the European Union and many other countries;
however, the registration process itself may be more regulated,
and is sometimes required prior to the commencement of seed
sales. In Brazil, sweet sorghum requires two seasons of trial
data to be registered, which must be completed prior to the
commencement of sales. We have completed our first season of
trial data and are substantially complete with the second season
of trial data. We have received the necessary governmental
variety registrations for the sweet sorghum varieties we are
marketing in Brazil in the 2011-2012 growing season. Similarly,
in the European Union, two years of field trials with a national
authority are required to receive registration for all member
states. Registration is required prior to the commencement of
sales for new high biomass sorghum and sweet sorghum seed
varieties; there is no registration requirement for switchgrass
or miscanthus at this time.
Regulation of Laboratory and Greenhouse
Facilities. The use of genetically engineered
organisms in laboratory and greenhouse facilities is subject to
rules intended to ensure that such organisms are handled safely
and do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment. The National Institute of Healths Guidelines
for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, or the NIH
Guidelines, describe methods for the safe handling of transgenic
materials in laboratory settings. Appendix P (Physical and
Biological Containment for Recombinant DNA Research Involving
Plants) of the NIH Guidelines describes specific requirements
for facilities and practices to meet containment standards for
each of the different biosafety levels from lowest containment
(designated BL1-P) through the highest containment (designated
BL4-P). Appendix P is also used as a guideline for
practices relating to conducting experiments to construct,
develop, and propagate genetically engineered plants. Our
current biosafety level is BL1-P, which requires a low level of
containment for experiments involving our biotechnology plants.
Hazardous Materials. Our laboratory and field
activities inherently involve the use of potentially hazardous
materials, which are subject to health, safety and environmental
regulations. Our infrastructure, procedures and equipment are
designed to meet our obligations under these regulations. We
perform recurring internal and third-party audits and provide
employees ongoing training and support, as required. All
employees must comply with safety instructions and procedures,
which are codified in our employment policies.
104
Employees
As of July 20, 2011, we had approximately 90 full-time
employees. Of these employees, approximately 58 were engaged in
research and development. Our employees are located in the
United States and Brazil. We consider our employee relations to
be good. None of our employees are represented by a labor union
or collective bargaining agreement.
Facilities
Headquarters
Our headquarters is located in Thousand Oaks, California, where
we lease approximately 49,000 square feet of office,
laboratory and greenhouse space. The lease expires on
March 31, 2014. We have one option to extend the lease for
an additional term of five years, provided that we give notice
to the landlord at least six months prior to the expiration of
the initial term of the lease.
College Station
Research Center
Our plant breeding and field research center is located in
Burleson County near College Station, Texas. Completed in 2009,
the site consists of approximately 12,000 square feet of
office, laboratory, warehouse and greenhouse space. The research
center sits on approximately five acres of leased land, which we
hold the option to purchase. Adjacent to our facility, we also
lease approximately 200 acres of farmland under a five-year
lease expiring in 2013, with two options to extend this lease by
five years each.
Amarillo
Operations
Our primary U.S. seed warehousing, conditioning, packaging
and order fulfillment facility is located in Amarillo, Texas.
Purchased in 2009, the site consists of approximately
46,000 square feet of office and warehouse space on a
32-acre
parcel. We currently warehouse and process 300,000 pounds of
seed annually and anticipate that we will be able to warehouse
and process up to 10 million pounds of seed annually at
this facility.
Brazil
We lease an office located in the Municipality of Piracicaba,
São Paulo, Brazil. We have an option to extend the lease
for an additional term of five years. We also have an option to
purchase the property. The lease expires on December 31,
2011. While we currently contract seed warehousing,
conditioning, packaging and fulfillment services to support our
trialing and commercialization activities, we expect to add a
dedicated Ceres breeding and seed production facility in South
America.
We believe that our facilities in California, Texas and Brazil,
including our planned breeding and seed production facility in
South America, will adequately meet our needs in the near term.
Legal
Proceedings
We are not currently a party to any material litigation or other
material legal proceedings.
105
MANAGEMENT
Executive
Officers and Directors
The following table sets forth information regarding our
executive officers, directors and key employees as of
July 20, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
Board of Directors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter De Logi, Ph.D.(1)(2)
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
Pascal Brandys(2)
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Director
|
Raymond Debbane
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
Director
|
Ruth Devenyns
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
Director
|
Richard Flavell, Ph.D.
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
Director, Chief Scientific Officer
|
Robert Goldberg, Ph.D.(2)
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
Director
|
Richard Hamilton, Ph.D.
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
|
Thomas Kiley(1)
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
Director
|
David B. Krieger
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
Director
|
Edmund Olivier(1)(2)
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
Director
|
Gerard Van Acker
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
Director
|
Other Executive Officers and Key Employees:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M. Kuc
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
Wilfriede van Assche
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn, Ph.D.
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Vice President of Breeding and Genomics
|
Michael Stephenson
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
Vice President of Operations
|
Roger Pennell, Ph.D.
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
Vice President of Trait Development
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Member of Audit Committee |
|
(2) |
|
Member of Compensation Committee |
|
(3) |
|
Member of the Nominating and Governance Committee |
Our executive officers are elected by, and serve at the
discretion of, our board of directors. There are no family
relationships among any of our directors and executive officers.
Board of
Directors
Walter De Logi,
Ph.D., Chairman of the Board
Dr. De Logi is one of the founders of Ceres and served as
our President and Chief Executive Officer from the founding of
the Company in 1996 until September 2002. Dr. De Logi has
served on our board of directors since our inception and as
Chairman of the Board since 2002 to present. From 1986 to 1996,
he was the Chief Executive Officer of Plant Genetic Systems, an
eminent first-generation plant biotechnology company that was
sold to Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH, now part of Bayer AG in
1996. He holds an M.B.A. from Harvard University and a Ph.D.
from the California Institute of Technology. Dr. De Logi
was nominated to serve on our board of directors pursuant to the
terms of the Voting Agreement. Dr. De Logi brings extensive
experience in the plant biotechnology business to the board of
directors.
Pascal Brandys,
Director
Mr. Brandys has served on our board of directors since
December 1997. Mr. Brandys is the President and managing
member of Biobank Technology Ventures, LLC, an early-stage life
sciences investment company which he co-founded in 2001. He was
previously a co-founder of the genomics company Genset S.A., and
also served as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from
1989 to
106
2000. Mr. Brandys is currently a director of several
private companies and previously served as a director of Ilog
S.A and Innogenetics N.V. He holds an M.S. in Economic Systems
from Stanford University and is a graduate of the Ecole
Polytechnique of Paris. Mr. Brandys brings extensive
business experience in the genomics field and experience as an
executive and an investment professional to our board of
directors.
Raymond Debbane,
Director
Mr. Debbane has served on our board of directors since
March 1998. Mr. Debbane has served as President and Chief
Executive Officer of The Invus Group, LLC, a New York based
multi-billion dollar investment firm which is the exclusive
investment advisor of Artal Luxembourg S.A., a shareholder of
Ceres, since 1985. Prior to forming The Invus Group in 1985,
Mr. Debbane was a manager and consultant for The Boston
Consulting Group in Paris, France from 1979 to 1985. He is
currently a director of Artal Group S.A. and Lexicon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as well as a number of private companies
in which Artal or Invus, L.P. is an investor. Mr. Debbane
is also the Chairman of the board of directors of Weight
Watchers International. He holds an M.B.A. from Stanford
Graduate School of Business, an M.S. in Food Science and
Technology from the University of California, Davis and a B.S.
in Agricultural Sciences and Agricultural Engineering from
American University of Beirut. Mr. Debbane was nominated to
serve on our board of directors by Artal Luxembourg S.A.
pursuant to the terms of the Voting Agreement. Mr. Debbane
brings extensive business and finance experience to our board of
directors, as well as experience as a director of a number of
companies.
Ruth Devenyns,
Director
Ms. Devenyns has served on our board of directors since
June 2010. In January 2007, Ms. Devenyns was promoted to
Investment Director at KBC Private Equity NV, a shareholder of
Ceres, where she manages KBCs investments in life
sciences. She began her career with KBC in 1986, as a research
analyst covering several industries including the chemical and
pharmaceutical industry and held various positions with KBC
during her career, including advising the Belgian government on
its privatization program. In 2001, Ms. Devenyns
co-launched KBC Private Equity Fund Biotech, a
Euronext-listed dedicated private equity fund focused on life
sciences. She is a director of FlandersBio, an organization
representing the Flemish life sciences cluster.
Ms. Devenyns has a Masters Degree in Applied Economics from
Ghent University. Ms. Devenyns was nominated to serve on
our board of directors by KBC Private Equity N.V. pursuant to
the terms of the Voting Agreement. Ms. Devenyns brings
extensive experience in business and finance, as well as
experience as an investment professional in the life sciences
industry, to our board of directors.
Richard Flavell,
Ph.D., FRS, CBE, Chief Scientific Officer and Director
Dr. Flavell joined Ceres in 1998 as Chief Scientific
Officer and has served on our board of directors since June
2009. Since 2001, Dr. Flavell has been an Adjunct Professor in
the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology
at the University of California, Los Angeles. From 1987 to 1998,
Dr. Flavell was the Director of the John Innes Centre in
Norwich, England, a premier plant and microbial research
institute. He has published over 200 scientific articles,
lectured widely and contributed significantly to the development
of modern biotechnology in agriculture. Dr. Flavell is an
expert in cereal plant genomics, having produced the first
molecular maps of plant chromosomes to reveal the constituent
sequences. In 1999, Dr. Flavell was named a Commander of
the British Empire for his contributions to plant and microbial
sciences. Dr. Flavell received his Ph.D. from the
University of East Anglia and has been a Fellow of European
Molecular Biology Organization since 1990 and of The Royal
Society of London since 1998. Dr. Flavell brings extensive
experience and knowledge of plant biotechnology to our board of
directors.
107
Robert Goldberg,
Ph.D., Director
Dr. Goldberg is a Distinguished Professor of Molecular,
Cell and Developmental Biology at the University of California,
Los Angeles and a founder of Ceres. He has been a Professor at
the University of California, Los Angeles since 1976, teaching
genetic engineering and studying the genes that are required for
seed formation. Dr. Goldberg is a member of the National
Academy of Sciences and has consulted extensively in the
agriculture and biotechnology industries. Dr. Goldberg has
served as a director of Ceres since 1996. Dr. Goldberg
received his Bachelors Degree in botany from Ohio
University, his Ph.D. in plant genetics from the University of
Arizona, and was a Postdoctoral Fellow in developmental biology
at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Goldberg
brings extensive experience in the agriculture and biotechnology
industries to our board of directors.
Richard Hamilton,
Ph.D., President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Dr. Hamilton joined Ceres in 1998. He served as our Chief
Financial Officer until September 2002, at which time he was
appointed President and Chief Executive Officer. He has served
on our board of directors since 2002. In addition to his
leadership role at Ceres, Dr. Hamilton sits on the Keck
Graduate Institute Advisory Council and he is a founding member
of the Council for Sustainable Biomass Production. He has served
on the U.S. Department of Energys Biomass Research
and Development Technical Advisory Committee and has been active
in the Biotechnology Industry Organization where he has served
as Vice Chairman of the organization, chaired its Food and
Agriculture Governing Board and served in other leadership
roles. From 1992 to 1997, Dr. Hamilton was a principal at
Oxford Bioscience Partners, one of the leading investors in the
genomics field and a founder of Ceres. From 1990 to 1991, he was
a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Fellow at Harvard
Medical School. Dr. Hamilton holds a Ph.D. in molecular
biology from Vanderbilt University. Dr. Hamilton brings
extensive management experience and renewable energy industry
expertise to our board of directors.
Thomas Kiley,
Director
Mr. Kiley has served as a director of Ceres since May 2003.
He became the first general counsel of Genentech in February
1980 and later served as its vice president for corporate
development until 1988. Previously, Mr. Kiley practiced
intellectual property litigation as a partner of
Lyon & Lyon from June 1969 until January 1980.
Mr. Kiley has served as a director of Geron, Inc., a
publicly traded biopharmaceutical company since July 1996 and
Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a publicly traded
pharmaceutical company since February 2004, and several
privately-held development stage companies. He received his B.S.
in chemical engineering from The Pennsylvania State University
and his J.D. from The George Washington University School of
Law. He is a member of the State Bar of California.
Mr. Kiley brings extensive experience as an intellectual
property attorney and director of other public companies to our
board of directors.
David B. Krieger,
Director
Mr. Krieger has served as a director of Ceres since
February 2011. Mr. Krieger has been a managing director at
Warburg Pincus LLC since 2006, which through its affiliates is a
shareholder of Ceres, and has been with Warburg Pincus since
2000. Prior to joining Warburg Pincus, he worked at
McKinsey & Company in Atlanta and Europe from
September 1995 to May 1998. He is currently a board member of
Black Swan Energy Ltd., Canbriam Energy Inc., Fairfield Energy
Limited, Kosmos Energy Ltd., MEG Energy Corp. and Osum Oil Sands
Corp. He received a B.S. in Economics from the Wharton School of
the University of Pennsylvania, an M.S. from the Georgia
Institute of Technology and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business
School. Mr. Krieger was nominated to serve on our board of
directors by Warburg Pincus pursuant to the terms of the Voting
Agreement and brings extensive experience in business and
finance and the energy industry to our board of directors.
108
Edmund Olivier,
Director
Mr. Olivier has served on our board of directors since our
inception in 1996. Mr. Olivier is a founding general
partner of Oxford Bioscience Partners, one of the founders of
Ceres. Mr. Olivier has been with Oxford Bioscience Partners
since 1995. He has overseen investments in numerous life science
companies in the United States, Europe, India and Japan. He has
also served on the board of directors of a number of Oxford
Biosciences portfolio companies. Mr. Olivier received
an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a B.S. in Chemical
Engineering from Rice University. He is a Life Fellow and member
of the International Council of the Salk Institute and a Regent
of Harris Manchester College, Oxford University.
Mr. Olivier was nominated to serve on our board of
directors by entities affiliated with Oxford Bioscience Partners
pursuant to the terms of the Voting Agreement and brings
extensive experience in business and finance, as well as an
understanding of the life sciences industry, to our board of
directors.
Gerard Van Acker,
Director
Mr. Van Acker has served on our board of directors since
April 2009. He also served on our board of directors from 1998
until 2001. From 1980 to 2000, Mr. Van Acker was Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Executive Committee of
Gimv N.V., Belgiums leading private equity firm and a
shareholder of Ceres. Mr. Van Acker was one of the founders
and vice chairman of Plant Genetic Systems, an eminent
first-generation plant biotechnology company that was sold to
Hoechst Schering AgrEvo, GmbH, now part of Bayer AG, from 1982
until 1996. He was also the chairman of Biotech Fonds Vlaanderen
from 1994 until 2000. He has also held director positions in a
number of leading listed Belgian companies including Barco, a
global technology company, Telenet Group, a cable and phone
company and Kinepolis Group. He has also been on the board of
directors of VIB, a life sciences research institute in Belgium,
since its inception in 1996. He has served as the Chairman of
the board of directors of Montea, a listed real estate company
since 2006. Mr. Van Acker holds a Doctorate in Law and a
Masters Degree in Political and Administrative Sciences
from the Free University of Brussels. Mr. Van Acker was
nominated to serve on our board of directors by Gimv N.V.
pursuant to the terms of the Voting Agreement and brings
extensive experience in business and finance to our board of
directors, as well as his experience as a director of a number
of other companies.
Executive
Officers
Paul M. Kuc,
Chief Financial Officer
Mr. Kuc joined Ceres in 2008 as Chief Financial Officer,
following a
12-year
career with Monsanto Company, where he held various regional and
global finance positions, including posts in Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, Mexico and the United States, with his last position,
beginning April 2007, as Lead Worldwide Manufacturing Finance at
Seminis, Inc., which was purchased by Monsanto in 2005. At
Monsanto, among other responsibilities, he developed and
implemented international costing and financial systems for the
seed and agricultural biotechnology company. Mr. Kuc began
his career, from June 1994 to June 1996 at the pharmaceutical
company Eli Lilly and Company. He holds a Masters of
Science degree in Economics from the University of Lodz, Poland
and an M.B.A. from the Ivey Business School, University of
Western Ontario, Canada.
Wilfriede van
Assche, Senior Vice President & General Counsel and
Secretary
Ms. van Assche joined Ceres in 2000. She has more than
20 years of legal experience in the plant biotechnology and
seed industry. From 1996 until 2000, Ms. van Assche was the
General Counsel of the plant biotechnology and seed divisions of
Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH and following the merger of Hoechst
and Rhone Poulenc, of the same divisions of Aventis, a leading
life sciences company that is now part of Bayer AG. Previously,
she was the General Counsel of Plant Genetic Systems N.V. from
1988 until its acquisition by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH in
1996. She
109
began her career with the law firm De Bandt van Hecke (now
Linklaters) in Belgium from 1979 until 1982, and was counsel in
the legal department of GTE Atea (now Siemens), a
telecommunications company, from 1982 until 1988. Ms. van
Assche holds a law degree from the University of Leuven and a
postgraduate degree from the College of Europe. She is a member
of the State Bar of California.
|
|
J.
|
Jefferson
Gwyn, Ph.D., Vice President of Breeding and
Genomics
|
Dr. Gwyn joined Ceres in 2008 as Director of Breeding and
was promoted in August 2009 to Vice President of Breeding and
Genomics. He oversees crop improvement in switchgrass, sorghum
and other energy crops. He also manages our field research
center near College Station, Texas. Prior to joining Ceres,
Dr. Gwyn was head of soybean trait development at Syngenta
Seeds, Inc. from July 2007 to August 2008 and station manager
from September 2005 to July 2007. Earlier in his career,
Dr. Gwyn established and managed cotton breeding and trait
programs stations in the United States and Brazil for Bayer
Cotton Seed International as Director of Breeding from
March 1998 to July 2005. He was also a project director and
program manager in corn trait breeding for DeKalb Genetics from
March 1996 to February 1998. Dr. Gwyn began his career as a
cotton breeder and plant geneticist with Chembred, Inc.
(American Cyanamid) from May 1989 to October 1995. He holds a
Ph.D. in genetics from Texas A&M University and a
Masters Degree in genetics and plant breeding from Iowa
State University. He completed his undergraduate studies at the
University of Arkansas.
Michael
Stephenson, Vice President of Operations
Mr. Stephenson joined Ceres in 2008. Prior to joining
Ceres, Mr. Stephenson was a general manager for one of the
brands of AgReliant Genetics, the fifth largest corn seed
company in the United States, from 2000 to 2008. In addition to
his commercial experience, Mr. Stephenson has chaired the
American Seed Trade Associations corn and sorghum
division, and served as President of the Soybean Research
Foundation and Regional Vice President of American Seed Trade
Association. Mr. Stephenson holds a B.S. in Business
Administration from the University of Kansas.
Roger Pennell,
Ph.D., Vice President of Trait Development
Dr. Pennell joined Ceres in 1998 and held various research
management positions, including Director, Trait Development from
2006 until 2009 when he assumed his current role as Vice
President of Trait Development. Dr. Pennell has been an
Adjunct Professor in the Department of Molecular, Cellular and
Developmental Biology at the University of California, Los
Angeles since 2001 and a frequent reviewer for the scientific
press. Dr. Pennell holds a Ph.D. from University College
London. He performed post-doctoral research at the John Innes
Institute and Wageningen Agricultural University, and in 1990
was the recipient of a prestigious Royal Society University
Research Fellowship, which he used at University College London
and, from 1995, at the Salk Institute. During this time,
Dr. Pennell studied cellular and molecular aspects of plant
growth, development and disease resistance, and has published
more than 40 scientific papers on these subjects.
Board of
Directors
Our board of directors currently consists of eleven members. Our
amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws,
which will become effective immediately prior to the completion
of this offering, will permit our board of directors to
establish by resolution the authorized number of directors.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our
amended and restated bylaws will provide for a classified board
of directors consisting of three classes, with staggered
three-year terms as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Class I directors, whose initial term will expire at the
annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2012;
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
Class II directors, whose initial term will expire at the
annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2013; and
|
|
|
|
Class III directors, whose initial term will expire at the
annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2014.
|
At each annual meeting of stockholders after the initial
classification, upon expiration of the term of a class of
directors, directors in that class will be elected for
three-year terms at the annual meeting of stockholders held in
the year in which that term expires. Each directors term
continues until the election and qualification of his or her
successor, or his or her earlier death, resignation or removal.
Any increase or decrease in the number of directors will be
distributed among three classes so that, as nearly as possible,
each class will consist of one-third of the total number of
directors.
Upon the completion of this offering, the Class I directors
will consist
of , ,
and ;
the Class II directors will consist
of , , and
; and the Class III directors will consist
of , , and .
The classification of our board of directors and provisions
described above may have the effect of delaying or preventing
changes in our control or management. See Description of
Capital Stock Anti-Takeover Provisions to be in
Effect Upon the Completion of this Offering Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaw
Provisions.
Risk
Oversight
The board of directors is responsible for general oversight of
company risk and risk management, and reviews managements
strategies for adequately mitigating and managing the identified
risks. Although our board of directors administers this risk
management oversight function, our Audit Committee supports our
board of directors in discharging its oversight duties and
address risks. Our board of directors expects company management
to consider risk and risk management in its business decisions,
to develop and monitor risk management strategies and processes
for day-to-day activities and to implement risk management
strategies adopted by the committees and the board of directors.
Director
Independence
Upon the completion of this offering, we expect that our common
stock will be listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. Under the
rules of the Nasdaq Global Market, independent directors must
comprise a majority of a listed companys board of
directors within a specified period of the completion of this
offering. In addition, the rules of the Nasdaq Global Market
require that, subject to specified exceptions, each member of a
listed companys audit, compensation and nominating and
governance committees be independent. Audit committee members
must also satisfy the independence criteria set forth in
Rule 10A-3
under the Exchange Act. Under the rules of the Nasdaq Global
Market, a director will only qualify as an independent
director if, in the opinion of that companys board
of directors, that person does not have a relationship that
would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in
carrying out the responsibilities of a director.
In order to be considered to be independent for purposes of
Rule 10A-3,
a member of an audit committee of a listed company may not,
other than in his or her capacity as a member of the audit
committee, the board of directors, or any other board committee:
(1) accept, directly or indirectly, any consulting,
advisory, or other compensatory fee from the listed company or
any of its subsidiaries; or (2) be an affiliated person of
the listed company or any of its subsidiaries.
In ,
2011, our board of directors undertook a review of its
composition, the composition of its committees and the
independence of each director. Based upon information requested
from and provided by each director concerning his or her
background, employment and affiliations, including family
relationships, our board of directors has determined that none
of Messrs. De Logi, Brandys, Debbane, Goldberg, Kiley,
Krieger, Van Acker, Olivier and Ms. Devenyns, representing
nine of our
111
eleven directors, has a relationship that would interfere with
the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the
responsibilities of a director and that each of these directors
is independent as that term is defined under the
rules of the Nasdaq Global Market.
Our board of directors also determined that
Messrs. ,
and ,
who comprise our Audit Committee, and
Messrs. , ,
and ,
who comprise our Compensation Committee, satisfy the
independence standards for those committees established by
applicable SEC rules and the rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market.
In making this determination, our board of directors considered
the relationships that each non-employee director has with our
company and all other facts and circumstances our board of
directors deemed relevant in determining their independence,
including the beneficial ownership of our capital stock held by
each non-employee director.
Committees of the
Board of Directors
Our board of directors has established an Audit Committee and a
Compensation Committee and intends to establish a Nominating and
Governance Committee prior to the completion of this offering.
Each committee will have the composition and responsibilities
described below as of the completion of this offering.
Audit
Committee
Our Audit Committee is currently comprised of Mr. Kiley,
Mr. Olivier and Mr. De Logi, who is the chair of the
Audit Committee. The composition of our Audit Committee will
meet the requirements for independence under the current Nasdaq
Global Market and SEC rules and regulations within the specified
time periods. Each member of our Audit Committee possesses
financial sophistication as defined under the rules of the
Nasdaq Global Market.
Mr.
is our Audit Committee financial expert as that term
is defined in Item 407(d)(5)(ii) of
Regulation S-K
promulgated under the Securities Act. Being an Audit
Committee financial expert does not impose on
Mr.
any duties, obligations or liabilities that are greater than are
generally imposed on him as a member of our Audit Committee and
our board of directors. Our board of directors will adopt a new
charter for our Audit Committee, which provides, among other
things, that our Audit Committee will:
|
|
|
|
|
oversee our accounting and financial reporting processes and
audits of our financial statements;
|
|
|
|
be directly responsible for the appointment, retention,
compensation and oversight of the work of the independent
registered public accounting firm;
|
|
|
|
have the sole authority to preapprove any non-audit services to
be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm
and to review with the lead audit partner whether any of the
audit team members receive any discretionary compensation from
the audit firm with respect to non-audit services performed by
the independent registered public accounting firm;
|
|
|
|
actively engage in dialogue with the independent registered
public accounting firm with respect to any disclosed
relationships or services that may impact the objectivity and
independence of the independent registered public accounting
firm and recommending that the board of directors take,
appropriate action to oversee the independence of the
independent auditor; and
|
|
|
|
discuss the adequacy of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting with the independent registered public
accounting firm and management and review and discuss any
changes implemented by management to address control
deficiencies or to make controls more effective.
|
112
Compensation
Committee
Our Compensation Committee is comprised of Messrs. Brandys,
De Logi, Goldberg and Olivier, who is the chair of the
Compensation Committee. The composition of our Compensation
Committee will meet the requirements for independence under the
current Nasdaq Global Market and SEC rules and regulations
within the specified periods. The purpose of our Compensation
Committee is to set compensation policy, administer compensation
plans and recommend compensation for executive officers to the
board of directors. Our board of directors has adopted a new
charter for our Compensation Committee to become effective upon
completion of this offering. Under this new charter, our
Compensation Committee will discharge the responsibilities of
our board of directors relating to compensation of our executive
officers, and will, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
establish the Companys general compensation philosophy;
|
|
|
|
|
|
review and recommend that our board of directors approve the
compensation of our executive officers;
|
|
|
|
|
|
review and recommend that our board of directors approve the
compensation of our directors;
|
|
|
|
|
|
review and recommend that our board of directors approve
compensation for our new or prospective hires;
|
|
|
|
|
|
review and approve, or recommend that the board of directors
approve, payouts under annual bonus and other performance-based
compensation programs;
|
|
|
|
|
|
review and recommend that our board of directors approve new or
existing long-term or equity-based compensation plans or
arrangements and administer those plans or arrangements;
|
|
|
|
|
|
assist in developing succession and continuity plans for the CEO
and other executive officers;
|
|
|
|
|
|
review and consult with the board of directors on our
compensation and benefit plans to determine whether they create
risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect on the company; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
review, discuss with management, and approve the compensation,
discussion and analysis for our public filings.
|
In May 2011, our Compensation Committee retained Compensia,
Inc., or Compensia, a compensation advisory firm, to serve as an
independent advisor to the Compensation Committee on executive,
equity, and board compensation matters. Compensia assisted our
Compensation Committee to identify a peer group of public
companies, to conduct an executive compensation market
assessment and to develop a non-employee director compensation
program, which will be applicable following this offering. More
information regarding the decisions that the Compensation
Committee has made based on Compensias recommendations is
included below under Compensation Discussion and
Analysis.
Nominating and
Governance Committee
We intend to establish a Nominating and Governance Committee
prior to the completion of this offering. Our Nominating and
Governance Committee will be comprised
of , , and .
The composition of our Nominating and Governance Committee will
meet the requirements for independence under the current Nasdaq
Global Market and SEC rules and regulations within the specified
periods. Our Nominating and Governance Committee will, among
other things:
|
|
|
|
|
identify and recommend director nominees;
|
|
|
|
recommend directors to serve on our various committees; and
|
|
|
|
implement our corporate governance guidelines.
|
113
We intend to post the charters of our Audit, Compensation and
Nominating and Governance Committees, and any amendments that
may be adopted from time to time, on our website.
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
During fiscal 2010, our Compensation Committee was comprised of
Messrs. Brandys, De Logi, Goldberg and Olivier. None of
them has at any time during the last fiscal year been one of our
officers or employees, and none has had any relationships with
our company of the type that is required to be disclosed under
Item 404 of
Regulation S-K.
None of our executive officers served as a member of the board
of directors, or as a member of the compensation or similar
committee, of an entity that has one or more executive officers
who served on our board of directors or Compensation Committee
during fiscal 2010. Mr. Olivier has pecuniary interests in
his affiliated fund and may be deemed to have an interest in
certain transactions with us, as more fully described in
Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions
below.
Code of Business
Ethics and Conduct
Our board of directors has adopted a code of business ethics and
conduct. The code of business ethics and conduct applies to all
of our employees, officers and directors, including those
officers responsible for financial reporting. The full text of
our code of business ethics and conduct is posted on our website
at www.ceres.net. We intend to disclose future amendments
to our code of business ethics and conduct, or waivers of these
provisions, on our website and also in our periodic filings with
the SEC.
Limitation of
Liability and Indemnification of Officers and
Directors
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and
bylaws, which will become effective upon the completion of this
offering, limit the liability of our directors, officers,
employees and other agents to the fullest extent permitted by
Delaware law. Section 145 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law permits indemnification of officers, directors
and other agents under certain circumstances and subject to
certain limitations. Delaware law also permits a corporation to
not hold its directors personally liable for monetary damages
for breach of their fiduciary duties as directors, except for
liability for:
|
|
|
|
|
breach of their duty of loyalty to us or our stockholders;
|
|
|
|
acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional
misconduct or a knowing violation of law;
|
|
|
|
unlawful payments of dividends or unlawful stock repurchases or
redemptions as provided in Section 174 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law; and
|
|
|
|
any transaction from which the director derived an improper
personal benefit.
|
These limitations of liability do not apply to liabilities
arising under the federal or state securities laws and do not
affect the availability of equitable remedies such as injunctive
relief or rescission. Our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation will also permit us to secure insurance on behalf
of any officer, director, employee or other agent for any
liability arising out of his or her actions in this capacity. We
have obtained directors and officers liability
insurance to cover certain liabilities described above. We plan
to enter into separate indemnity agreements with each of our
directors and executive officers that require us to indemnify
such persons against any and all expenses (including
attorneys fees), witness fees, judgments, fines,
settlements and other amounts incurred (including expenses of a
derivative action) in connection with any action, suit or
proceeding or alternative dispute resolution mechanism, inquiry
hearing or investigation, whether threatened, pending or
completed, to which any such person may be made a party by
reason of the fact that such person is or was a director, an
officer or an employee of us or any of our affiliated
enterprises, provided that such person must follow the
procedures for determining entitlement to indemnification set
out in the indemnity agreements. The indemnity agreements will
also set forth other procedures that will apply in the event
114
of a claim for indemnification thereunder. We believe that these
provisions and agreements are necessary to attract and retain
qualified persons as executive officers and directors of our
company.
At present, there is no pending litigation or proceeding
involving any of our directors or executive officers as to which
indemnification is required or permitted, and we are not aware
of any threatened litigation or proceeding that may result in a
claim for indemnification.
The limitation of liability and indemnification provisions in
our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws
may discourage stockholders from bringing a lawsuit against
directors for breach of their fiduciary duties. They may also
reduce the likelihood of derivative litigation against directors
and officers, even though an action, if successful, might
provide a benefit to us and our stockholders. Our results of
operations and financial conditions may be negatively affected
to the extent we pay the costs of settlement and damage awards
against directors and officers pursuant to these indemnification
provisions.
Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the
Securities Act may be permitted to directors, executive officers
or persons controlling us, we have been informed that, in the
opinion of the SEC, such indemnification is against public
policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is therefore
unenforceable.
Director
Compensation
Director
Compensation Prior to this Offering
Prior to this offering, we have not paid our directors any cash
compensation or directors fees for their service on the
board of directors. It has been our policy, however, to provide
annual stock option grants to Messrs. Brandys and Kiley to
purchase 15,000 shares of our common stock as compensation
for their service on our board of directors. These option grants
generally vest over four years, with 25 percent vesting after
the first year and the remainder vesting ratably each month
thereafter over the next three years. In fiscal 2010, we granted
an additional 15,000 stock options to Mr. Kiley to
compensate him for additional expenses he incurred in connection
with his service in that year. In June 2011,
Messrs. Brandys and Kiley each received his grant of 15,000
stock options for fiscal 2011. We also have a consulting
agreement with Dr. Goldberg pursuant to which we reimburse
him for reasonable out of pocket business expenses incurred in
the performance of his consulting duties of up to $40,000 per
year. In addition, pursuant to the consulting agreement, prior
to fiscal 2010, Dr. Goldberg received four stock option
grants, each covering 15,000 shares of common stock, up to
an aggregate of 60,000 stock options. Other than business
expense reimbursements, Dr. Goldberg did not receive any
director or consulting fees or other compensation in fiscal
2010; however, in July 2011, Dr. Goldberg received a grant
of stock options to purchase 15,000 shares of our common
stock as compensation for his continued consulting services
pursuant to an amendment of his consulting agreement. The
following table shows, for the year ended August 31, 2010,
information with respect to the compensation of our non-employee
directors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
|
Awards
|
|
|
Name
|
|
($)(1)(2)
|
|
Total ($)
|
|
Pascal Brandys
|
|
|
23,270
|
|
|
|
23,270
|
|
Thomas Kiley
|
|
|
46,540
|
|
|
|
46,540
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The amounts in the Option Awards column reflect the
aggregate grant date fair value of stock options granted during
fiscal 2010, computed in accordance with ASC Topic 718,
including a grant of options to purchase 15,000 shares to
Mr. Brandys and options to purchase 30,000 shares to
Mr. Kiley, each with an exercise price of $2.25 per share.
The assumptions used by us in determining the grant date fair
value of option awards are set forth in Note 6 to our
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus. These amounts do not correspond to the actual value
that may be recognized by the directors. |
115
|
|
|
(2) |
|
As of August 31, 2010, members of our board of directors
held outstanding stock option awards as follows: Dr. De
Logi held 250,000 outstanding stock option awards,
Mr. Brandys held 75,000 outstanding stock option awards,
Mr. Debbane held 20,000 outstanding stock option awards,
Dr. Goldberg held 80,000 outstanding stock option awards,
Mr. Kiley held 170,000 outstanding stock option awards, and
Mr. Olivier held 20,000 outstanding stock option awards. |
Our employee directors, Richard Hamilton and Richard Flavell, do
not receive any compensation for their service as directors. The
compensation that we pay to Dr. Hamilton is discussed in
the Executive Compensation section of this
prospectus. Dr. Flavell is employed in the capacity of
Chief Scientific Officer and receives cash compensation and
equity awards in such capacity, as determined by our
Compensation Committee.
Director
Compensation After this Offering
Based on the recommendation of Compensia and our Compensation
Committee, our board of directors has adopted a compensation
policy that will become applicable to all of our non-employee
directors after this offering. Under this policy, each
non-employee director will receive an annual cash retainer and
an annual stock option grant. In addition, upon initial
appointment to the board of directors, each non-employee
director will receive an initial stock option grant. Committee
members and committee chairpersons will receive additional
committee retainers, and if we elect a lead/non-executive
chairman of the board of directors, he or she will also receive
an additional lead director retainer. The retainer and stock
option amounts that we will provide are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
an annual retainer of $30,000;
|
|
|
|
an initial stock option grant to purchase 35,000 shares, to
vest annually over three years;
|
|
|
|
an annual stock option grant to purchase 17,500 shares, to
vest 100% after one year;
|
|
|
|
an annual retainer for committee members as follows: $7,500 for
members of the audit and compensation committees, and $3,500 for
members of the nominating and governance committee;
|
|
|
|
an annual retainer for committee chairs as follows: $15,000 for
the chairs of the audit and compensation committees, and $6,000
for the chair of the nominating and governance committee;
|
|
|
|
an annual retainer of $30,000 for any non-employee director
appointed as lead/non-executive chairman of the board of
directors; and
|
|
|
|
reimbursement for reasonable
out-of-pocket
business expenses.
|
116
COMPENSATION
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Executive
Compensation
The following discussion describes and analyzes the compensation
of our named executive officers for fiscal 2010, who
are Richard Hamilton, our President and Chief Executive Officer,
or CEO, Paul Kuc, our Chief Financial Officer, or CFO, and J.
Jefferson Gwyn, our Vice President of Breeding and Genomics,
Roger Pennell, our Vice President of Trait Development and
Michael Stephenson, our Vice President of Operations, our three
most highly compensated executive officers during fiscal 2010,
other than the CEO and CFO.
We were formed in 1996 and became operational in 1997. While our
founders continue to serve us in key roles, we have added a
number of executive officers since our formation, including our
CEO, CFO and other executives. These additional executives have
joined us at various times since 1996. We are building a fully
integrated seed company capable of serving the commercial-scale
needs of the emerging renewable energy industry. Our success
depends, among other things, on attracting and retaining
executive officers with experience and skills in a number of
different areas as we continue to develop new products and seek
to commercialize them.
Executive
Compensation Procedures
Annually, we review the compensation of our management and
employees, including our named executive officers. We follow an
annual review process, which consists primarily of individual
evaluations and scoring of employee performance, based on
meeting personal, departmental and overall company goals.
Potential compensation changes are based on the rank and
distribution of these scores within the individual
employees level, department and the overall company, as
well as budgetary goals.
Our Compensation Committee has historically reviewed and
recommended, and our board of directors has approved, the
compensation of our CEO, CFO and other named executive officers.
Our Compensation Committee has taken into consideration the
input and recommendations of our CEO regarding the performance
and compensation of named executive officers other than himself.
Upon completion of this offering, we expect that our
Compensation Committee will continue to review and approve (or
recommend to the board of directors for approval) the
compensation of all of our named executive officers and oversee
and administer our executive compensation programs and
initiatives, and will also be responsible for the evaluation of
the performance of our named executive officers. The
Compensation Committee will continue to take into consideration
input and recommendations from our CEO with respect to the
performance and compensation of executive officers other than
himself; however, the Compensation Committee will retain the
authority to make the final recommendation to the board for
approval. Furthermore, the Compensation Committee will meet
outside the presence of the CEO when determining his
compensation.
Our approach to structuring and determining compensation for our
named executive officers is related to our stage of development.
Prior to this offering, we have been a privately held company.
In determining executive compensation, we informally considered
a wide variety of factors in arriving at our compensation
decisions, including the competitive market for corresponding
positions within comparable geographic areas, and compensation
arrangements at companies of similar size and stages of
development in the biotechnology and renewable energy
industries. Information about these corresponding positions was
based on the general and personal knowledge of our Compensation
Committee members and board of directors and their experiences
with other companies, as well as consultations with our CEO and
human resources staff and their prior experience and personal
knowledge from contacts with other professionals in the
industry. In addition, our Compensation Committee and board of
directors consulted publicly available compensation surveys to
understand our compensation practices as compared to those of
other companies with similar employee numbers, revenues, market
capitalization, and other measures within our industry. The
primary survey that we
117
reviewed in 2010 was the Radford Global Life Sciences Survey
(Southern California), which aggregated survey results from 130
biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device companies with
revenues of less than $1 billion (though the survey does
not identify the names of these companies). We target the
60th
percentile of the survey in setting base salary levels for our
named executive officers, but for setting other components of
compensation, we do not target a benchmark but rather consider
the survey as one of many factors.
In addition to the foregoing factors, our Compensation Committee
also considered the experience levels and past performance of
our named executive officers in determining their compensation
levels.
In May 2011, our Compensation Committee retained Compensia,
who assisted our Compensation Committee to select a peer group
with whom the Company can compare its compensation levels and
practices. The peer group that was selected includes the
following twenty public companies:
|
|
|
|
|
Amyris, Inc.
|
|
Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
|
|
Rentech, Inc.
|
ArborGen Inc.
|
|
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
|
|
Sangamo Biosciences, Inc.
|
Array BioPharma Inc.
|
|
Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
|
|
Solazyme, Inc.
|
Codexis, Inc.
|
|
Kior, Inc.
|
|
Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp.
|
FutureFuel Corp.
|
|
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
|
|
Targacept, Inc.
|
Genron Corporation
|
|
Metabolix, Inc.
|
|
Verenium Corporation
|
Gevo, Inc.
|
|
Myriant Corporation
|
|
|
Compensation
Philosophy and Objectives
We favor a
pay-for-performance
compensation philosophy that is driven by individual and
corporate performance, while balancing short-term and long-term
company goals. We use a combination of cash payments and equity
awards that we believe to be appropriate for motivating our
executive officers. In addition, we believe that internal pay
equity is an important consideration in determining executive
compensation. However, we do not use a formulaic approach to
determine pay components or amounts. As we gain experience as a
public company, we expect that the specific direction, emphasis
and components of our executive compensation program will
continue to evolve. Our executive compensation program is
currently designed to:
|
|
|
|
|
align the interests of our executive officers with stockholders
by motivating executive officers to meet our long-term
objectives and increase stockholder value by rewarding executive
officers when stockholder value increases;
|
|
|
|
attract and retain talented and experienced executives who will
strategically address our short-term and long-term needs;
|
|
|
|
reward executives whose knowledge, skills and performance are
critical to our success;
|
|
|
|
ensure fairness among the executive management team by
recognizing the contributions each executive makes to our
success; and
|
|
|
|
foster a shared commitment among executives by aligning their
individual goals with the goals of the executive management team
and our stockholders.
|
Our executive compensation program rewards corporate
achievement, as well as team and individual accomplishments, by
emphasizing a combination of corporate results and individual
accountability. To help achieve these objectives, the
Compensation Committee determines a portion of the
executives overall compensation based on the
Companys key business, financial and operational
achievements, such as revenue, product development,
manufacturing metrics, business development and innovation, and
the Compensation Committees assessment of each
executives individual contributions to these achievements.
The Compensation Committee also considers each executive
118
officers individual performance, including contributions
to the Companys organizational development and management;
technological, scientific, budgetary and other business goals;
and other qualitative factors as determined by the Compensation
Committee.
We also seek to promote a long-term commitment to us by our
executives. We believe that there is great value to us in having
a team of long-tenured, seasoned managers. Our team-focused
culture and management processes are designed to foster this
commitment. In addition, our equity compensation program and the
vesting schedule attached to equity awards is based upon the
requirement of continued employment for four years for the
executive to fully vest in the equity award, and is intended to
retain our executives and reinforce this long-term commitment.
Elements of
Compensation and Pay Mix
For fiscal 2010, our executive compensation consisted of the
following elements (discussed in detail below) to promote our
pay-for-performance
philosophy and other compensation goals and objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
base salary;
|
|
|
|
annual cash bonuses linked to our overall performance and
individual performance;
|
|
|
|
grants of long-term equity-based compensation;
|
|
|
|
health and retirement benefits generally available to employees;
|
|
|
|
limited severance payments for certain of our
executives; and
|
|
|
|
limited personal benefits for certain of our executives.
|
We combine these elements to form compensation packages that
provide competitive pay, reward the achievement of financial,
operational and strategic objectives, align the interests of our
executive officers and other senior personnel with those of our
stockholders, and balance short-term and long-term incentives.
We believe this combination of elements provides a
well-proportioned mix of secure compensation, and at-risk
compensation. By following this approach, we motivate our
executives to focus on business results that will produce a high
level of short-term and long-term performance for us and
potential long-term value creation for our executives, as well
as reducing the risk of recruitment of top executive talent by
competitors.
Short-Term
Incentives
Base Salary. Base salary is designed to
provide our executive officers with steady cash flow during the
course of the year that is not contingent on short-term
variations in our corporate performance. The base salaries for
each of our named executive officers are intended to reflect
wages that we believe are competitive for positions in companies
of similar size and stage of development and are generally
targeted at the
60th
percentile of the Radford Survey described above. The setting of
salaries also includes a subjective judgment as to appropriate
levels taking into account each individuals job duties,
responsibilities and experience and comparisons to the salaries
of our other named executive officers. Base salaries are
reviewed at least annually (or more frequently in specific
circumstances) and may be recommended for adjustment from time
to time based on the results of this review. Following our
initial public offering, we expect that salary increases will
continue to be determined using a combination of relevant
competitive market data and assessment of individual
performance. In fiscal 2010, we did not increase the base
salaries of our named executive officers. In 2011, based on the
Compensation Committees review of the Companys
performance as well as the individual named executive
officers contributions to that performance in fiscal 2010,
we increased the base salaries of our named executive officers
as follows: Dr. Hamiltons base salary was increased
by 2.7%, Mr. Kucs base salary was increased by 5%,
Dr. Gwyns base salary was
119
increased by 15%, Dr. Pennells base salary was
increased by 8.7%, and Mr. Stephensons base salary
was increased by 2.8%. After further review by the compensation
committee in July 2011, Mr. Gwyns base salary was
further increased by an additional 9%. The higher increases for
Dr. Gwyn and Dr. Pennell were implemented in order to
bring their base salaries closer in line with our targeted
benchmark of our peer companies as described above. With the
exception of Dr. Gwyn and Mr. Stephenson, the base
salaries of each of our named executive officers in fiscal 2010
was approximately 15% lower than the Radford Surveys 60th
percentile. Dr. Gwyns fiscal 2010 base salary was
approximately 27% lower than, and Mr. Stephensons
base salary was approximately 4% higher than, the Radford
Surveys 60th percentile. The lower levels of the base
salaries of our named executive officers (other than
Mr. Stephenson) in fiscal 2010 as compared with the Radford
Surveys 60th percentile were due to current economic
conditions and budgetary concerns. Mr. Stephensons
base salary exceeds the
60th
percentile target because the Compensation Committee determined
that his job description and responsibilities are broader than
those described for his comparable position in the survey.
Cash Bonuses. Historically, we have awarded
cash bonuses to our named executive officers shortly after the
end of each calendar year. Target bonus amounts are individually
negotiated at the time each named executive is hired and actual
amounts are awarded each year based on performance during the
prior fiscal year. The Compensation Committee evaluates company
and individual performance throughout the year and, after the
end of the fiscal year, determines bonuses based on such
performance and recommends bonus payout levels to the board of
directors for approval.
For fiscal 2010, our bonus payout was not based on a specific
formula but was determined based upon the Compensation
Committees review and subjective assessment of the
following: (1) our success in achieving our key corporate
objectives for the plan year, (2) the individuals
contributions to the successful completion of such corporate
objectives, and (3) the individuals success in
achieving his or her personal goals and objectives for the plan
year. Our corporate objectives were a combination of business,
operating, financial and technology based goals that were
evaluated throughout the year by the board of directors. For
fiscal 2010, the key corporate objectives used by the
Compensation Committee to determine bonus payouts were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
achievement of targeted technical goals in agronomy, breeding,
trait and product development;
|
|
|
|
expansion of collaborations with potential customers and
end-users of our products;
|
|
|
|
achievement of successful fermentation and field trial results
with sweet sorghum; and
|
|
|
|
achievement of key finance, audit and budgetary goals.
|
At the end of fiscal 2010, the Compensation Committee (in
consultation with the CEO other than with respect to himself)
assessed the factors described above and also considered each
named executive officers individual performance in the
following areas:
|
|
|
Dr. Hamilton |
|
Contributing to all of the corporate goals described
above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing and developing direct reports, senior
management team, and key employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creating and maintaining a cohesive team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Serving as the Companys key spokesperson and
favorably raising its profile.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kuc |
|
Contributing to the achievement of key finance,
audit and budgetary goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Participating in audit committee meetings and
relationship with the Companys auditors.
|
120
|
|
|
|
|
Developing the department, and managing and
developing direct reports and key employees.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Stephenson |
|
Contributing toward the expansion of collaborations
with potential customers and end users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributing toward the achievement of successful
fermentation and field trial results with sweet sorghum in the
U.S. and internationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing and developing direct reports and key
employees.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Pennell |
|
Contributing toward the achievement of technical
goals in performance traits and product development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivering field-validated traits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Driving the integration and acceleration of the
Companys genetic research and development program in the
U.S. and internationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing and developing direct reports and key
employees.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Gwyn |
|
Contributing to agronomy and breeding operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expanding breeding activities for key species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expanding relationships with existing research
collaborators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integrating key technology platforms into breeding
programs in the U.S. and internationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing and developing direct reports and key
employees.
|
The corporate goals and the individual factors were not
weighted, but rather, the Compensation Committee conducted a
qualitative assessment of corporate and individual performance
in the foregoing areas, and also considered certain
non-performance factors as further described below, and
determined the percentage payout for each of the named executive
officers. The following table sets forth the 2010 bonuses paid
as a percentage of base salary for each of the named executive
officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target Bonus as a
|
|
Actual Bonus as
|
|
|
Percent of Base
|
|
Percent of Base
|
Name
|
|
Salary (%)
|
|
Salary (%)
|
|
Richard Hamilton
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
17.5
|
|
Paul Kuc
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Roger Pennell
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Michael Stephenson
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
The Compensation Committee determined that bonus payouts to
named executive officers would be less than the target amounts
for fiscal 2010 based on several subjective and objective
factors, including the following: the Companys desire to
enhance internal pay equity for the fiscal year among other
non-executive officers, budgetary constraints, Company
performance, general economic factors, and an analysis of
actions taken at other companies in our industry.
The Compensation Committee then recommended these payout levels
to the board of directors, and the board of directors approved
the payments.
The Compensation Committee also recommended, and the board of
directors has approved, a bonus plan for fiscal 2011. Under the
2011 bonus plan, the target bonus amounts for the named
executive officers are as follows: 50 percent of base
salary for the CEO and 40 percent of base salary
121
for the other named executive officers. The amount of the target
that will be paid out will be based in part upon the
Compensation Committees assessment of the following
corporate milestones:
|
|
|
|
|
Meet the Companys 2011 budget and finance goals;
|
|
|
|
Demonstrate the successful cultivation, processing and
fermentation of key seed varieties;
|
|
|
|
Achieve research and development milestones and results;
|
|
|
|
Expand the cultivated acreage of the Companys energy
crops; and
|
|
|
|
Raise the profile of the Company and its energy crops.
|
The remainder of the bonus payout levels will be based on the
named executive officers achievement of individual
milestones. For the CEO, his actual 2011 bonus will be based 50
percent on the Companys achievement of corporate
milestones, and 50 percent on his achievement of individual
milestones. For the other named executive officers, their actual
2011 bonus payouts will be based 40 percent on the
Companys achievement of corporate milestones, and 60
percent on their achievement of individual milestones.
Long-Term
Incentives
Long-Term Equity Compensation. Our equity
incentive program is intended to reward longer-term performance
and to help align the interests of our executive officers with
those of our stockholders. We believe that long-term performance
is achieved through an ownership culture that rewards such
performance by our executive officers through the use of equity
incentives. Prior to this offering, our long-term incentives to
date have consisted of stock option grants. Our stock option
grants generally have a four-year vesting schedule with
25 percent vesting after the first year and the remainder
vesting ratably each month thereafter over the next three years.
We believe that our equity incentive program is an important
retention tool for our employees, including our named executive
officers.
Initial equity compensation awards for our named executive
officers are individually negotiated with each executive officer
at the time they are hired. In fiscal 2010, we granted stock
option awards to each of our named executive officers based on
their annual performance reviews and promotions. Each of our
named executive officers received a grant of options to purchase
100,000 shares of our common stock, except our CEO, who did
not receive an option grant due to his current equity ownership
levels. Drs. Pennell and Gwyn each received an additional
option grant in fiscal 2010 in connection with their respective
promotions. Equity awards to executive officers have not
historically been based upon a formula, but rather are
determined on a
case-by-case
basis considering the executives current share ownership,
his or her current overall compensation levels, the
Companys need to incentivize the executive in the long
term, and retention needs. As a recruitment incentive, we also
granted restricted stock awards with time and performance-based
vesting to Dr. Gwyn. These restricted shares vest annually
over four years starting on April 1, 2009, subject to
Dr. Gwyns achievement, as determined at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee, of a favorable
performance rating in the following areas: establishing a
breeding research center, adhering to budgetary requirements,
developing breeding programs for three species of grass and
developing other research and development initiatives.
In June 2011, we granted additional stock options under our 2010
Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan to certain key employees,
including our named executive officers. These stock options are
each subject to a five-year vesting schedule with a two-year
cliff, with 40 percent of the options vesting on the second
anniversary of grant and the remainder vesting ratably over the
next three years. Our board of directors determined that this
five-year vesting schedule was appropriate, rather than our
standard four-year schedule, in order to retain and motivate
these key employees in light of this
122
offering. The options were granted at the fair market value on
the date of grant, which was $5.59 per share. The grants to our
named executive officers are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
Named Executive Officer
|
|
Subject to the Option
|
|
|
Richard Hamilton
|
|
|
200,000
|
|
Paul Kuc
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
Michael Stephenson
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
Roger Pennell
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
In connection with our transition to a publicly-traded company,
we expect to continue to grant stock options to our executive
officers, and we may also utilize other types of equity awards.
We also intend to adopt a new 2011 Equity Incentive Plan to
become effective immediately prior to the completion of this
offering.
Other
Compensation and Benefits
Other Employee Benefits. We maintain a 401(k)
plan in which substantially all of our employees are entitled to
participate, under which we provide matching contributions of
50 percent of the employees contributions up to a
maximum of 4 percent of the employees income (or
50 percent of employee contributions of up to
8 percent of the employees base salary). We provide
health care, dental, vision, life insurance, disability and
other welfare benefits to all full-time employees, including our
executive officers. These benefits are available to
substantially all employees, subject to applicable laws. We
generally do not provide other personal benefits to our named
executive officers that are not available to other full-time
employees on the same terms, though we occasionally provide
reimbursement of moving expenses and associated tax gross ups
for those amounts as a recruitment tool. We have also provided
our CFO with reimbursement of legal expenses relating to his
immigration and naturalization. In addition, in accordance with
our company policy, Dr. Gwyn and a number of other
non-executive employees who work as breeders and agronomists are
provided with a company vehicle in order to drive to different
field locations. These employees, including Dr. Gwyn, may
also occasionally use the company vehicles for personal reasons.
The only incremental cost to us for personal use of these
vehicles is the cost of gasoline when the employee is driving
the vehicle for personal reasons. We have estimated this cost
for Dr. Gwyn below in the Summary Compensation
Table.
Severance and Change of Control
Benefits. Other than with respect to our CEO and
CFO, our named executive officers are not generally entitled to
contractual severance or change in control benefits, and any
severance provided to a named executive officer would be
negotiated at the time of his or her departure. Our arrangements
with our CEO and CFO were individually negotiated in connection
with their hire. Our CEO is entitled to limited salary
continuation in the event his employment is terminated by us
without cause. In addition, our CFO is entitled to a severance
payment in the event his employment is terminated in connection
with an acquisition of the Company. Under our 2010 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan, or the 2010 Plan, vesting of equity
awards will accelerate under certain circumstances as described
in detail below in the section captioned Executive
Compensation Potential Severance Payments upon
Termination and upon Termination Following a Change in
Control. We believe that these limited benefits provide us
with the most flexibility to make a change in executive
management, if such a change is in our stockholders best
interests, while providing a certain amount of certainty and
security to our top executives so they can focus on their
duties. For more detail on our severance and change in control
arrangements, please see Potential Severance Payments upon
Termination and upon Termination Following a Change in
Control and Executive Employment Agreements.
Tax Considerations. Section 162(m) of the
Internal Revenue Code disallows a tax deduction for any publicly
held corporation for individual compensation exceeding
$1.0 million in any taxable year
123
for our named executive officers (other than our chief financial
officer), unless compensation is performance-based. As we are
not currently publicly-traded, our board of directors has not
previously taken the deductibility limit imposed by
Section 162(m) into consideration in setting compensation.
We expect that our Compensation Committee may in the future,
where reasonably practicable, take steps to ensure that the
variable compensation paid to our executive officers is
deductible by the Company. However, our Compensation Committee
may, in its judgment, authorize compensation payments that do
not meet the deductibility requirements imposed by
Section 162(m) when it believes that such payments are
appropriate to attract and retain executive talent.
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table sets forth information regarding
compensation earned by our named executive officers during
fiscal 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
Salary ($)
|
|
Bonus ($)(1)
|
|
Awards ($)(2)
|
|
($)
|
|
Total ($)
|
|
Richard Hamilton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
380,000
|
|
|
|
66,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,616(3)
|
|
|
|
454,116
|
|
Paul Kuc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
260,000
|
|
|
|
65,000
|
|
|
|
155,133
|
|
|
|
65,021(4)
|
|
|
|
545,154
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vice President of Breeding and Genomics
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
200,577
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
315,558
|
|
|
|
29,129(5)
|
|
|
|
595,264
|
|
Roger Pennell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vice President of Trait Development
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
231,154
|
|
|
|
46,000
|
|
|
|
214,421
|
|
|
|
8,278(6)
|
|
|
|
499,853
|
|
Michael Stephenson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vice President of Operations
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
155,133
|
|
|
|
6,744(7)
|
|
|
|
461,877
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
The amounts reported in this column
represent discretionary bonuses determined by the board of
directors in respect of performance in fiscal 2010. These
bonuses were paid in early 2011.
|
|
(2)
|
|
The amounts in the Option
Awards column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value
of stock options granted, computed in accordance with ASC Topic
718. The assumptions used by us in determining the grant date
fair value of option awards are set forth in Note 6 to our
Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus. See the Grants of Plan-Based Awards
table for more information on stock option grants made in fiscal
2010. These amounts do not correspond to the actual value that
may be recognized by the named executive officers.
|
|
(3)
|
|
This amount includes a company
matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of $7,350
and company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of $266.
|
|
(4)
|
|
This amount includes a company
matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of
$5,600, company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of
$266, an amount of $6,750 to cover legal expenses associated
with Mr. Kucs naturalization, reimbursement of a
$28,650 realtors fee associated with the sale of
Mr. Kucs primary residence pursuant to the terms of
his offer letter, and an amount of $23,755 to cover the taxes
associated with the reimbursement.
|
|
(5)
|
|
This amount includes a company
matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of
$8,023, company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of
$266, and $13,373 in a closing cost reimbursements associated
with the purchase of Dr. Gwyns primary residence
according to his offer letter, a gross up amount of
$5,481 gross-up
to pay taxes associated with the reimbursement, and $503 for
miscellaneous moving expense reimbursement, and the estimated
portion his company vehicles gasoline expense incurred by
us that is attributable to his personal use of the vehicle in
the amount of $1,483.
|
|
(6)
|
|
This amount includes a company
matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of $8,012
and company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of $266.
|
|
(7)
|
|
This amount includes a company
matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of $6,494
and company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of $250.
|
124
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards
The following table sets forth information regarding grants of
compensation in the form of plan-based awards made during fiscal
2010 to our named executive officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other Option
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards: Number of
|
|
Exercise or Base
|
|
Grant Date Fair
|
|
|
|
|
Securities Underlying
|
|
Price of Option
|
|
Value of Option
|
Name
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Options (#)(1)
|
|
Awards ($/Sh)(2)
|
|
Awards ($)(3)
|
|
Paul Kuc
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
155,133
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn
|
|
|
9/15/2009
|
(4)
|
|
|
115,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
160,425
|
|
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
155,133
|
|
Roger Pennell
|
|
|
9/15/2009
|
(4)
|
|
|
42,500
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
59,288
|
|
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
155,133
|
|
Michael Stephenson
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
155,133
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Stock option awards vest as to 25%
of the original number of shares on the first anniversary of the
vesting commencement date, which is a date fixed by our board of
directors when granting options, and the remainder of the shares
vest ratably each month thereafter until the fourth anniversary
of the vesting commencement date. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
awards may be subject to acceleration of vesting upon a change
in control of our company and termination of employment
following a change in control, as further described below in
Executive Compensation Potential Severance
Payments upon Termination and upon Termination Following a
Change in Control. All options were granted under either
our 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended, or our
2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, which are described below
under Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Executive Compensation Equity Compensation
Plans.
|
|
(2)
|
|
Represents the fair market value of
a share of our common stock, as determined by our board of
directors, on the respective option grant date. For a discussion
of our methodology for determining the fair value of our common
stock, see the Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section of this
prospectus.
|
|
(3)
|
|
Reflects the grant date fair value
of each stock option granted computed in accordance with ASC
Topic 718. The assumptions used by us in determining the grant
date fair value of option awards are set forth in Note 6 to
our Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus. These amounts do not correspond to the actual value
that may be recognized by the named executive officers.
|
|
(4)
|
|
The grants to Dr. Gwyn and
Dr. Pennell on September 15, 2009 were made outside
the annual grant process in connection with their internal
promotions.
|
125
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal 2010 Year-End
The following table itemizes outstanding options and restricted
stock awards held by the named executive officers as of
August 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
Securities
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
Underlying
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
Options
|
|
Underlying
|
|
Option
|
|
Option
|
|
Shares That
|
|
Shares That
|
|
|
Option
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
Unexercisable
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Expiration
|
|
Have Not
|
|
Have Not
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
(#)(1)*
|
|
(#)(1)
|
|
Options (#)
|
|
Price ($)(2)
|
|
Date
|
|
Vested (#)(3)
|
|
Vested ($)(4)
|
|
Richard Hamilton
|
|
|
12/19/2002
|
|
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,200,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
0.65
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/16/2006
|
|
|
|
205,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
1/15/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007
|
|
|
|
562,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
562,000
|
(7)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
12/20/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kuc
|
|
|
9/3/2008
|
|
|
|
330,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
330,000
|
(8)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
9/2/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
(9)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
6/7/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn
|
|
|
8/19/2008
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
(10)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
8/18/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/15/2009
|
|
|
|
115,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115,000
|
(11)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
9/14/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
(9)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
6/7/2020
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
12,200
|
|
Roger Pennell
|
|
|
5/17/2006
|
|
|
|
80,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,000
|
(12)
|
|
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
5/16/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/15/2009
|
|
|
|
42,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42,500
|
(11)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
9/14/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
(9)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
6/7/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Stephenson
|
|
|
6/4/2008
|
|
|
|
300,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300,000
|
(13)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
6/3/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/8/2010
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
(9)
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
6/7/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Stock options may be exercised
prior to vesting, subject to repurchase rights that expire over
the vesting periods indicated in the footnotes below.
Accordingly, all stock options outstanding as of August 31,
2010 were exercisable in full.
|
|
(1)
|
|
All options vest as to 25% of the
original number of shares on the first anniversary of the
vesting commencement date, which is a date fixed by our board of
directors when granting options, and the remainder of the shares
vest ratably each month thereafter until the fourth anniversary
of the vesting commencement date. Notwithstanding, awards may be
accelerated upon a change in control of our company, and/or
termination of employment following a change in control, as
further described below in Executive
Compensation Potential Severance Payments upon
Termination and upon Termination Following a Change in
Control. Unvested options are subject to early exercise,
in which case, until they vest, the shares acquired pursuant to
such exercise will be restricted and subject to repurchase by
the Company at the exercise price upon the participant
termination of employment.
|
|
(2)
|
|
The option exercise price
represents the fair market value of our common stock as of the
date of grant, as determined by our board of directors.
|
|
(3)
|
|
The remainder of the restricted
stock award held by Dr. Gwyn vests in equal annual
installments on the following dates: April 1, 2011 (which
installment did vest), and April 1, 2012, subject to the
achievement of certain performance milestones.
|
|
(4)
|
|
The aggregate dollar value of
unvested restricted stock represents the product of the fair
market value of our common stock on August 31, 2010, which
was determined by our board of directors to be approximately
$2.44 per share, and the number of shares that remained unvested
on August 31, 2010.
|
|
(5)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is September 23, 2002.
|
|
(6)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is January 16, 2006.
|
|
(7)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is December 21, 2007.
|
|
(8)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is September 3, 2008.
|
|
(9)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is June 8, 2010.
|
|
(10)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is August 11, 2008.
|
|
(11)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is August 1, 2009.
|
|
(12)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is April 1, 2006.
|
|
(13)
|
|
The vesting commencement date of
this grant is June 1, 2008.
|
Option Exercises
and Stock Vested in Fiscal 2010
The following table contains information about stock awards that
vested for each of our named executive officers during fiscal
2010, including the number of shares acquired upon the vesting
of
126
stock awards and the value realized, before payment of any
applicable withholding taxes. There were no stock options
exercised by our named executive officers during fiscal 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired on
|
|
Value Realized on
|
Name
|
|
Vesting
|
|
Vesting (1)
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn
|
|
|
2,500
|
|
|
$
|
5,800
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The aggregate dollar value realized upon vesting of restricted
stock represents the product of the fair market value of our
common stock on the vesting date, which was determined by our
board of directors to be approximately $2.32 per share, and the
number of shares that vested on such date. For a discussion of
our methodology for determining the fair value of our common
stock, see the Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section of this
prospectus. |
Pension Benefits
and Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation
None of our named executive officers participates in, or has an
account balance in, a qualified or non-qualified pension plan or
deferred compensation plan sponsored by us.
Potential
Severance Payments upon Termination and upon Termination
Following a Change in Control
Under their offer letters in place in fiscal 2010, our CEO was
entitled to certain severance payments in the event of his
termination of employment without cause, and our CFO was
entitled to certain severance payments in the event of his
termination in connection with an acquisition of the Company.
The following table summarizes the potential payments and
benefits payable to each of our named executive officers upon
(i) termination of employment without cause in the absence
of a change in control and (ii) termination of employment
without cause or involuntary termination (as defined
in the 2010 Plan and described below) following a change in
control, assuming, in each situation, that termination and
change of control, as applicable, occurred on August 31,
2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Involuntary Termination in
|
|
|
Termination Without Cause
|
|
Connection with or within
|
|
|
in the Absence of a
|
|
12 Months Following a
|
|
|
Change in Control
|
|
Change in Control
|
|
|
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
Accelerated
|
|
|
|
Accelerated
|
|
|
Base Salary
|
|
Options or
|
|
Base Salary
|
|
Options or
|
Name
|
|
($)(1)
|
|
Shares ($)
|
|
($)(1)
|
|
Shares ($)(2)
|
|
Richard Hamilton
|
|
|
285,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
285,000
|
|
|
|
35,593
|
|
Paul Kuc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260,000
|
|
|
|
51,656
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,713
|
|
Roger Pennell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,056
|
|
Michael Stephenson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,125
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The amounts in this column represent the salary continuation of
our CEO in the event of his termination of employment by us
without cause, and a lump sum payment to our CFO in the event of
his termination in connection with an acquisition of the Company. |
|
(2) |
|
This column assumes that options and restricted stock accelerate
in the event of an involuntary termination (as
defined in the 2010 Plan and described below) within
12 months after a change in control or similar corporate
transaction. The amounts represent, in (1) respect of each
unvested stock option outstanding as of August 31, 2010,
the number of shares underlying such stock |
127
|
|
|
|
|
option, multiplied by the excess of the fair market value of our
common stock on such date, as determined by our board of
directors to be $2.44 per share, over the exercise price of such
option, and (2) in respect of any outstanding restricted
stock, the number of shares of restricted stock outstanding as
of August 31, 2010, multiplied by the fair market value of
our common stock on such date, as determined by our board of
directors to be $2.44 per share. |
Executive
Employment Agreements
Prior to the effective time of this offering, we have not had
formal employment agreements with our named executive officers.
The initial compensation and terms of employment of each named
executive officer was set forth in an offer letter that we
executed with him or her at the time his or her employment with
us commenced. Each offer letter provides for an initial base
salary, bonus opportunity, equity grant and other benefits to be
provided to the executive officer. Other than the CEO and CFO,
none of our named executive officers is entitled to any
contractual severance benefits upon termination of employment,
and each individual is employed at will. Under our
CEOs offer letter, both we and the CEO are required to
provide 90 days notice to the other party if we or he
intend to terminate his employment for any reason. In addition,
our CEO is entitled to severance in the form of continued base
salary payments for a period of nine months in the event his
employment is terminated without cause by us. Under our
CFOs offer letter, our CFO is entitled to severance in the
amount of 12 months salary in the event that his
employment is terminated in connection with an acquisition of
the Company. Mr. Stephensons offer letter provides
that if we decide to terminate his employment or if he resigns,
6 months notice must be given to the other party.
In
2011, we entered into executive employment agreements with each
of our named executive officers. The terms of each of these
agreements are substantially similar, except with respect to
each named executive officers initial base salary, which
is described below.
Each of the executive employment agreements has an initial term
of one year, starting on the effective date of this offering,
with an automatic renewal for additional one-year periods,
unless either party gives 90 days notice of
nonrenewal. The employment agreements provide for an initial
annual base salary (to be reviewed by the Compensation Committee
annually), a performance bonus and long-term incentive award
opportunity as determined by the Compensation Committee, and
participation in the Companys savings, retirement and
other welfare benefit plans that the Company may have in place
from time to time.
Under the executive employment agreements, if the Company
terminates the named executive officers employment or does
not renew the term of the employment agreement for reasons other
than for cause or if the named executive officer
resigns his employment for good reason, then he will
be entitled to (i) a lump sum severance payment equal to
one years base salary; (ii) to the extent the
termination occurs on or after the mid-point of the
Companys fiscal year, a pro-rated annual bonus and
(iii) any other compensation and benefits accrued on or
prior to the termination date. The named executive officer (or
his estate if applicable) will also receive the foregoing
amounts if his employment is terminated due to death or
disability.
If the named executive officers employment is terminated
or not renewed by the Company for reasons other than for
cause or if he resigns from his employment for
good reason, in each case, within six months prior
to, or within twelve months after, a change in
control, then he is entitled to a lump sum severance
payment equal to two times his base salary and any other accrued
compensation and benefits. If the named executive officers
employment is terminated or the term of the employment agreement
is not renewed for cause or if the named executive
officer resigns from his employment or does not renew the term
for any reason other than good reason, then he will
be entitled only to compensation and benefits that have accrued
on or prior to the termination date.
The named executive officers are obligated to comply with a
confidentiality, proprietary information and inventions
assignment agreement previously entered into with the Company
and non-disparagement covenants under the executive employment
agreements. In addition, payments under
128
the agreements will be subject to any clawback or recoupment
policies as required under applicable law.
Under the executive employment agreements, the following
definitions apply:
|
|
|
|
|
Cause is defined as (i) a material breach of
the employment agreement or any other written agreement with the
Company to the extent the breach is not cured within
30 days; (ii) the named executive officers
conviction or plea of nolo contendere to a felony or
another crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude or which
could reflect negatively on or otherwise impair or impede the
Companys operations; (iii) the named executive
officers engaging in misconduct, negligence, dishonesty,
violence or threat of violence that is injurious to the Company;
(iv) a material breach of a written policy of the Company
or the rules of any governmental or regulatory body applicable
to the Company that could result in an adverse effect on the
Company or could reflect negatively on or impair the operations
of the Company or (v) any other willful misconduct that is
materially injurious to the financial condition or business
reputation of the Company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good reason is defined as any of the following:
(i) an adverse change in the named executive officers
position with the Company that materially reduces his level of
authority, duties or responsibility; (ii) a reduction of
base salary by more than five percent (except a reduction of 15%
or less if the reduction is similarly applied to all
executives); (iii) a relocation of place of employment by
more than 50 miles without the executives consent or
(iv) a substantial change in the nature or orientation of
the Companys core business such that the Company is no
longer substantially engaged in the agricultural biotechnology
business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A change in control means the occurrence of any of
the following events: (i) any person or group becomes the
beneficial owner of greater than 50% of the Companys total
voting power; (ii) the sale of substantially all of the
Companys assets; or (iii) the consummation of a
merger or consolidation of the Company, after which the voting
securities of the Company outstanding immediately prior to the
event no longer represent 50% or more of the voting power
represented by the voting securities of the Company or surviving
entity immediately after the event.
|
The following initial base salaries are provided for in each
named executive officers employment agreement: $466,000
for Dr. Hamilton, $323,000 for Mr. Kuc, $274,000 for
Dr. Gwyn, $274,000 for Dr. Pennell and $300,000 for
Mr. Stephenson.
Equity
Compensation Plans
Ceres, Inc. 2011
Equity Incentive Plan
The following is a summary of the Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity
Incentive Plan, or the 2011 Plan, which was adopted by our board
of directors on July 20, 2011, and approved by the
Companys shareholders
on ,
2011. This summary is not intended to be a complete description
of all provisions of the Plan and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to the 2011 Plan, which will be filed as an exhibit
to this registration statement.
Purpose. The purpose of the 2011 Plan is to
promote the success and enhance the value of the Company by
linking the personal interests of directors, employees and
consultants to those interests of our stockholders.
Eligibility. Incentive stock options may only
be granted to employees of the Company. All other awards under
the 2011 Plan may be granted to employees, consultant or
non-employee directors of the Company. As of July 20, 2011,
the Company had approximately 89 employees, 8 non-employee
directors and 3 consultants, any number of whom could be
selected by the Compensation Committee to participate in the PIP.
129
Stock Subject to Plan. Subject to any
recapitalization adjustments, the maximum aggregate number of
shares of common stock that may be issued under the 2011 Plan is
4 million shares. Any shares not issued due to net
settlement of an award, shares used to pay the exercise price or
withholding taxes for an award and shares repurchased on the
open market with the proceeds of a stock option exercise will
not be made available again for granting awards under the plan.
If any award under the plan, or under any predecessor
equity-based plan of the Company, is forfeited or cancelled, the
associated shares will be available again for grant under the
2011 Plan.
Administration. The 2011 Plan is to be
administered by the Compensation Committee, but the full Board
of Directors has final authority to approve awards made under
the 2011 Plan (except to the extent such awards must be granted
by a committee of independent directors under applicable law)
and the full Board of Directors is the administrator for awards
granted to non-employee directors. The Board of Directors may
also assume administrative authority to the extent permitted by
applicable law, and both the Board of Directors and the
Compensation Committee may delegate their administrative
functions to one or more members of the Board of Directors or to
one or more officers of the Company to the extent permitted by
applicable law.
The administrator of the 2011 Plan has the authority to
designate eligible individuals to receive awards; determine the
type and number of awards to be granted and the terms and
conditions of any award; determine whether awards may be settled
in cash, common stock, other awards, or other property; decide
all other matters relating to any award, establish any rules and
regulations as it may deem necessary or advisable to administer
the plan and make all other decisions and determinations as
necessary or advisable to administer the 2011 Plan.
Performance-Based Awards. The Compensation
Committee may grant performance-based awards that will be based
upon the Companys achievement of objective performance
criteria as selected by the Compensation Committee within
90 days following the beginning of the applicable
performance period. The performance criteria will be one or more
of the following measures: earnings (either before or after
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), sales or
revenue, net income (either before or after taxes), operating
earnings or profit, cash flow, return on assets or net assets,
return on capital, return on sales, profit or operating margin,
costs, funds from operations, expenses, working capital,
earnings per share, price per share of common stock, regulatory
body approval for commercialization of a product, implementation
or completion of critical projects, market share, billings,
operating income or profit, operating expenses, total
stockholder return, cash conversion cycle, economic value added,
contract awards or backlog, overhead or other expense reduction,
credit rating, acquisitions or strategic transactions, strategic
plan development and implementation, succession plan development
and implementation, customer surveys, new product invention or
innovation, attainment of research and development milestones,
improvements in productivity and the attainment of objective
operating goals and employee metrics. The maximum number of
shares in respect of any one or more awards that may be granted
to any individual in any calendar year is two million shares.
Stock Options. The plan administrator may
grant incentive stock options (intended to qualify under
Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code) or nonqualified
stock options under the 2011 Plan. The exercise price of any
stock option granted may not be less than 100% of the fair
market value of the Companys common stock on the date of
grant (or, for incentive stock options, 110% of fair market
value if the grantee is a ten percent stockholder). The term of
any stock option granted may not exceed ten years (or, for
incentive stock options, five years for any grantee who is a ten
percent stockholder). The plan administrator will determine the
vesting conditions and schedule for each stock option granted,
which may be based upon the participants service with the
Company, the achievement of performance criteria, or any other
criteria.
Restricted Stock. The plan administrator may
grant restricted stock under the 2011 Plan. The plan
administrator will determine the restrictions and vesting
conditions and schedule for each grant of
130
restricted stock, which may be based upon the
participants service with the Company, the achievement of
performance criteria, or any other criteria.
Stock Appreciation Rights. The plan
administrator may grant stock appreciation rights. The exercise
price of any stock appreciation right granted may not be less
than 100% of the fair market value of the Companys common
stock on the date of grant. The plan administrator will
determine the vesting conditions and schedule for each stock
appreciation right, which may be based upon the
participants service with the Company, the achievement of
performance criteria, or any other criteria.
Performance Awards, Dividend Equivalents, Stock Payments,
Restricted Stock Units and Other Awards. The plan
administrator may also grant performance awards that are linked
to the performance criteria set forth in the 2011 Plan or other
criteria. Performance awards may be paid in common stock, cash
or a combination thereof, as determined by the plan
administrator. The plan administrator may also make grants of
dividend equivalents, stock payments, deferred stock, restricted
stock units (settled in cash, common stock or a combination
thereof) and other equity or equity based awards. The term,
exercise or purchase price, vesting conditions and other terms
and conditions of performance awards will be determined by the
plan administrator.
Recoupment and Repricing. Any awards granted
under the 2011 Plan will be subject to any clawback or
recoupment policies and procedures as required under applicable
law. The administrator has the authority to amend any
outstanding award to increase or reduce the price per share or
cancel and replace any award with the grant of a new award, in
each case without the approval of the stockholders of the
Company.
Corporate Events. The number, type and kind of
shares authorized for issuance will be equitably adjusted in the
event of a stock split, reverse stock split, subdivision, bonus
issue, stock dividend, recapitalization, reorganization, merger,
amalgamation, consolidation, division, extraordinary dividend,
split-up,
spin-off, combination, exchange of shares, warrants or rights
offering to purchase common stock at a price substantially below
fair market value, or other similar corporate event affecting
the common stock in order to preserve the benefits intended to
be made available under the 2011 Plan. In addition, in the event
of such a corporate event, the number of outstanding awards and
the number, type and kind of securities subject to any
outstanding award and the exercise or purchase price per share,
if any, under any outstanding award will also be equitably
adjusted in order to preserve the benefits intended to be made
available to participants.
In the event of a change in control, the
administrator may take any one or more of the following actions
in order to prevent the dilution or enlargement of benefits
intended to be made available to participants under the plan or
to facilitate the change in control transaction:
(i) terminate or cancel outstanding awards in exchange for
a cash payment; (ii) provide for the assumption,
substitution, replacement, or continuation of any award by the
successor or surviving company; (iii) make any other
adjustments in the number, type and kind of securities or other
consideration and the terms and conditions of outstanding
awards; (iv) to provide for the acceleration of any awards,
or any portion thereof and (v) to provide that an award
cannot vest, be exercised or become payable after the event.
Also, if upon a change of control, any outstanding award is not
continued, assumed, replaced or substituted, or if the
participant experiences a qualifying termination in
connection with the change in control, any affected unvested
award or awards will accelerate.
Definitions. Under the 2011 Plan, the
following definitions apply:
|
|
|
|
|
A change in control means the occurrence of any of
the following events: (i) any person or group becomes the
beneficial owner of greater than 50% of the Companys total
voting power; (ii) the sale of substantially all of the
Companys assets; or (iii) the consummation of a
merger or consolidation of the Company, after which the voting
securities of the Company outstanding immediately prior to the
event no longer represent 50% or more of the voting power
represented by the voting securities of the Company or surviving
entity immediately after the event.
|
131
|
|
|
|
|
A qualifying termination is deemed to have occurred
if a participants employment is terminated within six
months prior to or twelve months following a change in control
either by reason of his or her dismissal or discharge for
misconduct or his or her voluntary resignation for
good reason as defined in an employment agreement
with the participant, or if there is no employment agreement or
good reason definition, for any of the following
reasons: (i) a material adverse change in the
participants position with the Company that materially
reduces his or her level of responsibility; (ii) a material
adverse reduction in the participants level of base salary
by more than 15 percent (unless the reduction is applied in
a consistent manner to substantially all of the Companys
other employees) or (iii) a relocation of the
participants place of employment by more than
50 miles without the Participants consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Misconduct is defined as cause as
defined in an employment agreement with the participant, or if
there is no employment agreement or cause
definition, the following: (i) the participants
breach of an agreement with the Company; (ii) the
participants failure or refusal to satisfactorily perform
the duties reasonably required of him or her; (iii) the
participants commission of any act of fraud, embezzlement,
dishonesty or insubordination; (iv) the participants
unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential information or
trade secrets of the Company; (v) the participants
breach of a Company policy or the rules of any governmental or
regulatory body or (vi) any other misconduct by the
participant that, or could have, an adverse impact on the
business, reputation or affairs of the Company.
|
Amendment and Termination. The 2011 Plan may
be amended, suspended or terminated by the board of directors;
however, any material amendments are subject to shareholder
approval.
Certain Federal Income Tax Consequences. The
following is a brief summary of certain significant United
States Federal income tax consequences under the Internal
Revenue Code, as in effect on the date of this summary,
applicable to the Company and plan participants in connection
with awards under the 2011 Plan. This summary assumes that all
awards will be exempt from, or comply with, the rules under
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code regarding
nonqualified deferred compensation. If an award constitutes
nonqualified deferred compensation and fails to comply with
Section 409A, the award will be subject to immediate
taxation and tax penalties in the year the award vests. This
summary is not intended to be exhaustive, and, among other
things, does not describe state, local or
non-United
States tax consequences, or the effect of gift, estate or
inheritance taxes. References to the Company in this
summary of tax consequences mean Ceres, Inc., or any affiliate
of Ceres, Inc. that employs or receives the services of a
recipient of an award under the 2011 Plan, as the case may be.
The grant of stock options under the 2011 Plan will not result
in taxable income to the recipient of the options or an income
tax deduction for the Company. However, the transfer of our
common stock to an option holder upon exercise of his or her
option may or may not give rise to taxable income to the option
holder and a tax deduction for the Company depending upon
whether such option is a nonqualified stock option or an
incentive stock option.
The exercise of a nonqualified stock option by an option holder
generally results in immediate recognition of taxable ordinary
income by the option holder and a corresponding tax deduction
for the Company in the amount by which the fair market value of
the shares of our common stock purchased, on the date of such
exercise, exceeds the aggregate exercise price paid. Any
appreciation or depreciation in the fair market value of those
shares after the exercise date will generally result in a
capital gain or loss to the holder at the time he or she
disposes of those shares.
The exercise of an incentive stock option by the option holder
is exempt from income tax, although not from the alternative
minimum tax, and does not result in a tax deduction for the
Company if the holder has been an employee of the Company at all
times beginning with the option grant date and ending three
months before the date the holder exercises the option (or
twelve months in the case of termination of employment due to
disability). If the option holder has not been so employed
during that time, the holder will be taxed as described above
for nonqualified stock options.
132
If the option holder disposes of the shares purchased more than
two years after the option was granted and more than one year
after the option was exercised, then the option holder will
recognize any gain or loss upon disposition of those shares as
capital gain or loss. However, if the option holder disposes of
the shares prior to satisfying these holding periods (known as a
disqualifying disposition), the option holder will
be obligated to report, as taxable ordinary income for the year
in which that disposition occurs, the excess, with certain
adjustments, of the fair market value of the shares disposed of,
on the date the incentive stock option was exercised, over the
exercise price paid for those shares. The Company would be
entitled to a tax deduction equal to that amount of ordinary
income reported by the option holder. Any additional gain
realized by the option holder on the disqualifying disposition
would be capital gain. If the total amount realized in a
disqualifying disposition is less than the exercise price of the
incentive stock option, the difference would be a capital loss
for the holder.
The grant of stock appreciation rights does not result in
taxable income to the recipient of a stock appreciation right or
a tax deduction for the Company. Upon exercise of a stock
appreciation right, the amount of any cash the participant
receives (before applicable tax withholdings) and the fair
market value as of the exercise date of any common stock
received are taxable to the participant as ordinary income and
deductible by the Company.
A participant will not recognize any taxable income upon the
award of shares of restricted stock which are not transferable
and are subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. Dividends
paid with respect to restricted stock prior to the lapse of
restrictions applicable to that stock will be taxable as
compensation income to the participant. Generally, the
participant will recognize taxable ordinary income at the first
time those shares become transferable or are no longer subject
to a substantial risk of forfeiture, in an amount equal to the
fair market value of those shares when the restrictions lapse.
However, a participant may elect to recognize taxable ordinary
income upon the award date of restricted stock based on the fair
market value of the shares of common stock subject to the award
on the award date. If a participant makes that election, any
dividends paid with respect to that restricted stock will not be
treated as compensation income, but rather as dividend income,
and the participant will not recognize additional taxable income
when the restrictions applicable to his or her restricted stock
award lapse. Assuming compliance with the applicable tax
withholding and reporting requirements, the Company will be
entitled to a tax deduction equal to the amount of ordinary
income recognized by a participant in connection with his or her
restricted stock award in the Companys taxable year in
which that participant recognizes that ordinary income.
The grant of restricted stock units does not result in taxable
income to the recipient of a restricted stock unit or a tax
deduction for the Company. The amount of cash paid (before
applicable tax withholdings) or the then-current fair market
value of the common stock received upon settlement of the
restricted stock units is taxable to the recipient as ordinary
income and deductible by the Company.
The grant of a cash-based award, other stock-based award or
dividend equivalent right generally should not result in the
recognition of taxable income by the recipient or a tax
deduction by the Company. The payment or settlement of a
cash-based award, other stock-based award or dividend equivalent
right should generally result in immediate recognition of
taxable ordinary income by the recipient equal to the amount of
any cash paid (before applicable tax withholding) or the
then-current fair market value of the shares of common stock
received, and a corresponding tax deduction by the Company. If
the shares covered by the award are not transferable and subject
to a substantial risk of forfeiture, the tax consequences to the
participant and the Company will be similar to the tax
consequences of restricted stock awards, described above. If an
other stock-based award consists of unrestricted shares of
common stock, the recipient of those shares will immediately
recognize as taxable ordinary income the fair market value of
those shares on the date of the award, and the Company will be
entitled to a corresponding tax deduction.
133
Under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, the
Company may be limited as to federal income tax deductions to
the extent that total annual compensation in excess of
$1 million is paid to our CEO or any one of our three
highest paid executive officers, other than the CEO or CFO, who
are employed by us on the last day of our taxable year. However,
certain performance-based compensation the material
terms of which are disclosed to and approved by our stockholders
is not subject to this deduction limitation. The 2011 Plan has
been structured with the intention that compensation resulting
from stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under
the 2011 Plan will be qualified performance-based compensation
and, assuming the plan is approved by the stockholders,
deductible without regard to the limitations otherwise imposed
by section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The 2011
Plan allows the Compensation Committee discretion to award
restricted stock, restricted stock units, cash-based awards and
other stock-based awards in the form of performance compensation
awards that are intended to be qualified performance-based
compensation, as described under Performance-Based
Awards above.
New Plan Benefits. As of July 20, 2011,
there were approximately 8 non-employee directors, approximately
89 employees and approximately 3 consultants who would
be eligible to receive awards under the 2011 Plan. Because it
will be within the plan administrators discretion to
determine which directors, employees and consultants will
receive awards under the 2011 Plan and the types and amounts of
those awards, it is not possible at present to specify the
benefits that would be received under the 2011 Plan by
directors, employees and consultants. Information regarding our
recent practices with respect to equity-based compensation under
existing plans is presented in the Summary Compensation
Table and Outstanding Equity Awards at 2010 Fiscal
Year-End table contained elsewhere in this Registration
Statement.
Ceres, Inc. 2010
Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
General. Our board of directors adopted, and
our stockholders approved, the 2010 Plan on June 7, 2010.
The 2010 Plan provides for the grant of incentive stock options,
nonstatutory stock options, and shares of restricted or
unrestricted common stock. Upon the signing of the underwriting
agreement for this offering, no further awards will be granted
under the 2010 Plan. However, all outstanding awards will
continue to be governed by their existing terms.
Share Reserve. The maximum number of shares of
common stock issuable under the 2010 Plan is 1,757,400,
increased by the number of shares underlying awards granted
under the 2010 Plan and predecessor plans that were expired or
were otherwise forfeited; provided that no more than
8,029,345 shares may be issued under the plan. As of
July 20, 2011, 24,042 shares of common stock remained
available for future issuance.
Administration. The 2010 Plan is administered
by our board of directors, but administrative functions may be
delegated to the Compensation Committee.
Eligibility. Employees, non-employee members
of the board of directors and consultants and other independent
service providers are eligible to participate in the 2010 Plan.
The plan administrator determines which eligible individuals
will receive grants and the terms of their awards. Incentive
stock options, however, may be granted only to employees.
Stock Options. With respect to stock options
granted under the 2010 Plan, the exercise price may not be less
than 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the
date of grant (or for incentive stock options, 110% of fair
market value if the grantee is a ten percent stockholder). In
general, the maximum term of stock options granted under the
2010 Plan may not exceed ten years from the date of grant (or in
the case of incentive stock options granted to any 10%
stockholder, the term may not exceed five years from the date of
grant). Unless otherwise provided by a participants stock
option agreement, if a participants service relationship
with us ceases for any reason other than disability or death,
the participant may exercise the vested portion of any options
for three months following the cessation of service. If a
participants service relationship with us terminates by
reason of disability or death, the participant or a personal
representative may generally exercise the vested
134
portion of any options for 12 months after the date of such
termination. In no event, however, may an option be exercised
beyond the expiration of its original term. The plan
administrator may allow a participant to exercise unvested stock
options, upon which such participant will receive restricted
shares that will vest in accordance with the stock options
existing vesting schedule. These restricted shares are subject
to repurchase by us if the participant terminates service with
us.
Stock Issuance. Restricted or unrestricted
stock may be issued for a purchase price of not less than 85% of
fair market value of our common stock (or 110% of fair market
value if the grantee is a ten percent stockholder). The purchase
price consideration may be provided in the form of cash or
check, or provision of past services to the Company. If the
participant terminates employment for any reason, any unvested
shares will be forfeited, and any cash consideration paid will
be repaid to the participant. The plan administrator may waive
these forfeiture provisions. To the extent shares issued are
restricted, they may vest in accordance with terms determined by
the administrator, including performance or time-based vesting.
Shares of common stock acquired under such awards may, but need
not, be subject to a share repurchase option in our favor in
accordance with a vesting schedule to be determined by our board
of directors. If a participants service relationship with
us terminates, we may repurchase or otherwise reacquire any or
all of the shares of common stock subject to the award that have
not vested as of the date of termination.
Repurchase Rights. The Company has a right of
first refusal over any stock issued under the 2010 Plan until
the common stock is first registered. The Company also has the
right to repurchase any unvested shares at the exercise or
purchase price of such shares upon a participants
termination of employment.
Corporate Transactions. In the event of an
acquisition of the Company, a merger, or other significant
corporate transaction, (as defined in the 2010 Plan)
all outstanding stock options and restricted shares will vest in
full, unless the successor company assumes or replaces such
stock options or restricted shares. In addition, all repurchase
rights of the Company will terminate unless those rights are
assigned to the successor company. Alternatively, in the case of
stock options, the plan administrator may provide, either at
grant or thereafter, that upon the occurrence of a corporate
transaction, (1) all or a portion of outstanding stock
options will automatically accelerate and repurchase rights will
terminate, or (2) all or a portion of outstanding stock
options will automatically accelerate and repurchase rights will
terminate if the participant suffers an involuntary
termination (as defined in the 2010 Plan and described
below) within up to 12 months after the corporate
transaction. With respect to stock issued under the plan, in the
event of a significant corporate transaction, all repurchase
rights will terminate and all restricted shares will vest in
full, unless the successor corporation is assigned the
repurchase rights. The plan administrator may alternatively
provide either at grant or thereafter that upon a corporate
transaction, the repurchase rights relating to outstanding
shares will terminate and vesting will accelerate if the
participant suffers an involuntary termination
within up to 18 months after the corporate transaction.
Under our current outstanding stock option agreements and
restricted stock agreement, if a participants employment
is terminated due to an involuntary termination within
12 months following a corporate transaction all outstanding
awards will automatically vest. Under the 2010 Plan and the
outstanding award agreements, corporate transaction
means any person becoming the beneficial owner of 20% or more of
our outstanding securities, a change in the majority of the
members of our board of directors, our consummation of a merger
or consolidation, our shareholders approval of a plan of
complete liquidation or dissolution of Ceres or our sale of all
or substantially all of our assets. Involuntary
termination means a participants involuntary
dismissal by us other than for misconduct, or his or
her voluntary resignation following a change in position that
results in a material reduction in responsibility level, a
reduction in compensation by more than 15 percent or a
relocation of more than 50 miles. Misconduct
means the commission of an act of fraud, embezzlement or
dishonesty, an unauthorized use of confidential information or
trade secrets or any other intentional misconduct that
materially adversely affects our business or affairs.
135
Ceres, Inc. 2000
Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
We have also granted equity awards (and awards remain
outstanding) under the Companys 2000 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan, as amended, the terms of which are substantially
the same as the 2010 Plan. No further awards will be granted
under the 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan.
Ceres, Inc.
Performance Incentive Plan
The following is a summary of the Ceres, Inc. 2011 Performance
Incentive Plan, or the PIP, which was adopted by our board of
directors on July 20, 2011. This summary is not intended to
be a complete description of all provisions of the Plan and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the PIP, which will be
filed as an exhibit to this registration statement.
Purpose. The purpose of the PIP is to enable
the Company to attract, retain, motivate and reward Participants
by providing them with the opportunity to earn incentive
compensation under the Plan related to the Companys
performance, and to facilitate certain awards that will qualify
as performance-based compensation within the meaning
of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Administration. The PIP is to be administered
by the Compensation Committee, which has the power and authority
to designate participants to receive awards; determine all the
terms and conditions of the awards and final payouts; delegate
its authorities under the PIP to the extent permitted by
applicable law and decide all other matters and establish any
rules or regulations and make all other decisions as necessary
or advisable to administer the PIP. Other than with respect to
awards intended to qualify as performance-based
compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code, the Board of Directors has final authority to
approve all awards under the PIP.
Eligibility. All employees who are actively
employed at the start of a performance period are eligible to be
selected to participate in the PIP. In addition, the
Compensation Committee may also grant an award to individuals
hired during a performance period, subject to proration or any
other terms the Compensation Committee deems appropriate. The
Compensation Committee selects those eligible individuals who
will participate in the PIP. The actual number of participants
in the PIP cannot be determined in advance. As of July 20,
2011, the Company had approximately 88 employees, any number of
whom could be selected by the Compensation Committee to
participate in the PIP.
Awards. In general, prior to each performance
period, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the Compensation
Committee will designate participants who will receive awards,
and the terms and conditions of those awards, including the
applicable performance criteria and performance goals, the
amount of an award that may be earned based on performance goals
(including any minimum, target or maximum payout levels), the
methodology to be used to determine the final award and any
other conditions, such as vesting, forfeiture and payment terms.
The Compensation Committee will determine the final payout
levels after the end of the performance period and has the
discretion to increase or decrease final payout amounts (unless
an increase is prohibited as described below). Upon granting an
award or prior to any grant, the Compensation Committee may
specify the treatment of an award in the event a participant
terminates employment in the middle of a performance period. In
the absence of such a provision, if a participant terminates
employment in the middle of a performance period, he or she will
not receive any payment in respect of his or her award for that
performance period. If a participant terminates employment after
the end of a performance period, but before the awards are paid
out, then he or she will receive payment for that performance
period in accordance with the terms of the PIP. All awards will
be paid in cash on or before March 15 of the calendar year
following the calendar year of the last day of the applicable
performance period.
Qualified Performance Based Compensation. If
the Compensation Committee designates an award to qualify as
performance-based compensation under
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, then the
following procedures and provisions will apply. The Compensation
Committee will establish in writing the terms of the award,
including the relevant performance criteria and
136
performance goals, by no later than 90 days after the
beginning of the applicable performance period, or if earlier,
the end of the first 25% of the applicable performance period.
The award will be based on the achievement of performance goals
as established by the Compensation Committee, which will be
based on one or more of those performance criteria
described above under Performance-Based Awards in
the description of the 2011 Plan. After the end of the
performance period, the Compensation Committee will certify in
writing whether and the extent to which the performance goals
were achieved. The Compensation Committee may exercise
discretion to reduce the actual payout amount of any award, but
it may not increase the payout amount. The maximum amount that
may be paid to any individual in any performance period under
the PIP is $5 million.
Recoupment. Any payments made under the PIP
will be subject to any clawback or recoupment policies that are
required under applicable law.
Effectiveness, Termination and Amendments. The
PIP will be approved or re-approved by the shareholders of the
Company on or before such times as the Compensation Committee
determines is required under applicable law. The Board of
Directors may amend the PIP at any time and may alter, amend,
suspend or terminate the PIP, but no such amendment or other
action that requires shareholder approval may become effective
until shareholder approval is obtained.
New Plan Benefits. As of July 20, 2011,
there were approximately 89 employees and who would be eligible
to receive awards under the PIP. Because it will be within the
Compensation Committees discretion to determine which
employees will receive awards under the PIP and the amounts of
those awards, it is not possible at present to specify the
benefits that would be received under the PIP by employees.
Information regarding our recent practices with respect to
annual incentive compensation under existing plans is presented
in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the
Summary Compensation Table contained elsewhere in
this Registration Statement.
EQUITY
COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
The following table provides information as of August 31,
2010 regarding compensation plans under which our equity
securities are authorized for issuance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Available
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
for Future
|
|
|
|
to be Issued
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Issuance
|
|
|
|
Upon Exercise of
|
|
|
Price of
|
|
|
Under Equity
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Plans
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders
|
|
|
6,874,588
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
1.48
|
|
|
|
1,148,257
|
(2)
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
6,874,588
|
|
|
$
|
1.48
|
|
|
|
1,148,257
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Consists of shares underlying stock options granted under the
2010 Plan and the 2000 Plan. |
|
(2) |
|
Consists of shares issuable under the 2010 Plan. No additional
shares are available for future issuance under the 2000 Plan
other than in respect of shares underlying outstanding stock
options. The shares issuable under the 2010 Plan may be
increased by the number of shares that would have been issuable
under any stock option granted under the 2010 Plan or the 2000
Plan that were forfeited or that expired without being
exercised. Upon the completion of this offering and the approval
of the 2011 Plan, no future grants will be made under the 2010
Plan. |
137
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
In addition to the compensation arrangements, including
employment, termination of employment and
change-in-control
and indemnification arrangements, discussed above under
Management, Compensation Discussion and
Analysis and the registration rights described below under
Description of Capital Stock Registration
Rights, the following is a description of each transaction
since January 1, 2007, and each currently proposed
transaction in which:
|
|
|
|
|
we have been or are to be a participant;
|
|
|
|
the amount involved exceeds or will exceed $120,000; and
|
|
|
|
any of our directors, executive officers or holders of more than
5% of any class of our capital stock at the time of the
transactions in issue, or any immediate family member of or
person sharing the household with any of these individuals, had
or will have a direct or indirect material interest.
|
Preferred Stock
Financings
Series F
Convertible Preferred Stock Financing
In September 2007, we sold an aggregate of
11,538,462 shares of Series F convertible preferred
stock in a private placement at a per share purchase price of
$6.50 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. Purchasers of the
Series F convertible preferred stock also received, for
each share purchased, a warrant to purchase 0.20 shares of
our common stock at an exercise price of $6.50 per share.
Purchasers of the Series F convertible preferred stock
included holders of more than 5% of our outstanding capital
stock and affiliates of certain of our directors. The following
table summarizes purchases of Series F convertible
preferred stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares of Common
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
Stock Underlying
|
Name
|
|
Shares
|
|
Purchase Price
|
|
Warrants
|
|
Artal Luxembourg S.A.
|
|
|
568,518
|
|
|
$
|
3,695,367.00
|
|
|
|
113,704
|
|
Gimv N.V.
|
|
|
196,154
|
|
|
$
|
1,275,001.00
|
|
|
|
39,231
|
|
Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences N.V.
|
|
|
34,616
|
|
|
$
|
225,004.00
|
|
|
|
6,924
|
|
H&Q Healthcare Investors
|
|
|
40,846
|
|
|
$
|
265,499.00
|
|
|
|
8,170
|
|
H&Q Life Sciences Investors
|
|
|
28,385
|
|
|
$
|
184,502.50
|
|
|
|
5,677
|
|
KBC Private Equity N.V.
|
|
|
77,000
|
|
|
$
|
500,500.00
|
|
|
|
15,400
|
|
KBC Private Equity Fund Biotech N.V.
|
|
|
37,500
|
|
|
$
|
243,750.00
|
|
|
|
7,500
|
|
Oppenheimer International Growth Fund
|
|
|
1,900,000
|
|
|
$
|
12,350,000.00
|
|
|
|
380,000
|
|
Quantum Industrial Partners LDC
|
|
|
287,923
|
|
|
$
|
1,871,499.50
|
|
|
|
57,585
|
|
SFM Domestic Investments LLC
|
|
|
31,991
|
|
|
$
|
207,941.50
|
|
|
|
6,399
|
|
Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited as Trustee F/B/O the
Ambergate Trust
|
|
|
308,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,002,000.00
|
|
|
|
61,600
|
|
Warburg Pincus Private Equity IX, L.P.
|
|
|
6,923,078
|
|
|
$
|
45,000,007.00
|
|
|
|
1,384,616
|
|
Galleon Admirals Offshore, Ltd.
|
|
|
552,225
|
|
|
$
|
3,589,462.50
|
|
|
|
110,446
|
|
Galleon Technology Partners II, LP
|
|
|
87,360
|
|
|
$
|
567,840.00
|
|
|
|
17,472
|
|
Galleon Technology Offshore, Ltd.
|
|
|
464,866
|
|
|
$
|
3,021,629.00
|
|
|
|
92,973
|
|
Series G
Convertible Preferred Stock Financing
In June 2010, we sold an aggregate of 3,076,923 shares of
Series G convertible preferred stock in a private placement
at a per share purchase price of $6.50 pursuant to a stock
purchase agreement. Purchasers of the Series G convertible
preferred stock also received, for each share purchased, a
warrant to purchase one share of our common stock at an exercise
price of $6.50 per share. Purchasers of the Series G
convertible preferred stock included holders of more than 5% of
our
138
outstanding capital stock and affiliates of certain of our
directors. The following table summarizes purchases of
Series G convertible preferred stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares of Common
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
Stock Underlying
|
Name
|
|
Shares
|
|
Purchase Price
|
|
Warrants
|
|
Artal Luxembourg S.A.
|
|
|
1,361,538
|
|
|
$
|
8,849,997.00
|
|
|
|
1,361,538
|
|
Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited as Trustee F/B/O the
Ambergate Trust
|
|
|
1,300,000
|
|
|
$
|
8,450,000.00
|
|
|
|
1,300,000
|
|
Gimv N.V.
|
|
|
340,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,210,000.00
|
|
|
|
340,000
|
|
Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences 2004 N.V.
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
$
|
390,000.00
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
The Kiley Revocable Trust
|
|
|
15,385
|
|
|
$
|
100,002.50
|
|
|
|
15,385
|
|
Indemnification
Arrangements
We have entered, or will enter, into an indemnity agreement with
each of our directors and officers. The indemnity agreements and
our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and
amended and restated bylaws will require us to indemnify our
directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by
Delaware law. Please see Management Limitation
of Liability and Indemnification of Officers and Directors.
Executive
Compensation and Employment Arrangements
Please see Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Executive Compensation for
information on compensation arrangements with our executive
officers, including option grants and agreements with executive
officers.
Investors
Rights Agreement
We have entered into an investors rights agreement with
certain holders of our common stock and preferred stock that
provides for certain rights relating to the registration of
their shares of common stock, including those issued upon
conversion of their preferred stock. See Description of
Capital Stock Registration Rights below for
additional information.
Offer
Letters
We have entered into offer letters and other agreements
containing compensation, termination and change of control
provisions, among others, with certain of our executive officers
as described under the caption Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Executive Compensation
Executive Employment Agreements above.
Related Person
Transaction Policy
As provided in our current Audit Committee charter, our Audit
Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving all related
party transactions on an ongoing basis and must review any
potential conflict of interest situations where appropriate.
Director
Independence
For a discussion of the independence of our directors, please
see Management Director Independence
above.
139
PRINCIPAL
STOCKHOLDERS
The following table sets forth information with respect to the
beneficial ownership of our common stock, as of July 20,
2011, by:
|
|
|
|
|
each person, or group of affiliated persons, who is known by us
to beneficially own more than 5% of our voting securities;
|
|
|
|
each of our directors;
|
|
|
|
each of our named executive officers; and
|
|
|
|
all of our directors and executive officers as a group.
|
Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules
of the SEC and generally includes any shares over which the
individual or entity has sole or shared voting power or
investment power. The information does not necessarily indicate
beneficial ownership for any other purpose. Except as indicated
in the footnotes to this table and pursuant to applicable
community property laws, to our knowledge the persons named in
the table below have sole voting and investment power with
respect to all shares of common stock beneficially owned.
Percentage ownership of our common stock in the table prior to
the offering is based on 52,101,611 shares of our common
stock outstanding on July 20, 2011. This number and the
numbers of beneficially owned shares reported in the table below
assume the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our
preferred stock into 46,059,819 shares of common stock in
connection with the completion of this offering. Percentage
ownership of our common stock after this offering also assumes
our sale of
the shares
in this offering.
The number of shares beneficially owned by each person or group
as of July 20, 2011 includes shares of common stock that
such person or group had the right to acquire on or within
60 days after July 20, 2011, upon the exercise of
options and warrants. References to options and warrants in the
footnotes of the table below include only options and warrants
outstanding as of July 20, 2011 that were exercisable on or
within 60 days after July 20, 2011. For the purposes
of calculating each persons or groups percentage
ownership, stock options and warrants exercisable within
60 days after July 20, 2011 are included for that
person or group but not the stock options or warrants of any
other person or group.
140
Except as otherwise set forth below, the address of the
beneficial owner is
c/o Ceres,
Inc., 1535 Rancho Conejo Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially Owned
|
|
Shares Beneficially Owned
|
|
|
Prior to Offering
|
|
After Offering
|
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Number (#)
|
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
Number (#)
|
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
5% Stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artal Luxembourg S.A.(1)
|
|
|
9,665,288
|
|
|
|
18.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warburg Pincus Private Equity IX, L.P.(2)
|
|
|
8,307,694
|
|
|
|
15.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ambergate Trust(3)
|
|
|
7,467,824
|
|
|
|
13.97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oxford Bioscience entities(4)
|
|
|
5,535,609
|
|
|
|
10.62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gimv entities(5)
|
|
|
4,444,978
|
|
|
|
8.46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oppenheimer Growth entities(6)
|
|
|
4,430,867
|
|
|
|
8.44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantum Industrial Partners LDC(7)(9)
|
|
|
3,002,320
|
|
|
|
5.76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SFM Domestic Investments LLC(8)(9)
|
|
|
333,592
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monsanto Company(10)
|
|
|
3,333,333
|
|
|
|
6.40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Directors and Named Executive Officers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter De Logi(11)
|
|
|
1,600,000
|
|
|
|
3.06
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pascal Brandys(12)
|
|
|
265,707
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raymond Debbane(13)
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruth Devenyns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Flavell(14)
|
|
|
765,000
|
|
|
|
1.45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Goldberg(15)
|
|
|
639,083
|
|
|
|
1.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Hamilton(16)
|
|
|
2,437,000
|
|
|
|
4.50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Kiley(17)
|
|
|
215,770
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David B. Krieger(2)(18)
|
|
|
8,307,694
|
|
|
|
15.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edmund Olivier(4)(19)
|
|
|
5,555,609
|
|
|
|
10.66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerard Van Acker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M. Kuc(20)
|
|
|
470,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Jefferson Gwyn(21)
|
|
|
340,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Pennell(22)
|
|
|
340,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Stephenson(23)
|
|
|
440,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All directors and executive officers as (16 persons)
|
|
|
21,708,363
|
|
|
|
37.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Represents beneficial ownership of less than 1%. |
|
(1) |
|
Includes 1,475,242 shares of common stock that may be
acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held prior to this
offering by Artal Luxembourg S.A. The address for Artal
Luxembourg S.A. is 105 Grand-Rue, L-1661, Luxembourg. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes 1,384,616 shares of common stock that may be
acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held prior to this
offering by Warburg Pincus Private Equity IX, L.P., a Delaware
partnership, or WP IX. The sole general partner of WP IX is
Warburg Pincus IX LLC, a New York limited liability company, or
WP IX LLC. Warburg Pincus Partners, LLC, a New York limited
liability company, or WP Partners, is the sole member of WP IX
LLC. Warburg Pincus & Co., a New York general
partnership, or WP, is the managing member of WP Partners. WP IX
is managed by Warburg Pincus LLC, a New York limited liability
company, or WP LLC. David B. Krieger, one of our directors, is a
Managing Director of WP LLC and a General Partner of WP. The
shares and shares underlying warrants acquired by WP IX are
reflected as indirectly owned by Mr. Krieger because of his
affiliation with the Warburg Pincus entities. Mr. Krieger
disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares and shares
underlying warrants held by WP IX, except to the extent of his
pecuniary interests therein. Charles R. Kaye and Joseph P. Landy
are Managing General Partners of Warburg Pincus and Managing
Members and Co-Presidents of WP and may |
141
|
|
|
|
|
be deemed to control the Warburg Pincus entities.
Messrs. Kaye and Landy disclaim beneficial ownership of all
shares held by the Warburg Pincus entities. The address for WP
IX, WP IX LLC, WP Partners, WP, WP LLC, and Messrs. Kaye,
Krieger and Landy is 450 Lexington Avenue, New York,
NY 10017. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents 7,467,824 shares of common stock held by
Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited as Trustee F/B/O the
Ambergate Trust. Includes 1,361,600 shares of common stock
that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held
prior to this offering by Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited
as Trustee F/B/O the Ambergate Trust. Mr. De Logi is
the settlor of the Ambergate Trust and one of the beneficiaries.
Mr. De Logi disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares
held by the Ambergate Trust. The address for Rothschild
Trust Guernsey Limited is PO Box 472,
St. Peters House, Le Bordage, St. Peter Port GY1 6AX,
Guernsey. |
|
(4) |
|
Represents 2,380,010 shares of common stock held by Oxford
Bioscience Partners II, L.P., 309,695 shares of common
stock held by Oxford Bioscience Partners (GS-Adjunct) II, L.P.,
663,333 shares of common stock held by Oxford Bioscience
Management Partners II, 487,227 shares of common stock held
by Oxford Bioscience Partners (Adjunct) II, L.P. and
1,695,344 shares of common stock held by Oxford Bioscience
Partners (Bermuda) II, Limited Partnership. OBP
Management II L.P. is the general partner of Oxford
Bioscience Partners II L.P., Oxford Bioscience Partners
(Adjunct) II L.P. and Oxford Bioscience Partners (GS-Adjunct) II
L.P. Edmund Olivier, Alan Walton, Cornelius Ryan and Jonathan
Fleming are the general partners of OBP Management II L.P.
OBP Management (Bermuda) II Limited Partnership is the general
partner of Oxford Bioscience Partners (Bermuda) II Limited
Partnership. Edmund Olivier, Alan Walton, Cornelius Ryan and
Jonathan Fleming are the general partners of Oxford Bioscience
Partners (Bermuda) II Limited Partnership. Messrs. Olivier,
Walton, Ryan and Fleming all disclaim beneficial ownership of
the shares except to the extent of their pecuniary interests
therein. The shares acquired by the Oxford Bioscience entities
are reflected as indirectly owned by Mr. Olivier because of
his affiliation with the Oxford Bioscience entities. The address
for Oxford Bioscience Partners is 222 Berkeley St.
Suite 1960, Boston, MA 02116. |
|
(5) |
|
Represents 254,007 shares of common stock held by
Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences 2004 N.V. and
4,190,971 shares of common stock held by Gimv N.V. Includes
66,924 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant
to the exercise of warrants held prior to this offering by
Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences 2004 N.V. and
379,231 shares of common stock that may be acquired
pursuant to the exercise of warrants held prior to this offering
by Gimv N.V. The address for Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences
2004 N.V. and Gimv N.V. is Karel Oomsstraat 37, B-2018,
Antwerpen, Belgium. |
|
(6) |
|
Represents 3,024,347 shares of common stock held by
Oppenheimer International Growth Fund and 1,026,520 shares
of common stock held by Oppenheimer MassMutual International
Equity Fund. Includes 380,000 shares of common stock that
may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held prior
to this offering by Oppenheimer International Growth Fund. The
address for Oppenheimer International Growth Fund is 2 World
Financial Center, 225 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281. |
|
(7) |
|
Represents 2,944,735 shares of common stock held by Quantum
Industrial Partners LDC, an exempted limited duration company
formed under the laws of the Cayman Islands, or QIP, and
57,585 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant
to the exercise of warrants held prior to this offering by QIP.
The principal address of QIP is Kaya Flamboyan 9,
Willemstad, Curacao. QIH Management Investor, L.P., or QIHMI, an
investment advisory firm organized as a Delaware limited
partnership, is a minority stockholder of, and is vested with
investment discretion with respect to portfolio assets held for
the account of QIP. The sole general partner of QIHMI is QIH
Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, or QIH
Management. |
|
(8) |
|
Represents 327,193 shares of common stock held by SFM
Domestic Investments LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
or SFMD, and 6,399 shares of common stock that may be |
142
|
|
|
|
|
acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held prior to this
offering by SFMD. The principal address of SFMD is at 888
Seventh Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York, New York 10106. |
|
(9) |
|
Soros Fund Management LLC, or SFM LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, may be deemed the beneficial owner of the
shares held for the account of SFMD and QIP. SFM is the manager
of SFMD and the sole managing member of QIH Management. George
Soros serves as Chairman of SFM LLC, Robert Soros serves as
Deputy Chairman of SFM LLC, and Jonathan Soros serves as
President and Deputy Chairman of SFM LLC. |
|
(10) |
|
The address for Monsanto Company is 800 North Lindbergh
Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63167. Pursuant to the terms of
the Investors Rights Agreement, Monsanto agreed that,
subject to certain exceptions, it would not increase its
ownership position to more than 15% of our then outstanding
voting stock. |
|
|
|
(11) |
|
Includes 160,000 shares of common stock held by Lynda De
Logi, Walter De Logis spouse, and 250,000 shares of
common stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable
within 60 days of July 20, 2011. |
|
|
|
(12) |
|
Includes 90,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to
stock options exercisable within 60 days of July 20,
2011, 31,563 of which are unvested and early exercisable and
would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon
Mr. Brandyss cessation of service with us prior to
vesting. |
|
|
|
(13) |
|
Includes 20,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to
stock options exercisable within 60 days of July 20,
2011. |
|
|
|
(14) |
|
Includes 495,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant
to stock options exercisable within 60 days of
July 20, 2011, 98,334 of which are unvested and early
exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our
favor upon Dr. Flavells cessation of service with us
prior to vesting. |
|
|
|
(15) |
|
Includes 544,083 shares of common stock held by The Robert
Goldberg Revocable Living Trust and 95,000 shares of common
stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within
60 days of July 20, 2011, 21,250 of which are unvested
and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of
repurchase in our favor upon Dr. Goldbergs cessation
of service with us prior to vesting. |
|
|
|
(16) |
|
Includes 100,000 shares of common stock held by
Dr. Richard Hamilton 2011-Ceres GRAT and
2,167,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to stock
options exercisable within 60 days July 20, 2011,
246,834 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be
subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon
Dr. Hamiltons cessation of service with us prior to
vesting. |
|
|
|
(17) |
|
Includes 185,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant
to stock options exercisable within 60 days of
July 20, 2011, 40,313 of which are unvested and early
exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our
favor upon Mr. Kileys cessation of service with us
prior to vesting. Includes 15,385 shares of common stock
held by The Kiley Revocable Trust and 15,385 shares of
common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of
warrants held prior to this offering by The Kiley Revocable
Trust. |
|
|
|
(18) |
|
Consists of 8,307,694 shares of common stock held by
WP IX, including the 1,384,616 shares identified in
footnote 2. |
|
(19) |
|
Consists of 5,535,609 shares of common stock identified in
footnote 4 and 20,000 shares held by Mr. Olivier. |
|
|
|
(20) |
|
Consists of 470,000 shares of common stock issuable
pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of
July 20, 2011, 191,251 of which are unvested and early
exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our
favor upon Mr. Kucs cessation of service with us
prior to vesting. |
143
|
|
|
(21) |
|
Includes 330,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant
to stock options exercisable within 60 days of
July 20, 2011, 181,046 of which are unvested and early
exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our
favor upon Dr. Gwyns cessation of service with us
prior to vesting. |
|
|
|
(22) |
|
Includes 262,500 shares of common stock issuable pursuant
to stock options exercisable within 60 days of
July 20, 2011, 129,116 of which are unvested and early
exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our
favor upon Dr. Pennells cessation of service with us
prior to vesting. |
|
|
|
(23) |
|
Represents 440,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant
to stock options exercisable within 60 days of
July 20, 2011, 165,002 of which are unvested and early
exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our
favor upon Mr. Stephensons cessation of service with
us prior to vesting. |
144
DESCRIPTION OF
CAPITAL STOCK
General
The following is a summary of our capital stock and certain
provisions of our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as they will be
in effect upon the completion of this offering. This summary
does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety
by the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, copies of which
will be filed with the SEC as exhibits to the registration
statement of which this prospectus is a part.
Immediately following the completion of this offering, our
authorized capital stock will consist
of shares,
with a par value of $0.01 per share, of which:
|
|
|
|
|
shares
are designated as common stock; and
|
|
|
|
shares
are designated as preferred stock.
|
As of May 31, 2011, we had
outstanding shares
of common stock, held of record by 170 stockholders, and no
shares of preferred stock, assuming the automatic conversion of
all outstanding shares of our convertible preferred stock into
common stock immediately prior to the completion of this
offering and the issuance
of shares
of common stock upon the net exercise of Series F warrants
and Series G warrants that expire upon the completion of
this offering, based upon an initial public offering price of
$ per share, the midpoint of the
range set forth on the cover of this prospectus. In addition, as
of May 31, 2011, we also had outstanding options to acquire
7,127,246 shares of common stock.
Common
Stock
The holders of common stock are entitled to one vote per share
on all matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders and do
not have cumulative voting rights. Accordingly, holders of a
majority of the shares of common stock entitled to vote in any
election of directors may elect all of the directors standing
for election. Subject to preferences that may be applicable to
any preferred stock outstanding at the time, the holders of
outstanding shares of common stock are entitled to receive
ratably any dividends declared by our board of directors out of
assets legally available. See the section entitled
Dividend Policy. Upon our liquidation, dissolution
or winding up, holders of our common stock are entitled to share
ratably in all assets remaining after payment of liabilities and
the liquidation preference of any then outstanding shares of
preferred stock. Holders of common stock have no preemptive or
conversion rights or other subscription rights. There are no
redemption or sinking fund provisions applicable to the common
stock.
Preferred
Stock
After the completion of this offering, no shares of preferred
stock will be outstanding. Pursuant to our amended and restated
certificate of incorporation, our board of directors will have
the authority, without further action by our stockholders, to
issue from time to time up
to shares
of preferred stock in one or more series. Our board of directors
may designate the rights, preferences, privileges and
restrictions of the preferred stock, including dividend rights,
conversion rights, voting rights, terms of redemption,
liquidation preference, sinking fund terms and the number of
shares constituting any series or the designation of any series.
The issuance of preferred stock or even the ability to issue
preferred stock could have the effect of delaying, deterring or
preventing a change in control.
Warrants
At May 31, 2011, we had warrants outstanding to purchase
6,046,157 shares of our common stock, assuming the
automatic conversion of our preferred stock warrants into common
stock. Except
145
for The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Texas A&M
University warrants of 400,000 and 200,000, respectively, each
warrant contains provisions for the adjustment of the exercise
price and the number of shares issuable upon exercise upon the
occurrence of certain events, including stock dividends,
reorganizations, reclassifications and consolidations.
In June 2010, we sold an aggregate of 3,076,923 shares of
Series G convertible preferred stock in a private placement
pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. Purchasers of the
Series G convertible preferred stock also received, for
each share purchased, a warrant to purchase one share of our
common stock at an exercise price of $6.50 per share. Upon the
completion of this offering, all of these warrants will expire
if not exercised.
In January 2010, we entered into a Loan and Security Agreement
with Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, to finance qualified equipment
purchases, pursuant to which we granted SVB warrants to purchase
43,076 shares of our Series F convertible preferred
stock at a price of $6.50 per share. The warrants expire on the
later of February 29, 2020 or five years subsequent to the
completion of our initial public offering.
In September 2007, we sold an aggregate of
11,538,462 shares of Series F convertible preferred
stock in a private placement pursuant to a stock purchase
agreement. Purchasers of the Series F convertible preferred
stock also received, for each share purchased, a warrant to
purchase 0.20 shares of our common stock at an exercise
price of $6.50 per share. Upon the completion of this offering,
all of these warrants will expire if not exercised.
In August 2007, we entered into an agreement with Texas A&M
University, pursuant to which we granted Texas A&M
University a warrant to purchase 200,000 shares of our
common stock for an exercise price of $10.00 per share. The
warrant vests in various installments based on certain research
and commercialization milestones being met and will remain
exercisable until August 28, 2017.
In May 2006, we entered into an agreement with The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., pursuant to which we granted the
Noble Foundation a warrant to purchase 400,000 shares of
our common stock for an exercise price of $10.00 per share. The
warrant vests in equal installments of 100,000 shares on
each of May 19, 2009, May 19, 2011, May 19, 2013,
and May 19, 2015 and each installment will remain
exercisable for a period of two years from the respective
vesting date.
In July 2004, we entered into a borrowing agreement with SVB to
finance construction of a greenhouse and tenant improvements at
our Thousand Oaks, California facility, pursuant to which we
granted SVB warrants to purchase 18,461 shares of our
Series E preferred stock at a price of $6.50 per
share, which were set to expire on the later of July 31,
2014 or five years after an initial public offering. During
2010, the warrants were extended and now expire on
February 29, 2020 or five years subsequent to the
completion of our initial public offering.
Registration
Rights
Stockholder
Registration Rights
In June 2010, we entered into an Amended and Restated
Investors Rights Agreement, or the Investors Rights
Agreement, with our major stockholders pursuant to which we
agreed to provide certain rights to those stockholders that are
a party to the Investors Rights Agreement to register the
shares of our common stock (i) issuable upon conversion of
outstanding convertible preferred stock, (ii) issued as a
dividend or other distribution related to the convertible
preferred stock, (iii) currently held or later acquired,
and (iv) issuable upon the exercise of warrants held by any
stockholder that is party to the agreement. We will bear all
expenses incurred in connection with any underwritten
registration, including, without limitation, all registration,
filing and qualification fees, printers and accounting fees and
the reasonable fees of counsel for the selling holders, but
excluding underwriting discounts and commissions.
146
The registration rights provided for under the Investors
Rights Agreement terminate after the earlier of five years
following the consummation of an initial public offering, or any
such time as the holder would be able to dispose of all of its
registrable securities in any three month period under SEC
Rule 144.
Demand
Registration Rights
Pursuant to the Investors Rights Agreement, if, at any
time after six months after the effective date of the first
registration statement for a public offering of our securities
(other than a registration statement relating either to the sale
of securities to our employees pursuant to a stock option, stock
purchase or similar plan or an SEC Rule 145 transaction),
upon the written request of the holders of at least 15% of the
securities covered by the Investors Rights Agreement that
we file a registration statement under the Securities Act
covering the registration of at least 15% of the securities
covered by the Investors Rights Agreement, then we are
required to file a registration statement covering the resale of
the common stock requested to be registered. We are not
obligated to file a registration statement after we have
effected five registration statements pursuant to the
Investors Rights Agreement or during certain periods prior
to and after a registration statement has been filed by the
company or, for a period of 90 days in the event the board
of directors, in its judgment, makes the determination that it
would be seriously detrimental to the Company and its
shareholders for such registration statement to be filed and is
therefore essential to defer the filing of such registration
statement.
If an underwriter selected for an underwritten offering advises
the holders demanding registration that marketing factors
require a limitation on the number of shares to be underwritten,
then, subject to certain limitations, the number of shares of
registrable securities that may be included in the underwriting
will be allocated among all holders of registrable securities in
proportion to the amount of our registrable securities owned by
each holder.
Piggyback
Registration Rights
Pursuant to the Investors Rights Agreement, if, subject to
certain exceptions, we propose to register any of our stock or
other securities under the Securities Act in connection with the
public offering of such securities solely for cash, we are
required to promptly give such holders written notice of such
registration. Upon the written request of each eligible holder,
we will, subject to certain limitations, cause to be registered
under the Securities Act all such securities that each such
holder has requested to be registered.
Stockholders with registration rights will sign agreements with
the representatives of the underwriters prohibiting the exercise
of their registration rights for 180 days, subject to
extension under certain circumstances, following the date of
this prospectus. These agreements are described below under
Underwriting.
Anti-Takeover
Provisions to be in Effect Upon the Completion of this
Offering
Certain provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or
DGCL, and our amended and restated certificate of incorporation
and bylaws that will become effective upon the completion of
this offering may have the effect of delaying, deferring or
discouraging another party from acquiring control of our
company. These provisions, which are summarized below, may
discourage certain types of coercive takeover practices and
inadequate takeover bids and encourage anyone seeking to acquire
control of our company to first negotiate with our board of
directors. These provisions might also have the effect of
preventing changes in our management and could make it more
difficult to accomplish transactions that stockholders might
otherwise deem to be in their best interests. However, we
believe that the advantages gained by protecting our ability to
negotiate with any unsolicited and potentially unfriendly
acquirer outweigh the disadvantages of discouraging such
proposals, because, among other reasons, the negotiation of such
proposals could result in improving their terms.
147
Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaw
Provisions
Upon the completion of this offering, our amended and restated
certificate of incorporation and bylaws will include a number of
provisions that may have the effect of delaying, deferring or
discouraging another party from acquiring control of our company
or preventing changes in our management, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of Undesignated Preferred Stock. Upon
the completion of this offering and the filing of our amended
and restated certificate of incorporation, our board of
directors will have the authority, without further action by the
stockholders, to issue up
to shares
of undesignated preferred stock with rights, preferences and
privileges designated from time to time by our board of
directors without further action by stockholders. These rights,
preferences and privileges could include dividend rights,
conversion rights, voting rights, terms of redemption,
liquidation preferences and sinking fund terms, any or all of
which may be greater than the rights of common stock.
|
|
|
|
Size of the Board of Directors and Filling
Vacancies. The number of directors constituting
our board of directors may be set only by resolution adopted by
a majority vote of our entire board of directors. Any vacancy on
our board of directors, however occurring, including a vacancy
resulting from an increase in the size of the board of
directors, may only be filled by the affirmative vote of a
majority of our directors then in office, even if less than a
quorum.
|
|
|
|
Classified Board. Our board of directors will
be divided into three classes of directors, with staggered
three-year terms. Only one class of directors will be elected at
each annual meeting of our stockholders, with the other classes
continuing for the remainder of their respective three-year
terms.
|
|
|
|
No Cumulative Voting. Our amended and restated
certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws do
not permit cumulative voting in the election of directors.
Cumulative voting allows a stockholder to vote a portion, or all
of its shares for one or more candidates. The absence of
cumulative voting makes it more difficult for a minority
stockholder to gain a seat. Because our stockholders do not have
cumulative voting rights, our stockholders holding a majority of
the shares of our outstanding common stock will be able to elect
all of our directors.
|
|
|
|
Removal of Directors. Directors can only be
removed by our stockholders for cause and removal of a director
will require a
662/3
stockholder vote.
|
|
|
|
No Written Consent of Stockholders. All
stockholder actions are required to be taken by a vote of the
stockholders at an annual or special meeting. Stockholders may
not take action by written consent in lieu of a meeting. The
inability of stockholders to take action by written consent
means that a stockholder would need to wait until the next
annual or special meeting to bring business before the
stockholders for a vote.
|
|
|
|
Special Meetings of Stockholders. Special
meetings of our stockholders may be called only by a majority of
our board of directors, the chairman of our board of directors,
our chief executive officer, or president (in the absence of a
chief executive officer). Only those matters set forth in the
notice of the special meeting may be considered or acted upon at
a special meeting of our stockholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advance Notice Requirements for Stockholder Proposals and
Director Nominations. Our amended and restated
bylaws provide advance notice procedures for stockholders
seeking to bring business before our annual meeting of
stockholders or to nominate candidates for election as directors
at our annual meeting of stockholders. These procedures provide
that notice must be timely given in writing prior to the meeting
at which the action is to be taken and the form and content of
such notice must comply with the applicable provisions of our
amended and restated bylaws. These procedures may have the
effect of precluding the conduct of certain business at a
meeting if the proper procedures are not followed or may
discourage or deter a potential
|
148
|
|
|
|
|
acquirer from conducting a solicitation of proxies to elect its
own slate of directors or otherwise attempt to obtain control of
us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation and Bylaws. Any amendment, repeal
or modification of certain provisions of our amended and
restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws will require a
662/3
stockholder vote. Provisions requiring such supermajority vote
include, among other things, any amendment, repeal or
modification of the provisions relating to the classification of
our board of directors, the requirement that stockholder actions
be effected at a duly called annual or special meeting of our
stockholders and the designated parties entitled to call a
special meeting of our stockholders.
|
Section 203
of the DGCL
Upon the completion of this offering, we will be subject to
Section 203 of the DGCL. In general, Section 203 of
the DGCL prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from
engaging in a business combination with an
interested stockholder for a three-year period
following the time that this stockholder becomes an interested
stockholder, unless it satisfies one of the following conditions:
|
|
|
|
|
the transaction is approved by the board of directors prior to
the time that the interested stockholder became an interested
stockholder;
|
|
|
|
upon consummation of the transaction which resulted in the
stockholder becoming an interested stockholder, the interested
stockholder owned at least 85% of the voting stock of the
corporation outstanding at the time the transaction
commenced; or
|
|
|
|
at or subsequent to such time that the stockholder became an
interested stockholder, the business combination was approved by
the board of directors and authorized at an annual or special
meeting of stockholders by at least two-thirds of the
outstanding voting stock which is not owned by the interested
stockholder.
|
In general, Section 203 defines business
combination to include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
any merger or consolidation involving the corporation and the
interested stockholder;
|
|
|
|
any sale, lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge, transfer or other
disposition of the assets of the corporation with an aggregate
market value of 10% or more of either the aggregate market value
of all assets of the corporation on a consolidated basis or the
aggregate market value of all of the outstanding stock of the
corporation involving the interested stockholder;
|
|
|
|
subject to certain exceptions, any transaction that results in
the issuance or transfer by the corporation of any stock of the
corporation to the interested stockholder;
|
|
|
|
any transaction involving the corporation that has the effect of
increasing the proportionate share of the stock or any class or
series of the corporation beneficially owned by the interested
stockholder; or
|
|
|
|
the receipt by the interested stockholder of the benefit of any
loans, advances, guarantees, pledges or other financial benefits
by or through the corporation.
|
In general, Section 203 defines an interested
stockholder as an entity or person who, together with the
stockholders affiliates and associates (as defined in
Section 203), beneficially owns, or within three years
prior to the time of determination of interested stockholder
status did own, 15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of
the corporation.
Transfer Agent
and Registrar
The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock will be
American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC. The
transfer agents telephone number is (800) 937-5449.
Stock Exchange
Listing
We have applied to have our common stock listed on the Nasdaq
Global Market under the symbol CERE.
149
SHARES ELIGIBLE
FOR FUTURE SALE
Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our
common stock and we cannot assure you that a market for our
common stock will develop or be sustained after this offering.
Future sales of our common stock in the public market, including
shares issued upon exercise of outstanding or options, or the
availability of such shares for sale in the public market, could
adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. As
described below, only a limited number of shares will be
available for sale by our existing stockholders shortly after
this offering due to contractual and legal restrictions on
resale. Sales of our common stock in the public market after
such restrictions lapse, or the perception that those sales may
occur, could adversely affect the trading price of our common
stock at such time and our ability to raise equity capital in
the future.
Based
on shares
of common stock outstanding as
of ,
2011, upon completion of this offering, shares of common stock
will be outstanding,
reflecting shares
of common stock sold in this offering and assuming no exercise
of the underwriters option to purchase additional shares
of common stock. All of the shares sold in this offering
(including any shares sold upon the underwriters exercise
of their option to purchase additional shares) will be freely
tradable, except that any shares purchased in this offering by
our affiliates, as that term is defined in Rule 144 under
the Securities Act, generally may be sold in the public market
only in compliance with Rule 144 under the Securities Act.
The
remaining shares
of common stock will be deemed restricted securities as that
term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. These
restricted securities are eligible for public sale only if they
are registered under the Securities Act or if they qualify for
an exemption from registration under Rule 144 or
Rule 701 under the Securities Act, which are summarized
below. In addition, substantially all of these restricted
securities will be subject to the
lock-up
agreements described below.
Subject to the
lock-up
agreements described below and the provisions of Rules 144
and 701 under the Securities Act, these restricted securities
will be available for sale in the public market as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
On the date of this prospectus
|
|
|
|
|
Between 90 and 180 days (subject to extension) after the
date of this prospectus
|
|
|
|
|
At various times beginning more than 180 days (subject to
extension) after the date of this prospectus
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, of
the shares
of our common stock that were subject to stock options
outstanding as
of ,
2011, options to
purchase shares
of common stock were vested as
of ,
2011 and will be eligible for sale 180 days following the
effective date of this offering, subject to extension as
described in the section entitled Underwriting.
Rule 144
In general, under Rule 144 under the Securities Act, as in
effect on the date of this prospectus, a person who is one of
our affiliates and has beneficially owned shares of our common
stock for at least six months would be entitled to sell within
any three-month period, beginning on the date 90 days after
the date of this prospectus, a number of shares that does not
exceed the greater of:
|
|
|
|
|
one percent of the number of shares of common stock then
outstanding, which will equal
approximately shares
immediately after the completion of this offering; or
|
|
|
|
the average weekly trading volume of our common stock on the
Nasdaq Global Market during the four calendar weeks preceding
the filing of a notice on Form 144 with respect to the sale.
|
Sales under Rule 144 by our affiliates or persons selling
shares on behalf of our affiliates are also subject to a certain
manner of sale provisions and notice requirements and to the
availability of current public information about us.
In general, under Rule 144 under the Securities Act, as in
effect on the date of this prospectus, a person who is not
deemed to have been one of our affiliates at any time during the
three months
150
preceding a sale, and who has beneficially owned the shares
proposed to be sold for at least six months, including the
holding period of any prior owner other than an affiliate, is
entitled to sell the shares beginning on the 91st day after
the date of this prospectus without complying with the manner of
sale, volume limitation or notice provisions of Rule 144,
and will be subject only to the public information requirements
of Rule 144. If such person has beneficially owned the
shares proposed to be sold for at least one year, including the
holding period of any prior owner other than our affiliates,
then such person is entitled to sell such shares without
complying with any of the requirements of Rule 144.
Rule 701
Any of our employees, officers, directors or consultants who
purchased shares under a written compensatory plan or contract
may be entitled to sell them in reliance on Rule 701.
Rule 701 permits affiliates to sell their
Rule 701 shares under Rule 144 without complying
with the holding period requirements of Rule 144.
Rule 701 further provides that non-affiliates may sell
these shares in reliance on Rule 144 without complying with
the holding period, public information, volume limitation or
notice provisions of Rule 144. All holders of
Rule 701 shares are required to wait until
90 days after the date of this prospectus before selling
those shares. However, substantially all of the shares issued
under Rule 701 are subject to the
lock-up
agreements described below and will only become eligible for
sale when the
lock-up
period expires.
As
of 2011,
shares of our outstanding common stock had been issued in
reliance on Rule 701 as a result of exercise of stock
options. These shares will be eligible for resale in reliance on
this rule upon expiration of the
lock-up
agreements described below.
Lock-Up
Agreements
In connection with this offering, we and each of our directors
and officers and holders of substantially all of our outstanding
common stock and holders of securities exercisable for or
convertible into our common stock outstanding immediately prior
to the completion of this offering, will agree that, without the
prior written consent of Goldman, Sachs & Co., we and
they will not offer, sell, contract to sell, pledge, grant any
option to purchase, make any short sale or otherwise dispose of
any shares of common stock, options or warrants to purchase
shares of common stock or securities convertible into,
exchangeable for or that represent the right to receive shares
of common stock, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, during
the period from the date of this prospectus and ending on the
date 180 days after the date of this prospectus (as such
period may be extended under certain circumstances). These
restrictions are subject to certain exceptions, as described in
more detail under Underwriting in this prospectus.
Registration
Rights
We are party to an investor rights agreement which provides that
certain stockholders have the right to demand that we file a
registration statement or request that their shares of our
common stock be covered by a registration statement that we are
otherwise filing. See Description of Capital
Stock Registration Rights in this prospectus.
Registration of their shares under the Securities Act would
result in these shares becoming freely tradable without
restriction under the Securities Act immediately upon
effectiveness of the registration statement, subject to the
expiration of the
lock-up
period described above and under Underwriting in
this prospectus.
Stock
Plans
As soon as practicable after the completion of this offering, we
intend to file a
Form S-8
registration statement under the Securities Act to register
shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under our stock
plan. This registration statement will become effective
immediately upon filing, and shares covered by this registration
statement will thereupon be eligible for sale in the public
market, subject to Rule 144 limitations applicable to
affiliates and any
lock-up
agreements. For a more complete discussion of our stock plans,
see Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Executive Compensation Equity Compensation
Plans.
151
MATERIAL UNITED
STATES FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES FOR
NON-U.S.
HOLDERS
The following discussion is a summary of the material
U.S. federal tax consequences relating to the acquisition,
ownership and disposition of our common stock by
non-U.S. holders
(as defined below). This discussion is based upon the provisions
of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or
the Code, U.S. Treasury regulations, rulings and judicial
decisions, all as in effect on the date hereof. Those
authorities may be changed, perhaps retroactively, so as to
result in U.S. federal income and estate tax consequences
different from those discussed below. There can be no assurance
that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, will
agree with the statements herein.
A U.S. holder means a beneficial owner of our
common stock that is for U.S. federal income tax purposes:
|
|
|
|
|
a citizen or individual resident of the United States;
|
|
|
|
a corporation or other entity treated as a corporation created
or organized in or under the laws of the United States, any
state thereof or the District of Columbia;
|
|
|
|
an estate the income of which is subject to U.S. federal
income taxation regardless of its source; or
|
|
|
|
a trust, if (1) a court within the United States is able to
exercise primary supervision over the trusts
administration and one or more U.S. persons (within the
meaning of section 7701(a)(30) of the Code) have the
authority to control all of its substantial decisions, or
(2) a valid election to be treated as a U.S. person is
in effect under the relevant Treasury regulations with respect
to such trust.
|
A
non-U.S. holder
means a beneficial owner of our common stock that is neither a
U.S. holder nor a partnership (including an entity that is
treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax
purposes).
This discussion deals only with our common stock held as capital
assets within the meaning of Section 1221 of the Code
(generally, property held for investment). This discussion does
not address all of the U.S. federal income and estate tax
consequences that may be relevant to a
non-U.S. holder
in light of such holders own particular circumstances, nor
does it deal with special situations, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
tax consequences to
non-U.S. holders
who may be subject to special tax treatment, such as banks and
other financial institutions, insurance companies, partnerships
or other entities treated as pass-through entities for
U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain former citizens
or residents of the United States, controlled foreign
corporations, passive foreign investment
companies, corporations that accumulate earnings to avoid
U.S. federal income tax, tax-exempt entities, common trust
funds, certain trusts, hybrid entities, foreign governments,
international organizations and dealers or traders in securities
that elect to use a
mark-to-market
method of accounting for their securities holdings;
|
|
|
|
tax consequences to persons holding our common stock as part of
a hedging, integrated, constructive sale or conversion
transaction or a straddle;
|
|
|
|
any gift tax consequences;
|
|
|
|
alternative minimum tax consequences, if any; or
|
|
|
|
any U.S. state or local or foreign tax consequences.
|
If an entity treated as a partnership for U.S. federal
income tax purposes holds our common stock, the tax treatment of
a partner in the partnership generally will depend upon the
status of the partner and the activities of the partnership.
Prospective investors that are entities treated as partnerships
for U.S. federal income tax purposes should consult their
own tax advisors regarding the U.S. federal income and
estate tax considerations to them and their partners of holding
our common stock.
THIS DISCUSSION IS FOR GENERAL PURPOSES ONLY. IF YOU ARE
CONSIDERING THE ACQUISITION OF OUR COMMON STOCK, YOU SHOULD
CONSULT YOUR OWN TAX ADVISORS CONCERNING THE U.S. FEDERAL
INCOME AND ESTATE TAX CONSEQUENCES TO YOU IN
152
LIGHT OF YOUR OWN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AS WELL AS ANY TAX
CONSEQUENCES ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER TAXING
JURISDICTION, THE EFFECT OF ANY CHANGES IN APPLICABLE TAX LAW,
AND YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS UNDER AN APPLICABLE INCOME TAX
TREATY.
Dividends on
Common Stock
We do not expect to declare or pay any dividends on our common
stock in the foreseeable future. If we make a distribution of
cash or other property (other than certain pro rata
distributions of our common stock) in respect of our common
stock, the distribution will be treated as a dividend to the
extent it is paid from our current or accumulated earnings and
profits (as determined under U.S. federal income tax
principles). If the amount of a distribution exceeds our current
and accumulated earnings and profits, such excess first will be
treated as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of the
non-U.S. holders
adjusted tax basis in our common stock, and thereafter will be
treated as capital gain. Distributions treated as dividends on
our common stock held by a
non-U.S. holder
generally will be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax
at a rate of 30%, or at a lower rate if provided by an
applicable income tax treaty and the
non-U.S. holder
has provided the documentation required to claim benefits under
such treaty. Generally, to claim the benefits of an income tax
treaty, a
non-U.S. holder
will be required to provide a properly executed IRS
Form W-8BEN
(or appropriate substitute or successor form) certifying its
entitlement to benefits under the treaty.
If, however, a dividend is effectively connected with the
conduct of a trade or business in the United States by the
non-U.S. holder
(and, if an applicable tax treaty so provides, is attributable
to a permanent establishment or fixed base maintained by the
non-U.S. holder
in the United States), the dividend will not be subject to
U.S. federal withholding tax (so long as the
non-U.S. holder
has provided the appropriate documentation, generally an IRS
Form W-8ECI
(or appropriate substitute or successor form), to the
withholding agent), but the
non-U.S. holder
generally will be subject to U.S. federal income tax in
respect of the dividend on a net income basis at regular
U.S. federal income tax rates in substantially the same
manner as U.S. persons. Dividends received by a
non-U.S. holder
that is a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes
and which are effectively connected with the conduct of a
U.S. trade or business (and, if an applicable tax treaty so
provides, is attributable to a permanent establishment or fixed
base maintained by the
non-U.S. holder
in the United States) may also be subject to a branch profits
tax at the rate of 30% (or a lower rate if provided by an
applicable tax treaty).
A
non-U.S. holder
that is eligible for a reduced rate of U.S. federal
withholding tax under an income tax treaty may obtain a refund
or credit of any excess amounts withheld by timely filing an
appropriate claim for a refund together with the required
information with the IRS.
Sale, Exchange or
Other Disposition of Common Stock
Subject to the discussion of backup withholding below, a
non-U.S. holder
generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax
(including withholding tax) on gain realized on the sale,
exchange or other disposition of our common stock unless:
|
|
|
|
|
such
non-U.S. holder
is an individual who is present in the United States for
183 days or more in the taxable year of such sale, exchange
or disposition, and certain other conditions are met;
|
|
|
|
such gain is effectively connected with the conduct by the
non-U.S. holder
of a trade or business in the United States (and, if an
applicable tax treaty so provides, is attributable to a
permanent establishment or a fixed base maintained by the
non-U.S. holder
in the United States); or
|
|
|
|
we are or have been a United States real property holding
corporation, or a USRPHC, for U.S. federal income tax
purposes at any time during the shorter of the five-year testing
period ending on the date of such disposition and the
non-U.S. holders
holding period of our common stock, and certain other conditions
are met.
|
153
Gain realized by a
non-U.S. holder
that is effectively connected with such
non-U.S. holders
conduct of a trade or business in the United States generally
will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a net income
basis at regular U.S. federal income tax rates in
substantially the same manner as a U.S. person (except as
provided by an applicable tax treaty). In addition, if such
non-U.S. holder
is a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it
may also be subject to a branch profits tax at the rate of 30%
(or a lower rate if provided by an applicable tax treaty).
Generally, a corporation is a USRPHC if the fair market value of
its United States real property interests equals or
exceeds 50% of the sum of the fair market value of its worldwide
(domestic and foreign) real property interests and its other
assets used or held for use in a trade or business (all as
determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes). For this
purpose, real property interests include land, improvements and
associated personal property. We believe that we are not
currently a USRPHC for this purpose. If we were a USRPHC during
the applicable testing period,
non-U.S. holders
owning (directly or indirectly) more than 5% of our common stock
generally would be subject to U.S. federal income tax on
the gain realized on the sale, exchange or disposition of our
common stock, which would be treated as income effectively
connected with a U.S. trade or business (and taxable as
discussed above). Even if we were a USRPHC during the testing
period, U.S. federal income tax would not apply to gain
realized on the sale, exchange or disposition of our common
stock by a
non-U.S. holder
that owns (directly or indirectly) 5% or less of our common
stock so long as our common stock is regularly traded on
an established securities market within the meaning of the
applicable U.S. Treasury regulations. Prospective investors
should be aware that no assurance can be provided that our
common stock will be so regularly traded when a
non-U.S. holder
sells our common stock.
Information
Reporting and Backup Withholding
Dividends and proceeds from the sale, exchange or other
disposition of our common stock are potentially subject to
backup withholding at the applicable rate. In general, backup
withholding will not apply to dividends on our common stock paid
by us or our paying agents, in their capacities as such, to a
non-U.S. holder
if the holder has provided the required certification that it is
a
non-U.S. holder,
such as by providing an IRS
Form W-8BEN
or IRS
Form W-8ECI
(or appropriate substitute or successor form) and neither we nor
our paying agent has actual knowledge (or reason to know) that
the holder is a U.S. holder that is not an exempt recipient.
Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts
withheld under the backup withholding rules will be allowed as a
refund or a credit against a
non-U.S. holders
U.S. federal income tax liability, provided the required
information is furnished on a timely basis to the IRS.
Non-U.S. holders
should consult their tax advisors regarding the application of
the information reporting and backup withholding rules to them.
Recent
Legislation Imposing Additional Disclosure Requirements on
Holders that are Foreign Entities
Non-U.S. holders
should be aware of recently enacted legislation that, beginning
on January 1, 2013, will impose a 30% withholding tax on
certain payments (which could include dividends in respect of
our common stock and gross proceeds from the sale, exchange or
other disposition of our common stock) made to a foreign entity
if such entity fails to satisfy certain disclosure requirements.
Various requirements and exceptions are provided under the
legislation and additional requirements and exceptions may be
provided in subsequent guidance.
Non-U.S. holders
should consult their own tax advisors regarding the potential
application and impact of the new requirements based upon their
particular circumstances.
U.S. Federal
Estate Tax
Common stock owned or treated as owned by an individual who is
not a citizen or resident of the United States (as specifically
defined for U.S. federal estate tax purposes) at the time
of death will be included in the individuals gross estate
for U.S. federal estate tax purposes and may be subject to
U.S. federal estate tax unless an applicable estate tax
treaty provides otherwise.
154
UNDERWRITING
We and the underwriters named below have entered into an
underwriting agreement with respect to the shares being offered.
Subject to certain conditions, each underwriter has severally
agreed to purchase the number of shares indicated in the
following table. Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Barclays
Capital Inc. are the representatives of the underwriters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
Underwriters
|
|
Shares
|
|
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
|
|
|
|
|
Barclays Capital Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Piper Jaffray & Co.
|
|
|
|
|
Raymond James
|
|
|
|
|
Simmons & Company International
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The underwriters are committed to take and pay for all of the
shares being offered, if any are taken, other than the shares
covered by the option described below unless and until this
option is exercised.
If the underwriters sell more shares than the total number set
forth in the table above, the underwriters have an option to buy
up to an
additional shares
from us to cover such sales. They may exercise that option for
30 days. If any shares are purchased pursuant to this
option, the underwriters will severally purchase shares in
approximately the same proportion as set forth in the table
above.
The following table shows the per share and total underwriting
discounts and commissions to be paid to the underwriters by us.
Such amounts are shown assuming both no exercise and full
exercise of the underwriters option to
purchase
additional shares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid by the Company
|
|
|
No Exercise
|
|
Full Exercise
|
|
Per Share
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Shares sold by the underwriters to the public will initially be
offered at the initial public offering price set forth on the
cover of this prospectus. Any shares sold by the underwriters to
securities dealers may be sold at a discount of up to
$ per share from the initial
public offering price. If all the shares are not sold at the
initial public offering price, the representatives may change
the offering price and the other selling terms. The offering of
the shares by the underwriters is subject to receipt and
acceptance and subject to the underwriters right to reject
any order in whole or in part.
The Company and its officers, directors, and holders of
substantially all of our common stock and holder of securities
exercisable for or convertible into our common stock will agree
with the underwriters, subject to certain exceptions, not to
dispose of or hedge any of their common stock or securities
convertible into or exchangeable for shares of common stock
during the period from the date of this prospectus continuing
through the date 180 days after the date of this
prospectus, except with the prior written consent of Goldman,
Sachs & Co. This agreement does not apply to any
existing employee benefit plans. See Shares Eligible
for Future Sale for a discussion of certain transfer
restrictions.
The 180-day
restricted period described in the preceding paragraph will be
automatically extended if: (1) during the last 17 days
of the
180-day
restricted period we issue an earnings release or announce
material news or a material event; or (2) prior to the
expiration of the
180-day
restricted period, we announce that we will release earnings
results during the
15-day
period following the last day of the
180-day
period, in which case the restrictions described in the
preceding paragraph will continue to apply until the expiration
of the
18-day
period beginning on the issuance of the earnings release of the
announcement of the material news or material event.
155
Prior to the offering, there has been no public market for the
shares. The initial public offering price has been negotiated
among us and the representatives. Among the factors to be
considered in determining the initial public offering price of
the shares, in addition to prevailing market conditions, will be
our historical performance, estimates of the business potential
and earnings prospects of our company, an assessment of our
management and the consideration of the above factors in
relation to market valuation of companies in related businesses.
We have applied to list our common stock on the Nasdaq Global
Market under the symbol CERE.
In connection with the offering, the underwriters may purchase
and sell shares of common stock in the open market. These
transactions may include short sales, stabilizing transactions
and purchases to cover positions created by short sales. Shorts
sales involve the sale by the underwriters of a greater number
of shares than they are required to purchase in the offering.
Covered short sales are sales made in an amount not
greater than the underwriters option to purchase
additional shares from us in the offering. The underwriters may
close out any covered short position by either exercising their
option to purchase additional shares or purchasing shares in the
open market. In determining the source of shares to close out
the covered short position, the underwriters will consider,
among other things, the price of shares available for purchase
in the open market as compared to the price at which they may
purchase additional shares pursuant to the option granted to
them. Naked short sales are any sales in excess of
such option. The underwriters must close out any naked short
position by purchasing shares in the open market. A naked short
position is more likely to be created if the underwriters are
concerned that there may be downward pressure on the price of
the common stock in the open market after pricing that could
adversely affect investors who purchase in the offering.
Stabilizing transactions consist of various bids for or
purchases of common stock made by the underwriters in the open
market prior to the completion of the offering.
The underwriters may also impose a penalty bid. This occurs when
a particular underwriter repays to the underwriters a portion of
the underwriting discount received by it because the
representatives have repurchased shares sold by or for the
account of such underwriter in stabilizing or short covering
transactions.
Purchases to cover a short position and stabilizing
transactions, as well as other purchases by the underwriters for
their own accounts, may have the effect of preventing or
retarding a decline in the market price of our stock, and
together with the imposition of the penalty bid, may stabilize,
maintain or otherwise affect the market price of our common
stock. As a result, the price of our common stock may be higher
than the price that otherwise might exist in the open market. If
these activities are commenced, they may be discontinued at any
time. These transactions may be effected on the Nasdaq Global
Market, in the
over-the-counter
market or otherwise.
The underwriters do not expect sales to discretionary accounts
to exceed five percent of the total number of shares offered.
We estimate that our share of the total expenses of the
offering, excluding underwriting discounts and commissions, will
be approximately $ .
We have agreed to indemnify the several underwriters against
certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities
Act.
The underwriters and their respective affiliates are full
service financial institutions engaged in various activities,
which may include securities trading, commercial and investment
banking, financial advisory, investment management, investment
research, principal investment, hedging, financing and brokerage
activities. Certain of the underwriters and their respective
affiliates have, from time to time, performed, and may in the
future perform, various financial advisory and investment
banking services for the issuer, for which they received or will
receive customary fees and expenses.
156
In the ordinary course of their various business activities, the
underwriters and their respective affiliates may make or hold a
broad array of investments and actively trade debt and equity
securities (or related derivative securities) and financial
instruments (including bank loans) for their own account and for
the accounts of their customers and such investment and
securities activities may involve securities and instruments of
the issuer. The underwriters and their respective affiliates may
also make investment recommendations
and/or
publish or express independent research views in respect of such
securities or instruments and may at any time hold, or recommend
to clients that they acquire, long
and/or short
positions in such securities and instruments.
Selling
Restrictions
In relation to each Member State of the European Economic Area
which has implemented the Prospectus Directive (each, a Relevant
Member State), each underwriter has represented and agreed that
with effect from and including the date on which the Prospectus
Directive is implemented in that Relevant Member State (the
Relevant Implementation Date) it has not made and will not make
an offer of shares to the public in that Relevant Member State
prior to the publication of a prospectus in relation to the
shares which has been approved by the competent authority in
that Relevant Member State or, where appropriate, approved in
another Relevant Member State and notified to the competent
authority in that Relevant Member State, all in accordance with
the Prospectus Directive, except that it may, with effect from
and including the Relevant Implementation Date, make an offer of
shares to the public in that Relevant Member State at any time:
to legal entities which are authorized or regulated
to operate in the financial markets or, if not so authorized or
regulated, whose corporate purpose is solely to invest in
securities;
to any legal entity which has two or more of
(1) an average of at least 250 employees during the
last financial year; (2) a total balance sheet of more than
43,000,000 and (3) an annual net turnover of more
than 50,000,000, as shown in its last annual or
consolidated accounts;
to fewer than 100 natural or legal persons (other
than qualified investors as defined in the Prospectus Directive)
subject to obtaining the prior consent of the representatives
for any such offer; or
in any other circumstances which do not require the
publication by the Issuer of a prospectus pursuant to
Article 3 of the Prospectus Directive.
For the purposes of this provision, the expression an
offer of shares to the public in relation to any
shares in any Relevant Member State means the communication in
any form and by any means of sufficient information on the terms
of the offer and the shares to be offered so as to enable an
investor to decide to purchase or subscribe the shares, as the
same may be varied in that Relevant Member State by any measure
implementing the Prospectus Directive in that Relevant Member
State and the expression Prospectus Directive means Directive
2003/71/EC and includes any relevant implementing measure in
each Relevant Member State.
Each underwriter has represented and agreed that:
it has only communicated or caused to be
communicated and will only communicate or cause to be
communicated an invitation or inducement to engage in investment
activity (within the meaning of Section 21 of the FSMA)
received by it in connection with the issue or sale of the
shares in circumstances in which Section 21(1) of the FSMA
does not apply to the Issuer; and
it has complied and will comply with all applicable
provisions of the FSMA with respect to anything done by it in
relation to the shares in, from or otherwise involving the
United Kingdom.
The shares may not be offered or sold by means of any document
other than (i) in circumstances which do not constitute an
offer to the public within the meaning of the Companies
Ordinance (Cap.32, Laws of Hong Kong), or (ii) to
professional investors within the meaning of the
Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap.571, Laws of Hong Kong)
and any rules made thereunder, or (iii) in other
circumstances
157
which do not result in the document being a
prospectus within the meaning of the Companies
Ordinance (Cap.32, Laws of Hong Kong), and no advertisement,
invitation or document relating to the shares may be issued or
may be in the possession of any person for the purpose of issue
(in each case whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere), which is
directed at, or the contents of which are likely to be accessed
or read by, the public in Hong Kong (except if permitted to do
so under the laws of Hong Kong) other than with respect to
shares which are or are intended to be disposed of only to
persons outside Hong Kong or only to professional
investors within the meaning of the Securities and Futures
Ordinance (Cap. 571, Laws of Hong Kong) and any rules made
thereunder.
This prospectus has not been registered as a prospectus with the
Monetary Authority of Singapore. Accordingly, this prospectus
and any other document or material in connection with the offer
or sale, or invitation for subscription or purchase, of the
shares may not be circulated or distributed, nor may the shares
be offered or sold, or be made the subject of an invitation for
subscription or purchase, whether directly or indirectly, to
persons in Singapore other than (i) to an institutional
investor under Section 274 of the Securities and Futures
Act, Chapter 289 of Singapore, or the SFA, (ii) to a
relevant person, or any person pursuant to Section 275(1A),
and in accordance with the conditions, specified in
Section 275 of the SFA or (iii) otherwise pursuant to,
and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable
provision of the SFA.
Where the shares are subscribed or purchased under
Section 275 by a relevant person which is: (a) a
corporation (which is not an accredited investor) the sole
business of which is to hold investments and the entire share
capital of which is owned by one or more individuals, each of
whom is an accredited investor; or (b) a trust (where the
trustee is not an accredited investor) whose sole purpose is to
hold investments and each beneficiary is an accredited investor,
shares, debentures and units of shares and debentures of that
corporation or the beneficiaries rights and interest in
that trust shall not be transferable for 6 months after
that corporation or that trust has acquired the shares under
Section 275 except: (1) to an institutional investor
under Section 274 of the SFA or to a relevant person, or
any person pursuant to Section 275(1A), and in accordance
with the conditions, specified in Section 275 of the SFA;
(2) where no consideration is given for the transfer; or
(3) by operation of law.
The securities have not been and will not be registered under
the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law of Japan, or the
Financial Instruments and Exchange Law, and each underwriter has
agreed that it will not offer or sell any securities, directly
or indirectly, in Japan or to, or for the benefit of, any
resident of Japan (which term as used herein means any person
resident in Japan, including any corporation or other entity
organized under the laws of Japan), or to others for re-offering
or resale, directly or indirectly, in Japan or to a resident of
Japan, except pursuant to an exemption from the registration
requirements of, and otherwise in compliance with, the Financial
Instruments and Exchange Law and any other applicable laws,
regulations and ministerial guidelines of Japan.
Electronic
Distribution
A prospectus in electronic format may be made available on the
Internet sites or through other online services maintained by
one or more of the underwriters and/or selling group members
participating in this offering, or by their affiliates. In those
cases, prospective investors may view offering terms online and,
depending upon the particular underwriter or selling group
member, prospective investors may be allowed to place orders
online. The underwriters may agree with us to allocate a
specific number of shares for sale to online brokerage account
holders. Any such allocation for online distributions will be
made by the representatives on the same basis as other
allocations.
Other than the prospectus in electronic format, the information
on any underwriters or selling group members web
site and any information contained in any other web site
maintained by an underwriter or selling group member is not part
of the prospectus or the registration statement of which this
prospectus forms a part, has not been approved and/or endorsed
by us or any underwriter or selling group member in its capacity
as underwriter or selling group member and should not be relied
upon by investors.
158
LEGAL
MATTERS
The validity of the shares of common stock offered hereby will
be passed upon for us by Shearman & Sterling LLP, New
York, New York. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo
Alto, California is acting as counsel to the underwriters.
EXPERTS
The consolidated financial statements as of December 31,
2008 and August 31, 2009 and 2010 and for each of the years
ended December 31, 2007 and 2008, the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 and the year ended August 31, 2010
included in this prospectus have been included herein in
reliance on the report of KPMG LLP, an independent registered
public accounting firm, appearing elsewhere herein, and upon the
authority of said firm as experts in auditing and accounting.
WHERE YOU CAN
FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
We have filed a registration statement on
Form S-1
with the SEC covering the shares of our common stock we are
offering by this prospectus. This prospectus does not include
all of the information contained in the registration statement.
You should refer to the registration statement and its exhibits
for additional information. Whenever we make reference in this
prospectus to any of our contracts, agreements or other
documents, the references are not necessarily complete and you
should refer to the exhibits filed as part of the registration
statement for copies of the actual contract, agreement or other
document. After this offering, we will file annual, quarterly
and special reports, proxy statements and other information with
the SEC.
You can obtain copies of our SEC filings, including the
registration statement, over the Internet at the SECs web
site at www.sec.gov. You may also read and copy any
document we file with the SEC at its public reference facilities
at 100 F Street, N.E. Room 1580,
Washington, D.C. 20549. You may also obtain copies of the
documents at prescribed rates by writing to the Public Reference
Section of the SEC at 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330
for further information on the operation of the public reference
facilities.
159
CERES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-2
|
|
|
|
|
F-3
|
|
|
|
|
F-4
|
|
|
|
|
F-5
|
|
|
|
|
F-6
|
|
|
|
|
F-7
|
|
F-1
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of
Directors and Stockholders
Ceres, Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Ceres, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008,
August 31, 2009 and August 31, 2010, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
deficit and cash flows for the years ended December 31,
2007 and December 31, 2008, the eight months ended
August 31, 2009 and the year ended August 31, 2010.
These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility
of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements
based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Ceres, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2008, August 31, 2009 and August 31, 2010, and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for the years
ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008, the
eight months ended August 31, 2009 and the year ended
August 31, 2010, in conformity with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles.
As discussed in note 1(n) to the consolidated financial
statements, effective January 1, 2009, the Company changed
the accounting treatment for certain warrants upon adoption of a
new accounting standard. As discussed in note 1(o) to
the consolidated financial statements, effective for all periods
presented, the Company changed the manner in which it accounted
for convertible preferred stock.
/s/ KPMG LLP
Los Angeles, California
February 4, 2011, except as related
to note 1(o) to the consolidated
financial statements which is as
of May 19, 2011
F-2
CERES, INC.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(Information as of May 31, 2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
12,145
|
|
|
$
|
14,960
|
|
|
$
|
33,055
|
|
|
$
|
17,717
|
|
|
$
|
17,717
|
|
Restricted investment
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
29,051
|
|
|
|
15,384
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
884
|
|
|
|
992
|
|
|
|
675
|
|
|
|
683
|
|
|
|
683
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
1,736
|
|
|
|
449
|
|
|
|
1,196
|
|
|
|
927
|
|
|
|
927
|
|
Deferred offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,539
|
|
|
|
1,539
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
635
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
415
|
|
|
|
415
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
44,551
|
|
|
|
31,938
|
|
|
|
34,990
|
|
|
|
21,281
|
|
|
|
21,281
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
|
8,847
|
|
|
|
8,884
|
|
|
|
8,452
|
|
|
|
7,128
|
|
|
|
7,128
|
|
Restricted cash and investment
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
4,035
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
272
|
|
|
|
206
|
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term assets
|
|
|
13,167
|
|
|
|
9,156
|
|
|
|
11,658
|
|
|
|
10,313
|
|
|
|
10,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
57,718
|
|
|
$
|
41,094
|
|
|
$
|
46,648
|
|
|
$
|
31,594
|
|
|
$
|
31,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities, Convertible Preferred Stock and
Stockholders (Deficit) Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
$
|
3,152
|
|
|
$
|
4,072
|
|
|
$
|
3,774
|
|
|
$
|
6,452
|
|
|
$
|
6,452
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
678
|
|
|
|
889
|
|
|
|
889
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
2,182
|
|
|
|
2,171
|
|
|
|
2,171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
3,254
|
|
|
|
4,395
|
|
|
|
6,665
|
|
|
|
9,543
|
|
|
|
9,543
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
261
|
|
|
|
241
|
|
|
|
201
|
|
|
|
162
|
|
|
|
162
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
4,198
|
|
|
|
2,552
|
|
|
|
2,552
|
|
Preferred Stock warrant liabilities
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
333
|
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock warrant liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,931
|
|
|
|
8,578
|
|
|
|
10,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
3,544
|
|
|
|
7,592
|
|
|
|
19,975
|
|
|
|
22,618
|
|
|
|
12,257
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
6,733,875 shares authorized, issued, and outstanding at
December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009 and 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited); aggregate liquidation preference
of $6,734
|
|
|
6,734
|
|
|
|
6,734
|
|
|
|
6,734
|
|
|
|
6,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
4,755,313 shares authorized; 3,640,000 shares issued
and outstanding at December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009
and 2010 and May 31, 2011 (unaudited); aggregate
liquidation preference of $7,280
|
|
|
7,280
|
|
|
|
7,280
|
|
|
|
7,280
|
|
|
|
7,280
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
14,550,000 shares authorized; 12,405,418 shares issued
and outstanding at December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009
and 2010 and May 31, 2011 (unaudited); aggregate
liquidation preference of $49,622
|
|
|
49,622
|
|
|
|
49,622
|
|
|
|
49,622
|
|
|
|
49,622
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series C-1
Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
2,264,681 shares authorized; 2,181,796 shares issued
and outstanding at December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009
and 2010 and May 31, 2011(unaudited); aggregate liquidation
preference of $8,727
|
|
|
8,520
|
|
|
|
8,520
|
|
|
|
8,520
|
|
|
|
8,520
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series D Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
4,583,335 shares authorized; 3,150,012 shares issued
and outstanding at December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009
and 2010 and May 31, 2011 (unaudited); aggregate
liquidation preference of $18,900
|
|
|
18,563
|
|
|
|
18,563
|
|
|
|
18,563
|
|
|
|
18,563
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series E Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
3,351,794 shares authorized; 3,333,333 shares issued
and outstanding at December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009
and 2010 and May 31, 2011 (unaudited); aggregate
liquidation preference of $21,667
|
|
|
21,667
|
|
|
|
21,667
|
|
|
|
21,667
|
|
|
|
21,667
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series F Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
11,538,462 shares authorized, issued, and outstanding at
December 31, 2008 and August 31, 2009 and 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited); aggregate liquidation preference
of $75,000
|
|
|
70,693
|
|
|
|
70,693
|
|
|
|
70,693
|
|
|
|
70,693
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series G Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value;
3,076,923 shares authorized, issued, and outstanding at
August 31, 2010 and May 31, 2011 (unaudited);
aggregate liquidation preference of $20,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,423
|
|
|
|
14,423
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
183,079
|
|
|
|
183,079
|
|
|
|
197,502
|
|
|
|
197,502
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders (deficit) equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value; 75,000,000 shares
authorized; 5,592,917, 5,698,417, 5,844,417, and
5,980,417 shares issued and outstanding at
December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009 and 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited), respectively;
52,040,236 shares issued and outstanding pro forma at
May 31, 2011 (unaudited)
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
520
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
6,484
|
|
|
|
4,110
|
|
|
|
5,440
|
|
|
|
7,304
|
|
|
|
214,706
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(135,445
|
)
|
|
|
(153,744
|
)
|
|
|
(176,327
|
)
|
|
|
(195,889
|
)
|
|
|
(195,889
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders (deficit) equity
|
|
|
(128,905
|
)
|
|
|
(149,577
|
)
|
|
|
(170,829
|
)
|
|
|
(188,526
|
)
|
|
|
19,337
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities, convertible preferred stock and
stockholders (deficit) equity
|
|
$
|
57,718
|
|
|
$
|
41,094
|
|
|
$
|
46,648
|
|
|
$
|
31,594
|
|
|
$
|
31,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
F-3
CERES, INC.
(Information for the nine months ended
May 31, 2010 and 2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Months Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
|
$
|
288
|
|
|
$
|
236
|
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
Collaborative research and government grants
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,880
|
|
|
|
2,328
|
|
|
|
6,326
|
|
|
|
4,095
|
|
|
|
4,799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
7,180
|
|
|
|
3,944
|
|
|
|
2,426
|
|
|
|
6,614
|
|
|
|
4,331
|
|
|
|
4,896
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost and operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,777
|
|
|
|
2,690
|
|
|
|
2,946
|
|
|
|
2,217
|
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
20,309
|
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
16,697
|
|
|
|
12,639
|
|
|
|
13,837
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
9,811
|
|
|
|
8,784
|
|
|
|
6,645
|
|
|
|
9,207
|
|
|
|
6,844
|
|
|
|
6,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
29,031
|
|
|
|
32,870
|
|
|
|
21,732
|
|
|
|
28,850
|
|
|
|
21,700
|
|
|
|
22,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations
|
|
|
(21,851
|
)
|
|
|
(28,926
|
)
|
|
|
(19,306
|
)
|
|
|
(22,236
|
)
|
|
|
(17,369
|
)
|
|
|
(17,781
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(153
|
)
|
|
|
(91
|
)
|
|
|
(365
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,521
|
|
|
|
2,001
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(167
|
)
|
|
|
(1,450
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(20,448
|
)
|
|
|
(26,925
|
)
|
|
|
(18,907
|
)
|
|
|
(22,518
|
)
|
|
|
(17,606
|
)
|
|
|
(19,590
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (expense)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loss
|
|
$
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
$
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
(3.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.33
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.90
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.31
|
)
|
Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss per
share attributable to common stockholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted
|
|
|
5,323,259
|
|
|
|
5,473,090
|
|
|
|
5,621,671
|
|
|
|
5,791,443
|
|
|
|
5,775,322
|
|
|
|
5,917,179
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.46
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.38
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average outstanding common shares used in computing pro
forma net loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,339,144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,976,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
F-4
CERES, INC.
(Information for the nine months ended
May 31, 2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Stockholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
5,156,583
|
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
$
|
980
|
|
|
$
|
(88,213
|
)
|
|
$
|
(87,181
|
)
|
Exercise of common stock options
|
|
|
214,037
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
727
|
|
Issuance of common stock warrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,489
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,489
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
5,370,620
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
5,256
|
|
|
|
(108,668
|
)
|
|
|
(103,358
|
)
|
Exercise of common stock options
|
|
|
212,297
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,172
|
|
Restricted stock award issuance
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
5,592,917
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
6,484
|
|
|
|
(135,445
|
)
|
|
|
(128,905
|
)
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (see
Note 1(n))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,489
|
)
|
|
|
397
|
|
|
|
(3,092
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted balance January 1, 2009
|
|
|
5,592,917
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
2,995
|
|
|
|
(135,048
|
)
|
|
|
(131,997
|
)
|
Exercise of common stock options
|
|
|
105,500
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,082
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,082
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at August 31, 2009
|
|
|
5,698,417
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
4,110
|
|
|
|
(153,744
|
)
|
|
|
(149,577
|
)
|
Exercise of common stock options
|
|
|
146,000
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,300
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at August 31, 2010
|
|
|
5,844,417
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
5,440
|
|
|
|
(176,327
|
)
|
|
|
(170,829
|
)
|
Exercise of common stock options (unaudited)
|
|
|
136,000
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
Stock compensation expense (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,789
|
|
Net loss (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at May 31, 2011 (unaudited)
|
|
|
5,980,417
|
|
|
$
|
59
|
|
|
$
|
7,304
|
|
|
$
|
(195,889
|
)
|
|
$
|
(188,526
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
F-4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Months Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
$
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,562
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in fair value of common and preferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stock warrants
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(162
|
)
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
162
|
|
|
|
1,450
|
|
Net gain on disposal of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
1,935
|
|
|
|
2,167
|
|
|
|
1,548
|
|
|
|
2,420
|
|
|
|
1,821
|
|
|
|
1,597
|
|
Stock compensation
|
|
|
727
|
|
|
|
1,172
|
|
|
|
1,082
|
|
|
|
1,300
|
|
|
|
941
|
|
|
|
1,789
|
|
Discount on matured investments
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
(253
|
)
|
|
|
342
|
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
|
316
|
|
|
|
220
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
8,798
|
|
|
|
(1,521
|
)
|
|
|
1,286
|
|
|
|
(745
|
)
|
|
|
(242
|
)
|
|
|
269
|
|
Deferred offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,539
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
(976
|
)
|
|
|
544
|
|
|
|
495
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
(213
|
)
|
|
|
(290
|
)
|
Accounts payables and accrued expenses
|
|
|
1,151
|
|
|
|
(808
|
)
|
|
|
920
|
|
|
|
(298
|
)
|
|
|
(475
|
)
|
|
|
2,635
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
(995
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
420
|
|
|
|
511
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities
|
|
|
(10,032
|
)
|
|
|
(24,899
|
)
|
|
|
(13,508
|
)
|
|
|
(18,846
|
)
|
|
|
(14,838
|
)
|
|
|
(13,437
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of property and equipment
|
|
|
(2,283
|
)
|
|
|
(3,812
|
)
|
|
|
(1,585
|
)
|
|
|
(2,093
|
)
|
|
|
(1,895
|
)
|
|
|
(386
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
Change in restricted cash and investments
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
2,600
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
(2,900
|
)
|
|
|
(1,400
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased investments (at cost)
|
|
|
(58,080
|
)
|
|
|
(49,443
|
)
|
|
|
(30,341
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gains from investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturities of investments
|
|
|
6,446
|
|
|
|
73,977
|
|
|
|
48,174
|
|
|
|
15,365
|
|
|
|
15,365
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities
|
|
|
(53,817
|
)
|
|
|
23,433
|
|
|
|
16,329
|
|
|
|
10,372
|
|
|
|
12,070
|
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal payments on other long term debt
|
|
|
(1,474
|
)
|
|
|
(311
|
)
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
Principal payments on debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(450
|
)
|
|
|
(225
|
)
|
|
|
(1,675
|
)
|
Proceeds from issuance of debt and preferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stock warrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of convertible preferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stock and common stock warrants
|
|
|
74,182
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of warrants
|
|
|
280
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
73,050
|
|
|
|
(252
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
26,569
|
|
|
|
2,795
|
|
|
|
(1,627
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
9,201
|
|
|
|
(1,718
|
)
|
|
|
2,815
|
|
|
|
18,095
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
(15,338
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
4,662
|
|
|
|
13,863
|
|
|
|
12,145
|
|
|
|
14,960
|
|
|
|
14,960
|
|
|
|
33,055
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$
|
13,863
|
|
|
$
|
12,145
|
|
|
$
|
14,960
|
|
|
$
|
33,055
|
|
|
$
|
14,987
|
|
|
$
|
17,717
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the year for interest
|
|
$
|
91
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
$
|
71
|
|
|
$
|
304
|
|
Cash paid during the year for income taxes
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements
F-5
|
|
(1)
|
Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies
|
|
|
(a)
|
Description of
Business
|
Ceres, Inc. (the Company) is an agricultural
biotechnology company selling seeds to produce renewable biomass
feedstocks that can enable the large-scale replacement of
petroleum and other fossil fuels. The Company uses a combination
of advanced plant breeding and biotechnology to develop
dedicated energy crops.
In January 2010, the Company incorporated a subsidiary, Ceres
Sementes do Brasil Ltda. The Companys ownership in this
subsidiary is 99.9% and the Companys Chief Executive
Officer owns the remaining interest.
The Company has incurred substantial net losses since its
inception, including net losses of $20,455, $26,777, $18,696,
and $22,583 for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2008,
eight months ended August 31, 2009, and the year ended
August 31, 2010, respectively, and $17,592 and $19,562 for
the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and 2011 (unaudited),
respectively. As of May 31, 2011 (unaudited), the Company
had an accumulated deficit of $195,889.
The Company expects to incur additional losses related to the
continued development and expansion of its business including
research and development, seed production and operations, and
sales and marketing. The Company is dependent on raising
additional funding in the near term. While the Company raised
$20,000 from the sale of convertible preferred stock and
warrants to purchase common stock and borrowed $7,000 from a
bank (see Note 5) in 2010, there is no assurance that
the Company will be successful in raising any additional
necessary financing in the future. There is also no assurance
that profitable operations will be achieved, or if achieved, can
be sustained on a continued basis.
Management believes that the current assets at August 31,
2010 are sufficient to fund operations at the current normalized
spend rate into the first quarter of the Companys fiscal
year ending August 31, 2012. The Company has plans to raise
additional financing from a variety of potential sources
including existing investors, collaborations, government grants,
public and private debt or equity financings. To the extent the
Company is unable to raise additional funds in the near term,
the Company has contingency plans in place to moderate the pace
of planned expansion and reduce expenses related to the
Companys operations. These contingency plans would enable
the Company to continue to operate its core business through the
second quarter of fiscal 2012.
|
|
(c)
|
Principles of
Consolidation
|
The consolidated financial statements include the financial
statements of the Company and its subsidiary. All significant
intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in
consolidation.
|
|
(d)
|
Change in
Fiscal Year-End
|
During 2009, the Company changed its fiscal year-end to August
31 from December 31 to better match the seasonality of the
production and selling cycles related to the seed and traits
business.
Any reference in the footnotes to the 2007,
2008, 2009 and 2010 periods
represents consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders deficit or cash flow activity for the years
ended
F-6
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
December 31, 2007 and 2008, eight months ended
August 31, 2009 and year ended August 31, 2010 or
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2008 and
August 31, 2009 and August 31, 2010, respectively.
|
|
(e)
|
Unaudited
Interim Financial Information
|
The consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2011, the
consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the
nine months ended May 31, 2010 and 2011, and the
consolidated statements of stockholders deficit for the
nine months ended May 31, 2011 are unaudited. The amounts
as of May 31, 2011 and for the nine months ended
May 31, 2010 and 2011 included within the notes to the
consolidated financial statements are also unaudited. In the
opinion of the Companys management the unaudited
consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same
basis as the annual consolidated financial statements and all
adjustments (which include normal recurring adjustments)
necessary for a fair presentation of financial position, results
of operations and cash flows, and change in stockholders
deficit at May 31, 2011 and for the nine months ended
May 31, 2010 and 2011 have been made. Interim results are
not necessarily indicative of the results that will be achieved
for the year, for any interim period, or for any future year.
|
|
(f)
|
Unaudited Pro
Forma Balance Sheet and Net Loss Per Share
|
In May 2011, the Companys board of directors approved the
filing of a registration statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for an initial public offering of the
Companys common stock. If the initial public offering is
consummated, all of the convertible preferred stock outstanding
will automatically convert into 46,059,819 shares of common
stock, based on the shares of convertible preferred stock
outstanding as of May 31, 2011, warrants to purchase common
stock are assumed to net exercise to shares of common stock, and
warrants to purchase convertible preferred stock will convert to
warrants to purchase common stock.
The unaudited pro forma balance sheet gives effect to the
conversion of 46,059,819 shares of convertible preferred
stock and reclassification of the common and preferred stock
warrant liabilities to additional paid-in capital as of
May 31, 2011.
The unaudited pro forma basic and diluted net loss per common
share for the year ended August 31, 2010 and the nine-month
period ended May 31, 2011 have been computed to give effect
to the conversion of the Companys convertible preferred
stock (using the if-converted method) into common stock as
though the conversion had occurred as of September 1, 2009.
The Company considers all highly liquid investments, with an
original maturity of three months or less when purchased, to be
cash equivalents. Cash equivalents totaled of $11,817, $14,130,
$13,019, and $13,018 at December 31, 2008, August 31,
2009, August 31, 2010 and May 31, 2011 (unaudited),
respectively.
|
|
(h)
|
Restricted
Cash and Restricted Investments
|
Cash and investment accounts that are restricted as to
withdrawal or usage are presented as restricted cash and
investments.
F-7
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Investment securities primarily consisted of U.S. Treasury
securities with maturities of 365 days or less. The
securities were classified as held to maturity as the Company
has the ability and intent to hold the securities until
maturity. The securities were recorded at amortized cost, and
adjusted for the amortization or accretion of premiums or
discounts. All investment securities matured by August 31,
2010.
|
|
(j)
|
Financial
Instruments
|
The carrying value of financial instruments such as cash and
cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable, and accrued
expenses approximate their fair value due to the short-term
nature of these instruments. At each period end, the fair value
of the long-term debt approximated carrying value based on
interest rates currently available to the Company.
|
|
(k)
|
Fair Value
Measurements
|
The Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures,
on January 1, 2008 for fair value measurements of financial
assets and financial liabilities that are recognized or
disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a
recurring basis. On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted
the provisions of ASC Topic 820 for fair value measurements of
nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are
recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial
statements on a nonrecurring basis. ASC Topic 820 establishes a
fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation
techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the
highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets
for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements)
and the lowest priority to measurements involving significant
unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three
levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active
markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has
the ability to access at the measurement date.
|
|
|
|
Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included
within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or
liability, either directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
|
Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or
liability.
|
The level in the fair value hierarchy within which a fair value
measurement in its entirety falls is based on the lowest level
input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its
entirety.
In 2009 and 2010, upon the adoption of ASC Topic
815-40,
Derivatives and Hedging-Contracts in Entitys Own
Equity, certain financial instruments did fall within the
requirements of ASC Topic 820 and are included in the disclosure
below.
The Company has utilized an option pricing valuation model to
determine the fair value of its outstanding common and
convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities. The inputs to
the model include fair value of the stock related to the
warrant, exercise price of the warrant, expected term, expected
volatility, risk-free interest rate and dividend yield. As
several significant inputs are not observable, the overall fair
value measurement of the warrants is classified as Level 3.
F-8
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
The following tables summarize the Companys common and
convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities measured at fair
value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2008,
August 31, 2009, August 31, 2010 and May 31, 2011
(unaudited).
As of December 31, 2008, the fair value of the
Companys convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value measurements
|
|
|
|
|
at reporting date using
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted prices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in active
|
|
Significant
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
Total fair
|
|
markets for
|
|
other
|
|
other
|
|
|
value as of
|
|
identical
|
|
observable
|
|
unobservable
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
assets
|
|
inputs
|
|
inputs
|
|
|
2008
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
Convertible preferred stock warrants
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
As of August 31, 2009, the fair value of the Companys
common and convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value measurements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at reporting date using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted prices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in active
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
Total fair
|
|
|
markets for
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
value as of
|
|
|
identical
|
|
|
observable
|
|
|
unobservable
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
assets
|
|
|
inputs
|
|
|
inputs
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
Common stock warrants
|
|
$
|
2,931
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,931
|
|
Convertible preferred stock warrants
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,944
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,944
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31, 2010, the fair value of the Companys
common and convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value measurements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at reporting date using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted prices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in active
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
Total fair
|
|
|
markets for
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
value as of
|
|
|
identical
|
|
|
observable
|
|
|
unobservable
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
assets
|
|
|
inputs
|
|
|
inputs
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
Common stock warrants
|
|
$
|
8,578
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,578
|
|
Convertible preferred stock warrants
|
|
|
333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,911
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,911
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-9
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
As of May 31, 2011 (unaudited), the fair value of the
Companys common and convertible preferred stock warrant
liabilities were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value measurements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at reporting date using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted prices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in active
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
Total fair
|
|
|
markets for
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
value as of
|
|
|
identical
|
|
|
observable
|
|
|
unobservable
|
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
assets
|
|
|
inputs
|
|
|
inputs
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
Common stock warrants
|
|
$
|
10,049
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
10,049
|
|
Convertible preferred stock warrants
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
10,361
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
10,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to December 31, 2008, the changes in fair value of
the Companys Level 3 warrant liabilities were not
significant. The changes in fair value of the Companys
Level 3 warrants from December 31, 2008 through
May 31, 2011 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Preferred
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
|
Warrant
|
|
|
Warrant
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
Fair value, December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle
|
|
|
3,092
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value, Adjusted balance January 1, 2009
|
|
|
3,092
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Fair value adjustment of warrants
|
|
|
(161
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value, August 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,931
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Fair value adjustment of warrants
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
Issuance of warrants
|
|
|
5,577
|
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value, August 31, 2010
|
|
|
8,578
|
|
|
|
333
|
|
Fair value adjustment of warrants (unaudited)
|
|
|
1,471
|
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value, May 31, 2011 (unaudited)
|
|
$
|
10,049
|
|
|
$
|
312
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable represents amounts owed to the Company from
product sales and collaborative research and government grants.
The Company had no amounts reserved for doubtful accounts at
December 31, 2008, August 31, 2009, August 31,
2010 and May 31, 2011 (unaudited), as the Company expected
full collection of the accounts receivable balances.
F-10
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Customers representing greater than 10% of accounts receivable
were as follows (in percentages):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
Customers
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Customer A
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
29.4
|
|
|
Customer B
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
23.1
|
|
|
Customer C
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
35.2
|
|
|
Customer D
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
|
|
27.2
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Customer E
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Customer H
|
|
|
95.6
|
|
|
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
37.4
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Customers representing greater than 10% of revenues were as
follows (in percentages):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
Customers
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Customer A
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
11.8
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
|
Customer B
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
|
15.9
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
|
Customer C
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
Customer D
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
25.4
|
|
|
|
48.1
|
|
|
|
28.5
|
|
|
|
32.2
|
|
|
|
25.9
|
|
Customer E
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
43.5
|
|
|
|
27.6
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Customer F
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Customer G
|
|
|
88.4
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
(m)
|
Property and
Equipment
|
Property and equipment is stated at cost. Depreciation is
provided using the straight-line method over the shorter of the
estimated useful lives or the remaining life of the lease.
Depreciation periods for the Companys property and
equipment are as follows:
|
|
|
Automobiles and trucks
|
|
3-5 years
|
Office, laboratory, farm and warehouse equipment and furniture
|
|
3-5 years
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
3-10 years
|
Buildings
|
|
14-39 years
|
|
|
(n)
|
Common and
Convertible Preferred Stock Warrant Liabilities
|
Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the guidance
in ASC Topic
815-40
Derivatives and Hedging Contracts in
Entitys Own Equity. In connection with the adoption,
the Company determined that common stock warrants issued to the
holders of Series F Convertible Preferred Stock were not
considered indexed to the Companys common stock and
therefore require liability
F-11
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
classification. On January 1, 2009, the Company recorded
warrant liabilities of $3,092 and recorded a cumulative effect
of change in accounting principle of $397 as a reduction of
accumulated deficit representing the decline in fair value
between the warrant issuance date and the adoption date.
The Company accounts for its warrants to purchase shares of the
Companys convertible preferred stock that are contingently
redeemable as liabilities at fair value on the consolidated
balance sheets.
These common and convertible preferred stock warrants are
subject to re-measurement at each balance sheet date and the
changes in fair value, if any, are recognized as other income
(expense) until they expire or are exercised.
|
|
(o)
|
Convertible
Preferred Stock
|
In connection with the Companys decision to file a
registration statement with the Securities Exchange Commission
for an initial public offering of the Companys common
stock, the Company adopted the provisions of ASC Topic
480-10-S99-3A,
Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities.
The convertible preferred stock is not redeemable by the Company
or at the option of the preferred stockholders. The holders of
the Companys outstanding convertible preferred stock,
voting or consenting together as a separate class, control the
vote of the Companys stockholders. As a result, the
holders of all series of the Companys convertible
preferred stock can vote to approve a change in control under
circumstances that would trigger a deemed liquidation under the
Companys certificate of incorporation. As redemption of
the convertible preferred stock through a deemed liquidation is
outside the control of the Company, all shares of convertible
preferred stock, previously classified in stockholders
(deficit) equity, have been classified as temporary equity
rather than as a component of stockholders (deficit)
equity in the Companys consolidated balance sheets for all
periods presented. All series of convertible preferred stock are
collectively referred to in the consolidated financial
statements as convertible preferred stock.
The carrying value of convertible preferred stock was recorded
at its fair value at the date of issue. The convertible
preferred stock is not currently redeemable as the contingency
(sale or merger of the Company) has not been met and is not
probable. Subsequent adjustment will be made when it is probable
that the security will become redeemable. There was no impact of
adopting this accounting principle on the consolidated
statements of operations or cash flows for all periods presented.
|
|
(p)
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
|
The Company accounts for stock-based compensation arrangements
with employees using a fair value method which requires the
recognition of compensation expense for costs related to all
stock-based payments including stock options. The fair value
method requires the Company to estimate the fair value of
stock-based payment awards on the date of grant using an option
pricing model. The Company uses an option pricing model to
estimate the fair value of options granted that are expensed on
a straight-line basis over the vesting period. The Company
accounts for stock options issued to non-employees based on the
estimated fair value of the awards using the option pricing
model. The measurement of stock-based compensation to
non-employees is subject to periodic adjustments as the
underlying equity instruments vest, and the resulting change in
value, if any, is recognized in the Companys consolidated
statements of operations during the period the related services
are rendered.
F-12
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Revenues are recognized when the following criteria are met:
(1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists;
(2) transfer of product or technology has been completed or
services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or
determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured.
To date, the Companys primary source of revenues is
derived from collaborative research agreements and government
grants.
Product
Sales
Product sales are derived from sales of seeds. Product sales are
recognized, net of discounts and allowances, once passage of
title and risk of loss have occurred and contractually specified
acceptance criteria have been met, provided all other revenue
recognition criteria have also been met. Shipping and handling
costs charged to customers are recorded as revenues and included
in cost of product sales. To date, product sales have not been
significant.
Collaborative
Research and Government Grants
From time to time, the Company enters into research and
development collaboration agreements with third parties
including several biofuel producers and government agencies such
as the Department of Energy (DOE) and the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
research and development collaboration agreements typically
provide the Company with multiple revenue streams, which may
include up-front, non-refundable fees for licensing certain of
the Companys technologies, government grants and fees for
research and development activities, and contingent milestone
payments based upon achievement of contractual criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Technology License Fees For collaboration
agreements in which the Company has continuing involvement,
license fees are recognized on a straight-line basis over the
term of the arrangement. Licensing fees are non-refundable and
not subject to future performance.
|
|
|
|
Government Grants The Company receives
payments from government entities in the form of government
grants. Government grants generally provide the Company with
partial cost reimbursement for certain types of expenditures in
return for research and development activities over a
contractually defined period. Revenues from government grants
are recognized in the period during which the related costs are
incurred, provided that the conditions under which the
government grants were provided have been met and the Company
has only perfunctory obligations outstanding.
|
|
|
|
Research and Development Fees Generally, fees
for research and development activities are recognized as the
services are performed over the performance period, as specified
in the respective agreements. Certain of the Companys
collaboration agreements require the Company to deliver research
data by specific dates and that the collective program plan will
result in reaching specific crop characteristics by certain
dates. For such arrangements, the Company recognizes revenues
based on the approximate percentage of completion of services
under the agreement, but the revenue recognized cannot exceed
payments received by the Company to date under the agreement.
The research and development period is estimated at the
inception of each agreement and is periodically evaluated.
|
|
|
|
Milestone Fees Fees that are contingent based
on achievement of substantive performance milestones at
inception of the agreement are recognized based on the
achievement of the milestone, as defined in the respective
agreements.
|
F-13
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Deferred
Revenue
The Company recognizes deferred revenue to the extent that cash
received under the collaboration agreement is in excess of the
revenues recognized related to the agreement since the work
under the agreement has not yet been performed at the time of
cash receipt.
In April 2002, the Company entered into a multi-year discovery
and development collaboration with Monsanto Company, focused on
applying genomics technologies to identify genes that provide
improvements in corn, soybean and certain other row crops.
Pursuant to this agreement, Monsanto licensed rights to a
portion of the Companys trait discovery pipeline in
certain row crops in exchange for license payments over several
years. Monsanto also funded a research program with the Company.
Payments for such licenses were nonrefundable and were not
subject to future performance. During 2007 the Company
recognized $3,500 and $2,846 for license and milestone fees,
respectively, under the Monsanto agreement. The Company had no
milestone fees for any other periods presented herein. In 2010,
the Company and Monsanto agreed to amend the agreement. The
amendment included an additional license fee of $450 pertaining
to an expansion of the license grant. This amount was recorded
in revenues for collaborative research and government grants in
2010. In connection with the collaboration agreement, Monsanto
also purchased 3,333,333 shares of the Companys
Series E Preferred Stock.
On December 20, 2007, the Company and a major consumer
products company entered into a development and license
agreement under which the Company is working to improve yields
of a food product. The agreement provided that the Company would
receive $7,500 in payments from this company over a
five-year
period provided milestones were met. In addition, the agreement
provided that the Company would be entitled to receive a royalty
based on the gross sales of crop varieties created under the
agreement. The Company recognized revenue of $0, $1,000, $1,166,
and $1,883, under this agreement in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010,
respectively. Revenue recognized under this agreement for the
nine months ended May 31, 2010 and 2011 (unaudited), was
$1,396, and $1,296, respectively.
The Company earns research funding revenues from several
agreements with the DOE, the USDA, and several leading
bio-fuels
producers whereby the Company performs research activities and
receives revenues that partially reimburse its expenses
incurred. Under such grants and agreements, the Company retains
a proprietary interest in the products and technology it
develops. These expense reimbursements primarily consist of
direct expense sharing arrangements. The Company recorded
revenue related to these grants of approximately $800, $2,000,
$900, and $2,800 in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively,
and $2,246 and $2,329 for the nine months ended May 31,
2010 and 2011, respectively (unaudited). The cumulative
remaining amount to be claimed through September 2012 for all
grants outstanding as of May 31, 2011 (unaudited) is
approximately $5,015.
On December 16, 2008, the Company and a major
agro-chemical
company entered into a software license and collaboration
agreement pursuant to which the Company provides software,
software development and customer support for certain research
application-based software. The agreement was structured into
three phases and under the agreement, the Company is entitled to
receive $1,500 in payments over an approximate 4.5 year
period. The software delivered is comprised of multiple
elements, which include software, installation, training,
customization of software, and software support. Software
support is considered post-contract customer support, or PCS.
The Company does not have vendor specific objective evidence of
fair value for its PCS. Accordingly, the Company recognizes
revenues equal to the amount of expense recognized as services
are rendered
F-14
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
until the date that the PCS is the only undelivered element.
Beginning on such date, the unrecognized revenue under the
agreement will be recognized over the remaining PCS period. The
Company recognized revenue and an equal amount of costs totaling
$0, $180 and $268 under this agreement in 2008, 2009 and 2010,
respectively. Revenue and related costs recognized for the nine
months ended May 31, 2010 and 2011 (unaudited) were $201
and $192, respectively.
|
|
(r)
|
Research and
Development
|
Research and development expenses principally consist of
personnel costs related to the Companys research and
development staff as well as depreciation of research and
development assets. Research and development expenses also
include costs incurred for laboratory supplies, reimbursable
costs associated with government grants and collaborative
agreements,
third-party
contract payments, consultants, facility and related overhead
costs.
Seed inventory costs are computed on a
first-in,
first-out basis and valued at the lower of cost or market with
any excess cost recognized during the period within cost of
product sales. Due to the early stage of commercialization of
the Companys seed products and with no established market
for these products, a full valuation reserve has been recorded
against seed inventory for all periods presented.
Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability
method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for
the future tax consequences attributable to differences between
the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and
liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss
and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and
liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to
apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary
differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect
on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates
is recognized in income in the period that includes the
enactment date.
Beginning with the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, included in FASB
ASC Subtopic
740-10
Income Taxes Overall, as of January 1,
2009, the Company recognizes the effect of income tax positions
only if those positions are more likely than not of being
sustained. Recognized income tax positions are measured at the
largest amount that is greater than 50% likely of being
realized. Changes in recognition or measurement are reflected in
the period in which the change in judgment occurs. Prior to the
adoption of Interpretation 48, the Company recognized the effect
of income tax positions only if such positions were probable of
being sustained. Effective upon adoption of ASC 740, the Company
recognizes interest and penalties accrued related to
unrecognized tax benefits and penalties within its provision for
income taxes. The Company had no such interest and penalties
accrued at August 31, 2009 and August 31, 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited).
For all periods presented the Company had no material
unrecognized tax benefits or expenses that, if recognized, would
affect the Companys effective income tax rate in future
periods. The Company is currently unaware of any issues under
review that could result in significant payments, accruals, or
material deviations from its recognized tax positions.
F-15
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
The major jurisdictions in which the Company files income tax
returns include the United States federal jurisdiction as well
as a state jurisdiction within the United States. All tax years
from 1997 to present are subject to examination by the United
States federal jurisdiction and by a state tax authority.
|
|
(u)
|
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
|
Comprehensive loss for all periods presented is the same as net
loss as the results of the Companys Brazilian operations
were not significant.
|
|
(v)
|
Impairment of
Long-Lived Assets
|
Long-lived assets, such as property and equipment, are reviewed
for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be
recoverable. The Companys long-lived assets comprise a
single asset group for evaluation purposes. The Company
evaluates whether an impairment indicator occurs primarily based
on progress achieved against the Companys business plans.
To the extent that an impairment indicator has occurred,
recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a
comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated
undiscounted future cash flows expected to be generated by the
asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated
undiscounted future cash flows, an impairment charge is
recognized in the amount by which the carrying amount of the
asset exceeds the fair value of the asset. For all periods
presented herein, no impairment indicators have occurred and
therefore no impairment charges have been recognized.
|
|
(w)
|
Basic and
Diluted Net Loss Per Share
|
The Companys Certificate of Incorporation provides that
dividends in amounts specified in the Companys Certificate
of Incorporation must be paid to holders of the Companys
convertible preferred stock prior to and in preference of any
declaration or payment of any cash dividend to common
stockholders.
Because the holders of the Companys convertible preferred
stock are entitled to participate in dividends and earnings of
the Company, the Company applies the two-class method in
calculating its earnings per share for periods when the Company
generates net income. The two-class method requires net income
to be allocated between the common and convertible preferred
stockholders based on their respective rights to receive
dividends, whether or not declared. Because the convertible
preferred stock is not contractually obligated to share in the
Companys losses, no such allocation was made for any
period presented given the Companys net losses.
Basic net loss per common share is computed by dividing net loss
attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average
number of common shares outstanding. Diluted loss per common
share is computed by dividing net loss available to common
stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares and
dilutive potential common share equivalents then outstanding, to
the extent they are dilutive. Potential common shares consist of
shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants
(using the treasury stock method), and the weighted average
conversion of the convertible preferred stock into shares of
common stock (using the if-converted method). Dilutive loss per
share is the same as basic loss per share for all periods
presented because the effects of potentially dilutive items were
anti-dilutive.
F-16
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
The following sets forth the computation of basic and diluted
net loss per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Eight Months Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
$
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,562
|
)
|
Less minimum dividend available to preferred stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(20,455
|
)
|
|
$
|
(26,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,562
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per common share
|
|
$
|
(3.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.89
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.33
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.90
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.31
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss
attributable to common stockholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted
|
|
|
5,323,259
|
|
|
|
5,473,090
|
|
|
|
5,621,671
|
|
|
|
5,791,443
|
|
|
|
5,775,322
|
|
|
|
5,917,179
|
|
The following potentially dilutive, common share equivalents
were excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per
common share because their effect was antidilutive for each of
the periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Options to purchase common stock
|
|
|
6,192,124
|
|
|
|
6,714,652
|
|
|
|
6,396,700
|
|
|
|
6,874,588
|
|
|
|
6,249,987
|
|
|
|
7,127,246
|
|
Warrants to purchase common stock
|
|
|
2,707,697
|
|
|
|
2,907,697
|
|
|
|
2,907,697
|
|
|
|
5,984,620
|
|
|
|
2,907,697
|
|
|
|
5,984,620
|
|
Warrants to purchase convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
18,461
|
|
|
|
18,461
|
|
|
|
18,461
|
|
|
|
61,537
|
|
|
|
61,537
|
|
|
|
61,537
|
|
Convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
42,982,896
|
|
|
|
42,982,896
|
|
|
|
42,982,896
|
|
|
|
46,059,819
|
|
|
|
42,982,896
|
|
|
|
46,059,819
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
51,901,178
|
|
|
|
52,623,706
|
|
|
|
52,305,754
|
|
|
|
58,980,564
|
|
|
|
52,202,117
|
|
|
|
59,233,222
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(x)
|
Segment and
geographic information
|
Management has determined that it has one business activity and
operates in one segment as it only reports financial information
on an aggregate and consolidated basis to its Chief Executive
Officer, who is the Companys chief operating decision
maker. Geographic information regarding the Companys
operations outside of North America is not significant for any
periods presented.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America requires management to make estimates and assumptions.
This affects the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and
expenses during the reporting period. Significant items subject
to such estimates and assumptions include the valuation of
property and equipment, inventory, deferred tax assets, common
stock, convertible preferred stock, stock options, and warrant
liabilities. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
F-17
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
(z)
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
|
In October 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU),
No. 2009-13,
Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple Deliverable Revenue
Arrangements. ASU
No. 2009-13
addresses how to determine whether an arrangement involving
multiple deliverables contains more than one unit of accounting
and how to allocate consideration to each unit of accounting in
the arrangement. This ASU replaces all references to fair value
as the measurement criteria with the term selling price and
establishes a hierarchy for determining the selling price of a
deliverable. ASU
2009-13 also
eliminates the use of the residual value method for determining
the allocation of arrangement consideration. This standard was
adopted by the Company on September 1, 2010 and the
adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on its
consolidated financial statements.
Effective September 1, 2010, the Company adopted ASU
No. 2010-06,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, which requires
previous fair value hierarchy disclosures to be further
disaggregated by class of assets and liabilities. A class is
often a subset of assets or liabilities within a line item in
the balance sheet. In addition, significant reclassifications
between Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy are
required to be disclosed. These additional requirements became
effective September 1, 2011 for quarterly and annual
reporting. The adoption did not have any impact on the
Companys consolidated financial statements. In addition,
ASU 2010-06
requires more detailed disclosures regarding changes in
Level 3 instruments. This disclosure change will be
effective September 1, 2012 and is not expected to have an
impact on the Companys consolidated financial statements.
In April 2010, the FASB issued an ASU
No. 2010-17,
Revenue Recognition Milestone Method (Topic 605):
Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition. The standard
provides guidance on defining a milestone and determining when
it may be appropriate to apply the milestone method of revenue
recognition for research or development transactions. Research
or development arrangements frequently include payment
provisions whereby a portion or all of the consideration is
contingent upon milestone events such as successful completion
of phases in a study or achieving a specific result from the
research or development efforts. The amendments in these
standards provide guidance on the criteria that should be met
for determining whether the milestone method of revenue
recognition is appropriate. The standard is effective for fiscal
years and interim periods within those years beginning on or
after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted, and
applies to milestones achieved on or after that time. This
standard was adopted by the Company on September 1, 2010
and the adoption of this standard did not have a material impact
on its consolidated financial statements.
In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Amendments to
Achieve Common Fair Value Measurements and Disclosure
Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, to provide largely
identical guidance about fair value measurement and disclosure
requirements with the International Accounting Standards Board
(IASB) IFRS 13, Fair Value Measurement. The new standard
does not extend the use of fair value but, rather, provides
guidance about how fair value should be applied where it already
is required or permitted under U.S. GAAP. ASU 2011-04 is
effective prospectively for interim and annual periods beginning
after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is not permitted. The
Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption of this
standard, if any, on its consolidated financial statements.
F-18
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
(2)
|
Investments Held
to Maturity
|
The Company held investments in marketable debt securities that
were classified as held to maturity as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
May 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Restricted certificates of deposit
|
|
$
|
200
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
U.S Treasury and federal agency securities
|
|
|
33,086
|
|
|
|
15,384
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
33,286
|
|
|
$
|
15,484
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of the securities was substantially the same as
the carrying value.
|
|
(3)
|
Property and
Equipment
|
Property and equipment are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
43
|
|
|
$
|
43
|
|
Automobiles and trucks
|
|
|
261
|
|
|
|
298
|
|
|
|
361
|
|
|
|
361
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
2,044
|
|
|
|
2,435
|
|
|
|
3,391
|
|
|
|
3,391
|
|
Office, laboratory, farm and warehouse equipment and furniture
|
|
|
15,771
|
|
|
|
16,845
|
|
|
|
16,794
|
|
|
|
16,278
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
5,637
|
|
|
|
5,719
|
|
|
|
5,719
|
|
|
|
5,751
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,713
|
|
|
|
25,297
|
|
|
|
26,308
|
|
|
|
25,824
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(14,866
|
)
|
|
|
(16,413
|
)
|
|
|
(17,856
|
)
|
|
|
(18,696
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
8,847
|
|
|
$
|
8,884
|
|
|
$
|
8,452
|
|
|
$
|
7,128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4)
|
Accounts Payable
and Accrued Expenses
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
1,466
|
|
|
$
|
920
|
|
|
$
|
1,049
|
|
|
$
|
3,305
|
|
Accrued payroll and related expenses
|
|
|
988
|
|
|
|
1,249
|
|
|
|
1,490
|
|
|
|
1,442
|
|
Research and development contracts
|
|
|
607
|
|
|
|
1,021
|
|
|
|
834
|
|
|
|
1,298
|
|
Accrued grower commitments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
755
|
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
407
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,152
|
|
|
$
|
4,072
|
|
|
$
|
3,774
|
|
|
$
|
6,452
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-19
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Long-term debt is summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Equipment Loan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tranche 1 matures June, 2013, net of discount of $68
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,462
|
|
|
|
1,807
|
|
Tranche 2 matures August, 2013, net of discount of $91
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,883
|
|
|
|
2,909
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,345
|
|
|
|
4,716
|
|
Other
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
6,380
|
|
|
|
4,723
|
|
Less current portion
|
|
|
(71
|
)
|
|
|
(35
|
)
|
|
|
(2,182
|
)
|
|
|
(2,171
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
4,198
|
|
|
|
2,552
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment
Loan
In January 2010, the Company entered into a Loan and Security
Agreement (the Loan Agreement) with a commercial bank (the
Bank). The Loan Agreement provides financing for qualified
equipment purchases. The Company borrowed a total of $7,000 in
two tranches at interest rates of Prime Rate plus 2.75% (6.75%
as of May 31, 2011, unaudited), which is to be repaid over
36 to 40 months. In connection with the Loan Agreement, the
Company issued the Bank warrants to purchase 43,076 shares
of the Companys Series F Convertible Preferred Stock
at an exercise price of $6.50 per share. The fair value of the
warrants at the inception of the Loan Agreement was $239. The
fair value was recorded as a discount on the equipment loan and
is being recognized over the term of the equipment loan as
interest expense (see Note 7). At August 31, 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited), the Company also held restricted
cash of $3,000 in the form of a deposit related to the Loan
Agreement.
The Loan Agreement is secured by certain of the Companys
assets, excluding intellectual property, and requires compliance
with covenants that require certain reporting and maintenance of
certain specified ratios. At May 31, 2011 (unaudited), the
Company was in compliance with the Loan Agreement debt covenants.
Borrowing
Agreement
In July 2004, the Company entered into a borrowing agreement
(Borrowing Agreement) to finance the construction of a
greenhouse located in the United States. The Company borrowed
$4,000 at an interest rate of 7% from the Bank. Final payment on
the borrowings was made on February 1, 2008. In conjunction
with the borrowing agreement, the Company issued the Bank
warrants to purchase 18,461 shares of the Companys
Series E Convertible Preferred Stock at an exercise price
of $6.50 per share (see Note 7).
F-20
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
The aggregated maturities of debt as of May 31, 2011
(unaudited) are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining three months of fiscal year 2011
|
|
$
|
542
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2,168
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2,013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,723
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6)
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
|
Stock Option
and Stock Issuance Plans
The Company has established two stock option and stock issuance
plans: the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as
restated and the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance
Plan (collectively the Option Plans). The Option
Plans provide for grants of Incentive Stock Options
(ISOs) to employees and Nonstatutory Stock Options
(NSOs) and restricted stock to employees, directors,
and consultants. The option term, as determined by the
Companys Board of Directors, may not exceed ten years.
Vesting, also determined by the Companys Board of
Directors, generally occurs ratably over four years. ISOs and
NSOs may be granted at a price per share not less than the fair
market value at the date of grant.
The Company has issued restricted stock awards under the Option
Plans. Vesting of stock awards is determined at the discretion
of the Board of Directors. As of August 31, 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited), there were 2,500 unvested
restricted stock awards outstanding.
The total number of shares reserved for issuance under the
Option Plans is 11,765,000. As of August 31, 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited), the Company had 1,148,257 and
759,599 shares available, respectively, under the Option
Plans for future grant.
Stock Option
Valuation and Compensation
The Company uses a Black Scholes option pricing model to
determine the fair value of stock options. The weighted average
grant date fair value of stock option awards was $1.32, $1.59,
$1.57, and $1.51 per option share for 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2010, respectively, and $1.61 per option share for the nine
months ended May 31, 2011 (unaudited).
The determination of the fair value of stock option awards on
the date of grant using an option-pricing model is affected by
the Companys common stock valuation as well as assumptions
regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. The fair
value of the Companys common stock underlying the stock
options has historically been determined by our Board of
Directors with input from management. In the absence of a public
trading market for our common stock, our Board has determined
the fair value of the common stock utilizing methodologies,
approaches and assumptions consistent with the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Guide,
Valuation of Privately Held Company Equity Securities Issued
as Compensation.
The weighted average grant date estimated fair value of the
Companys common stock was $2.11, $2.17, $2.16 and $2.32
per share for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively, and $2.17
and $2.49 for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and 2011
(unaudited), respectively.
F-21
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
The fair value of employee stock options was estimated using the
following weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight months
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ended
|
|
ended
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Expected term (in years)
|
|
6.25
|
|
6.25
|
|
6.25
|
|
6.25
|
|
6.25
|
|
6.25
|
Expected volatility
|
|
85%
|
|
85%
|
|
85%
|
|
70%
|
|
70%
|
|
78%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
3.41%-5.15%
|
|
1.92%-3.41%
|
|
2.10%-3.18%
|
|
2.29%-2.69%
|
|
2.56%-2.69%
|
|
1.48%-2.44%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
Expected Term Because of limited
employee share option exercises, the Company uses a simplified
method in which the expected term of an award is presumed to be
mid-point between the vesting date and the expiration date of
the award. The expected term for all employee option grants is
6.25 years.
Expected Volatility The Company
estimates the volatility of its common stock by using the
historical volatility of a group of comparable companies over
the options expected term. The decision to use historical
volatility of comparable companies was based upon the fact that
the Companys stock is not actively traded.
Risk-Free Interest Rate The Company
bases the risk-free interest rate used in the option valuation
model on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with remaining
terms similar to the expected term on the options.
Expected Dividend Yield The Company does
not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable
future.
Stock-based compensation costs included in operating expenses
and total intrinsic value of options exercised are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight months
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended
|
|
ended
|
|
ended
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Stock-based compensation costs included in operating expenses
|
|
$
|
727
|
|
|
$
|
1,172
|
|
|
$
|
1,082
|
|
|
$
|
1,300
|
|
|
$
|
941
|
|
|
$
|
1,789
|
|
Intrinsic value of stock options exercised
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
402
|
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
298
|
|
|
|
285
|
|
|
|
362
|
|
F-22
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Stock Option
Activity
The following summarizes the stock option transactions under the
Option Plans during the periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Options outstanding at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
6,192,124
|
|
|
$
|
1.17
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
996,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
(212,297
|
)
|
|
|
0.28
|
|
Options forfeited
|
|
|
(261,175
|
)
|
|
|
1.32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
6,714,652
|
|
|
$
|
1.35
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
94,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
(105,500
|
)
|
|
|
0.32
|
|
Options forfeited
|
|
|
(306,452
|
)
|
|
|
1.61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at August 31, 2009
|
|
|
6,396,700
|
|
|
$
|
1.36
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
972,000
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
(146,000
|
)
|
|
|
0.22
|
|
Options forfeited
|
|
|
(348,112
|
)
|
|
|
2.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at August 31, 2010
|
|
|
6,874,588
|
|
|
$
|
1.48
|
|
Options granted (unaudited)
|
|
|
875,500
|
|
|
|
2.43
|
|
Options exercised (unaudited)
|
|
|
(136,000
|
)
|
|
|
0.56
|
|
Options forfeited (unaudited)
|
|
|
(486,842
|
)
|
|
|
1.32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at May 31, 2011(unaudited)
|
|
|
7,127,246
|
|
|
$
|
1.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes information about stock options
outstanding and exercisable at May 31, 2011 (unaudited):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
Remaining
|
Range of
|
|
Number
|
|
Contractual
|
|
Average
|
|
Number
|
|
Average
|
|
Contractual
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Life
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Life
|
|
$0.60 to $0.65
|
|
|
2,108,500
|
|
|
|
1.43
|
|
|
$
|
0.63
|
|
|
|
2,108,500
|
|
|
$
|
0.63
|
|
|
|
1.43
|
|
$1.30 to $1.35
|
|
|
1,264,083
|
|
|
|
4.80
|
|
|
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
1,261,083
|
|
|
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
4.80
|
|
$2.25
|
|
|
2,930,163
|
|
|
|
7.50
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
1,798,778
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
7.05
|
|
$2.44
|
|
|
824,500
|
|
|
|
9.56
|
|
|
|
2.44
|
|
|
|
75,667
|
|
|
|
2.44
|
|
|
|
9.56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,127,246
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,244,028
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No tax benefits have been recorded on compensation costs
recognized for options exercised. As of August 31, 2010,
there was $2,059 of total unrecognized compensation cost related
to stock options. That cost is expected to be recognized over a
weighted average of 2.79 years. The Companys policy
is to issue new shares for options exercised.
F-23
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
(7)
|
Convertible
Preferred Stock and Warrants
|
Convertible
Preferred Stock
In September 2007, the Company raised $74,182 from various
investors by issuing Series F Convertible Preferred Stock
at $6.50 per share. In conjunction with the purchase of the
Series F convertible preferred stock, a total of 2,307,697
warrants to purchase common stock at $6.50 per share were issued
to the holders of Series F Convertible Preferred Stock.
In June 2010, the Company raised $20,000 from various investors
by issuing Series G Convertible Preferred Stock at $6.50
per share. In conjunction with the purchase of the Series G
convertible preferred stock, a total of 3,076,923 warrants to
purchase common stock at $6.50 per share were issued to the
holders of Series G Convertible Preferred Stock.
Holders of the convertible preferred stock are entitled to
certain preferences over common stock and are entitled to
receive, in preference to any dividend on the common stock,
noncumulative dividends at the per annum per share rate as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A
|
|
Series B
|
|
Series C
|
|
Series C-1
|
|
Series D
|
|
Series E
|
|
Series F
|
|
Series G
|
|
Liquidation preference per share
|
|
$
|
1.00
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
6.00
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
Noncumulative dividends per share
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
|
|
0.20
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
|
|
0.60
|
|
|
|
0.65
|
|
|
|
0.65
|
|
|
|
0.65
|
|
Such dividends are payable when, as and if declared by the Board
of Directors. No dividends have been declared to date. Each
share of convertible preferred stock is convertible at the
holders option at any time into one share of common stock,
subject to adjustments. All of the outstanding shares of
convertible preferred stock will automatically convert to common
stock on a one-for-one basis immediately upon the closing of an
initial public offering of the common stock of the Company if
the price per share of the offering is not less than $6.50 per
share and with aggregate proceeds raised of not less than
$40,000. The holders of the convertible preferred stock are
entitled to the number of votes equal to the number of shares of
common stock into which their preferred shares are convertible.
Liability
Classified Common Stock Warrants
Warrants to purchase the following shares of common stock were
outstanding as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of shares
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
Exercise
|
Series
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
F
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
|
2,307,697
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,076,923
|
|
|
|
3,076,923
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
Warrants issued
in connection with Series F Convertible Preferred
Stock
In connection with the issuance of the Series F Convertible
Preferred Stock in September 2007, the Company issued 2,307,697
warrants to purchase common stock. The Company estimated the
fair
F-24
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
value upon issuance of the warrants to be $3,489 based on a
risk-free rate of 4.29%, volatility of 85%, expected term of
8 years and 0% dividend yield. The warrants are immediately
exercisable and expire on the eighth anniversary of the issuance
date or at the time of a merger, acquisition, or qualified
underwritten public offering of the Companys common stock.
As discussed in Note 1(n), effective January 1, 2009,
the common stock warrants issued to the holders of Series F
Convertible Preferred Stock and previously recorded as a
component of additional paid-in capital, were reported as a
liability at fair value as of January 1, 2009 and for each
subsequent balance sheet date.
The fair value of these warrants was estimated using the
following assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Expected term (in years)
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
5.26
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
|
|
84
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
3.21
|
%
|
|
|
1.47
|
%
|
|
|
2.18
|
%
|
|
|
0.57
|
%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Estimated fair value (in thousands)
|
|
$
|
2,931
|
|
|
$
|
2,994
|
|
|
$
|
3,012
|
|
|
$
|
4,211
|
|
Warrants issued
in connection with Series G Convertible Preferred
Stock
In connection with the issuance of the Series G Convertible
Preferred Stock in June 2010, the Company issued 3,076,923
warrants to purchase common stock. The Company estimated the
fair value upon issuance of the warrants to be $5,577 based on a
risk-free rate of 3.72%, expected volatility of 85%, expected
term of 10 years and 0% dividend yield.
The warrants are immediately exercisable and expire on the tenth
anniversary of the issuance date or at the time of a merger,
acquisition, or qualified underwritten public offering of the
Companys common stock.
The fair value of these warrants was estimated using the
following assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
As of
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
May 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Expected term (in years)
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
76
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
2.70
|
%
|
|
|
0.98
|
%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Estimated fair value (in thousands)
|
|
$
|
5,584
|
|
|
$
|
5,838
|
|
F-25
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Liability
Classified Convertible Preferred Stock Warrants
Warrants to purchase the following shares of convertible
preferred stock were outstanding as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of shares
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
As of August 31,
|
|
As of May 31,
|
|
Exercise
|
Series
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
E
|
|
|
18,461
|
|
|
|
18,461
|
|
|
|
18,461
|
|
|
|
18,461
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
F
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,076
|
|
|
|
43,076
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
Warrants issued
in connection with Borrowing and Loan Agreement
In July 2004, in conjunction with the Borrowing Agreement (see
Note 5) the Company issued the Bank warrants to
purchase 18,461 shares of the Companys Series E
Convertible Preferred Stock at a price of $6.50 per share
expiring on the later of July 31, 2014 or five years
subsequent to the closing of an initial public offering of the
common stock of the Company. During 2010 the warrants were
modified to extend the expiration date to the later of
February 29, 2020 or five years subsequent to the closing
of an initial public offering of the common stock of the
Company. The incremental value of the modification was expensed
during 2010.
In February 2010, in connection with the Loan Agreement (see
Note 5), the Company issued the Bank warrants to purchase
43,076 shares of the Companys Series F
Convertible Preferred Stock at a price of $6.50 per share. The
Company estimated the fair value of the warrants to be $239
based on a risk-free interest rate of 3.73%, volatility of 85%,
expected term of 10 years and 0% dividend yield. The
warrants expire the later of February 29, 2020 or five
years subsequent to the closing of an initial public offering of
the common stock of the Company.
The Company estimated the fair value of the Series E and F
warrants to be $94 and $218, respectively, based on a risk-free
interest rate of 2.71%, volatility of 78%, expected term of
8.75 years, and 0% dividend yield at May 31, 2011
(unaudited).
Equity
Classified Common Stock Warrants
Warrants issued
in connection with Noble Agreement
In May 2006, the Company entered into a collaboration agreement
with The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. (Noble
Agreement) to establish a research program (see
Note 11). In connection with this collaboration, the
Company granted Noble a warrant to purchase 400,000 shares
of the Companys common stock for an exercise price of
$10.00 per share. The warrant vests in equal installments of
100,000 shares on May 19, 2009, May 19, 2011,
May 19, 2013, and May 19, 2015, respectively, and
shall remain exercisable for a period of two years from the
respective vesting dates. This warrant is accounted for at fair
value and remeasured until vested. The fair value, including the
resulting change in value as a result of remeasurement is being
recognized as research and development expense. The inception to
date expense recognized with respect to this warrant totals $519
as of May 31, 2011 (unaudited). At May 31, 2011,
200,000 warrants had vested under this arrangement. The fair
value of the warrants not yet vested at May 31, 2011
(unaudited) was $648 using a risk-free rate ranging from 1.24%
to 2.03% based on the respective exercise periods of each
installment, expected volatility of 78%-93%, expected terms of
3.97 to 5.97 years based on the respective exercise periods
of each installment, and 0% dividend yield.
F-26
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Warrants issued
in connection with TAMU Agreement
In August 2007, the Company entered into a sponsored research
and intellectual property rights agreement with The Texas
A&M University System (TAMU) (TAMU
Agreement) to establish a research program. In connection
with this collaboration, the Company granted TAMU a warrant to
purchase 200,000 shares of the Companys common stock
for an exercise price of $10.00 per share. The warrant vests
based on certain research and commercialization milestones being
met and shall remain exercisable until August 28, 2017.
This warrant is accounted for at fair value and remeasured until
the vesting targets are met. The fair value, including the
resulting change in value as a result of remeasurement is being
recognized as research and development expense. The inception to
date expense recognized with respect to this warrant totals $474
as of May 31, 2011 (unaudited). The fair value of the
warrant at May 31, 2011(unaudited) was $681, using a
risk-free rate of 2.03%, expected volatility of 78%, expected
term of 6.25 years and 0% dividend yield. No warrants had
vested under this arrangement as of May 31, 2011.
Shares of
Common Stock Reserved for Future Issuance
At May 31, 2011 (unaudited), the Company had reserved
shares of common stock for future issuance as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of outstanding convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
46,059,819
|
|
Stock options outstanding
|
|
|
7,127,246
|
|
Stock options available for grant
|
|
|
759,599
|
|
Preferred stock warrants
|
|
|
61,537
|
|
Common stock warrants
|
|
|
5,984,620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,992,821
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax benefits associated with deferred tax assets are
offset by a corresponding valuation allowance except to the
extent of federal credits refundable in 2009. Deferred income
taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences
between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for
financial reporting purposes and amounts used for income tax
purposes.
Income tax expense (benefit) attributable to income (loss)
before income taxes consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
State and local
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
$
|
(149
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(149
|
)
|
State and local
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(148
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(148
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-27
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Eight Months ended August 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
$
|
(115
|
)
|
|
$
|
(97
|
)
|
|
$
|
(212
|
)
|
State and local
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(114
|
)
|
|
$
|
(97
|
)
|
|
$
|
(211
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Year ended August 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
State and local
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
64
|
|
|
$
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense differs from the amount computed by applying
the federal corporate income tax rate of 34% to the loss before
income taxes due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eight Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Computed expected tax expense (benefit)
|
|
$
|
(6,953
|
)
|
|
$
|
(9,155
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,428
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7,656
|
)
|
Increase (reduction) in income taxes resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
350
|
|
|
|
269
|
|
|
|
435
|
|
State and local income taxes, net of federal income tax benefit
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Domestic R&D Credits
|
|
|
(661
|
)
|
|
|
(2,287
|
)
|
|
|
(162
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
181
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
7,254
|
|
|
|
10,928
|
|
|
|
6,099
|
|
|
|
7,216
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
(148
|
)
|
|
$
|
(211
|
)
|
|
$
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-28
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
The following table summarizes the tax effects of temporary
differences that give rise to significant portions of the
deferred tax assets and liabilities at each period end:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
|
$
|
146
|
|
|
$
|
384
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Inventory capitalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current deferred tax assets
|
|
|
223
|
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
1,202
|
|
|
|
1,482
|
|
|
|
1,480
|
|
Inventory reserves
|
|
|
973
|
|
|
|
1,674
|
|
|
|
1,451
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
153
|
|
Net operating loss carryforward
|
|
|
45,985
|
|
|
|
52,358
|
|
|
|
60,211
|
|
Federal and state tax credit carryforward
|
|
|
8,691
|
|
|
|
8,576
|
|
|
|
8,921
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total noncurrent deferred tax assets
|
|
|
56,972
|
|
|
|
64,213
|
|
|
|
72,264
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
|
|
57,195
|
|
|
|
64,440
|
|
|
|
72,991
|
|
Less valuation allowance
|
|
|
(57,195
|
)
|
|
|
(64,343
|
)
|
|
|
(72,991
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31, 2010, the Company has a net operating loss
(NOL) carryforward for federal and state income tax
purposes of approximately $154,205 and $133,364, respectively.
The federal NOL is available to offset future taxable income, if
any, and will expire from 2018 through 2030. The state NOL will
expire from 2016 through 2032. The Company also has alternative
minimum tax (AMT) for state income tax purposes of
approximately $17 and research and development tax credit
carryforwards for federal income tax purposes of approximately
$8,910, which are available to offset future tax liabilities, if
any, through 2028.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 382
and 383, the annual utilization of net operating loss
carryforwards and credits is limited if a change in control
occurs, including a change resulting from an initial public
offering. The Company has not completed a Section 382
analysis to determine if a change in ownership has occurred.
Until such analysis is completed, there are no assurances that
the existing net operating loss carryforwards or credits are not
subject to significant limitation.
In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets,
management considers whether it is more likely than not that
some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be
realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is
dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during
the periods in which those temporary differences become
deductible. Management considers the scheduled reversal of
deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, and
tax planning strategies in making this assessment. Based upon
the historical taxable income (loss) and projections for future
taxable income (loss) over the periods in which the deferred tax
assets are deductible,
F-29
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
management believes it is more likely that the Company will not
realize the benefits of these deductible differences.
Accordingly, full valuation allowances have been provided except
to the extent of federal credits refundable in 2009.
The Company has a 401(k) profit sharing plan (the
Plan) which covers substantially all employees of
the Company. Plan participants may make voluntary contributions
up to 60% of their earnings up to the statutory limitation. The
Company will match 50% of each employee contribution up to a
maximum of 4% of the employees salary in matching funds
per pay period. The matching contribution vests over a
three-year service period; 25% vests immediately and an
additional 25% vests for each year of service to the Company
thereafter over the next three years. The Company recorded
expense of $164, $218, $222, $287, $218 and $207 in 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010, and for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
May 31, 2011(unaudited), respectively. The Company made no
discretionary contributions in any year.
|
|
(10)
|
Commitments and
Contingencies
|
The Company leases certain of its facilities and equipment under
various noncancelable operating leases expiring through 2023.
The lease on the facilities contains provisions for future rent
increases. The Company records monthly rent expense equal to the
total of the payments due over the lease term, divided by the
number of months of the lease term. The difference between rent
expense recorded and the amount paid is credited or charged to
deferred rent, which is reflected as a separate line item in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of December 31,
2008, August 31, 2009, August 31, 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited).
In connection with one of its facilities leases, the Company
received a reimbursement for leasehold improvements of $270.
This reimbursement is a lease incentive which has been
recognized as a liability in deferred rent and is being
amortized to rent expense on a straight-line basis over the
lease term. Total rental expense recognized during each period
was $522, $460, $303, $460, $343 and $477 for 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010, and the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
May 31, 2011 (unaudited), respectively.
Future minimum payments under noncancelable operating leases as
of May 31, 2011 (unaudited) are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
|
|
leases
|
|
|
May 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining three months of fiscal year 2011
|
|
$
|
179
|
|
2012
|
|
|
922
|
|
2013
|
|
|
620
|
|
2014
|
|
|
368
|
|
2015 and beyond
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
$
|
2,204
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-30
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
(11)
|
Research
Collaboration Agreements
|
The Company has a number of research agreements with academic
collaborators, including among others, Texas A&M
University, The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc.
(Noble), and the Institute of Crop Sciences of the
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. In conjunction with
these agreements, the Company receives certain exclusive options
or licensing rights to technology and intellectual property
developed under these agreements. The Company expenses the
services received under these agreements to research and
development in the period in which the services are rendered.
The Company also licenses technology from third parties. Initial
payments under these license agreements are expensed on a
straight-line basis over the license term.
Noble
Agreement
In May 2006, the Company entered into a collaboration agreement
with Noble to establish a research program. Under the Noble
Agreement, the Company agreed to fund certain research
activities undertaken by Noble in an amount up to $3,800 through
2012 and granted Noble a warrant to purchase 400,000 shares
of the Companys common stock for an exercise price of
$10.00 per share (see Note 7). Additional projects may be
added under the agreement, if agreed to by both parties.
TAMU
Agreement
In August 2007, the Company entered into a sponsored research
and intellectual property rights agreement with Texas A&M
University to establish a research program. Under the agreement,
the Company agreed to fund certain research activities
undertaken by TAMU in an amount up to $5,100 through 2012 and
granted TAMU a warrant to purchase 200,000 shares of the
Companys common stock for an exercise price of $10.00 per
share (see Note 7).
At May 31, 2011 (unaudited), the future minimum payments
under the Companys research collaboration agreements are
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining three months of fiscal year 2011
|
|
$
|
1,154
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2,341
|
|
2013
|
|
|
440
|
|
2014 and beyond
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In connection with the issuance of the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended August 31, 2010, the Company
evaluated subsequent events through February 4, 2011, the
date the consolidated financial statements were available to be
issued, and determined that there are no subsequent events that
require disclosure.
In connection with the reissuance of the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended August 31, 2010 and the
interim consolidated financial statements for the nine months
ended May 31, 2011, the Company has evaluated subsequent
events through July 20, 2011, the date the consolidated
financial statements were reissued.
F-31
CERES, INC.
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
(Information for the nine months ended May 31, 2010 and
2011 is unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share data)
On May 8, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Company
approved the filing of a registration statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public
offering of the Companys common stock (unaudited).
On June 20, 2011, the Company and Noble agreed to modify
the warrant issued to Noble as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
The warrant vests in equal installments of 100,000 shares on
May 19, 2009, May 19, 2011, May 19, 2013 and
May 19, 2015, respectively, and shall remain exercisable
until the earliest of a period of five years from the respective
vesting date, and May 18, 2017 (unaudited).
|
On June 23, 2011, the Board of Directors approved the grant
of 500,000 stock options at an exercise price of $5.59 per share
under the Option Plans (unaudited).
On July 20, 2011, the Board of Directors approved the grant
of 259,599 stock options at an exercise price of $5.72 per
share under the Option Plans (unaudited).
On July 20, 2011, the Board of Directors approved the
Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2011 Plan. The
maximum aggregate number of shares of common stock that may be
issued under the 2011 Plan is 4 million shares. The 2011
Plan provides for the issuance of stock options, restricted
stock, stock appreciation rights, performance awards, dividend
equivalents, stock payments, and other awards (unaudited).
On July 20, 2011, the Board of Directors approved the
Ceres, Inc. 2011 Performance Incentive Plan, or the PIP, to
enable the Company to attract, retain, motivate and reward
participants by providing them with the opportunity to earn
incentive compensation under the PIP (unaudited).
F-32
Commercial harvest of a Ceres sweet sorghum evaluation field in Brazil during April 2011. |
Shares
Ceres, Inc.
Common Stock
Goldman, Sachs &
Co.
Barclays Capital
Piper Jaffray
Raymond James
Simmons & Company
International
Through and
including ,
2011 (the 25th day after the date of this prospectus), all
dealers effecting transactions in these securities, whether or
not participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a
prospectus. This is in addition to a dealers obligation to
deliver a prospectus when acting as an underwriter and with
respect to an unsold allotment or subscription.
PART II
INFORMATION NOT
REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS
|
|
Item 13.
|
Other Expenses
of Issuance and Distribution
|
The actual and estimated expenses in connection with this
offering are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
SEC Registration Fee
|
|
$
|
11,610
|
|
Printing and Engraving Expense
|
|
|
|
*
|
Legal Fees
|
|
|
|
*
|
Accounting Fees
|
|
|
|
*
|
Nasdaq Listing Fee
|
|
|
|
*
|
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Filing Fee
|
|
|
10,500
|
|
Transfer Agent Fee
|
|
|
|
*
|
Miscellaneous Expenses
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* |
|
To be filed by amendment. |
|
|
Item 14.
|
Indemnification
of Directors and Officers
|
Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law,
or DGCL, provides that a corporation may, in its original
certificate of incorporation or an amendment thereto, eliminate
or limit the personal liability of a director for violations of
the directors fiduciary duty, except (1) for any
breach of the directors duty of loyalty to the corporation
or its stockholders, (2) for acts or omissions not in good
faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing
violation of law, (3) pursuant to Section 174 of the
DGCL, which provides for liability of directors for unlawful
payments of dividends or unlawful stock purchases or redemptions
or (4) for any transaction from which a director derived an
improper personal benefit.
Section 145 of the DGCL provides that a corporation may
indemnify any person, including an officer or director, who is,
or is threatened to be made, party to any threatened, pending or
completed legal action, suit or proceeding, whether civil,
criminal, administrative or investigative, other than an action
by or in the right of such corporation, by reason of the fact
that such person was an officer, director, employee or agent of
such corporation or is or was serving at the request of such
corporation as an officer, director, employee or agent of
another corporation or enterprise. The indemnity may include
expenses (including attorneys fees), judgments, fines and
amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by
such person in connection with such action, suit or proceeding,
provided such officer, director, employee or agent acted in good
faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in, or not
opposed to, the corporations best interest and, for
criminal proceedings, had no reasonable cause to believe that
his conduct was unlawful. A Delaware corporation may indemnify
any officer or director in an action by or in the right of the
corporation under the same conditions, except that no
indemnification is permitted without judicial approval if the
officer or director is adjudged to be liable to the corporation.
Where an officer or director is successful on the merits or
otherwise in the defense of any action referred to above, the
corporation must indemnify him against the expenses that such
officer or director actually and reasonably incurred.
Our bylaws provide for indemnification of the officers and
directors to the full extent permitted by the DGCL.
The proposed form of Underwriting Agreement to be filed as
Exhibit 1.1 to this registration statement provides for
indemnification by the underwriters of the registrant and its
directors and certain officers for certain liabilities arising
under the Securities Act.
II-1
|
|
Item 15.
|
Recent Sale of
Unregistered Securities
|
Since April 1, 2008, we have issued the following
securities that were not registered under the Securities Act:
(1) In June 2010, we sold an aggregate of
3,076,923 shares of Series G convertible preferred
stock to five existing stockholders at a per share purchase
price of $6.50 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement.
Purchasers of the Series G convertible preferred stock also
received, for each share purchased, a warrant to purchase one
share of our common stock at an exercise price of $6.50 per
share. The purchasers of the Series G convertible preferred
stock were accredited investors under Regulation D.
(2) In February 2010, we issued warrants to purchase
43,076 shares of our Series F convertible preferred
stock to Silicon Valley Bank at a price of $6.50 per share.
(3) Since April 1, 2008, we have granted options to
employees and directors to purchase an aggregate of
3,674,599 shares of our common stock under our equity
incentive plans at exercise prices ranging from $2.25 to $5.72.
During this period, options to purchase 641,172 shares of
our common stock were exercised with an average per share
exercise price of $0.44 for cash consideration to us in the
aggregate amount of $280,729.60.
The issuances of preferred stock and warrants described in items
(1) and (2) above were deemed exempt from registration
under Section 4(2) or Regulation D of the Securities
Act. The issuances of options and shares in item (3) above
was deemed exempt from registration in reliance on Rule 701
promulgated under the Securities Act as transactions pursuant to
compensatory benefit plans and contracts relating to
compensation. All of the foregoing securities are deemed
restricted securities for purposes of the Securities Act. The
recipients of securities in the transactions exempt under
Section 4(2) or Regulation D of the Securities Act
represented their intention to acquire the securities for
investment purposes only and not with a view to or for sale in
connection with any distribution thereof and appropriate legends
were affixed to the stock certificates and instruments issued in
such transactions.
|
|
Item 16.
|
Exhibits and
Financial Data Schedules
|
(A) Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit
|
|
|
*1.1
|
|
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Ceres, Inc., as
currently in effect
|
|
*3.2
|
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Ceres, Inc. to be in effect immediately prior to the
consummation of this offering
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Ceres, Inc., as currently in
effect
|
|
*3.4
|
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated Bylaws of Ceres, Inc. to be in
effect immediately prior to the consummation of this offering
|
|
*4.1
|
|
|
Form of Stock Certificate
|
|
***4.2
|
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series E Preferred Stock issued to
Silicon Valley Bank, dated August 16, 2004, as amended
|
|
*4.3
|
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., dated November 28, 2006, as
amended
|
|
***4.4
|
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Texas
A&M University System, dated July 18, 2008
|
|
***4.5
|
|
|
Warrants to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued
to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Investors Rights Agreement, dated
June 25, 2010, by and among Ceres, Inc. and the stockholders
named therein
|
II-2
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit
|
|
|
*5.1
|
|
|
Opinion of Shearman & Sterling LLP
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended
|
|
***10.2
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
*10.3
|
|
|
Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000
Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
***10.5
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
*10.6
|
|
|
Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010
Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
Restricted Stock Grant Agreement between J. Jefferson Gwyn and
Ceres, Inc., dated December 22, 2008
|
|
*10.8
|
|
|
Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan Form of Stock Option
Grant Notice and Option Award Agreement under the Ceres, Inc.
2011 Equity Incentive Plan
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
Agricultural Lease Agreement between John & Connie
Giesenschlag and Ceres, Inc. dated April 1, 2008
|
|
***10.10
|
|
|
Ground Lease Agreement between John & Connie Giesenschlag
and Ceres, Inc. dated April 1, 2008
|
|
**10.11
|
|
|
Exclusive License Agreement between Cambridge University
Technical Services, Ltd. and Ceres, Inc., dated November 1, 2001
|
|
**10.12
|
|
|
Sponsored Research Agreement between The Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and
Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007, as amended
|
|
10.13
|
|
|
Intellectual Property Rights Agreement between The Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University
System and Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007
|
|
**10.14
|
|
|
Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreements between The Texas
A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated April 23,
2008, as amended
|
|
**10.15
|
|
|
Line License Agreement between The Texas A&M University
System and Ceres, Inc., dated October 16, 2009
|
|
**10.16
|
|
|
Master Research Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble
Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006
|
|
**10.17
|
|
|
Evaluation, Production and License Agreement between The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19,
2006
|
|
**10.18
|
|
|
License Agreement for NF/GA992 and NF/GA993 between The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated December
1, 2008
|
|
**10.19
|
|
|
License Agreement for NF/GA002 between The Samuel Roberts Noble
Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated September 1, 2009
|
|
**10.20
|
|
|
Collaboration Agreement between the Institute of Biological,
Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University and
Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2007, as amended
|
|
**10.21
|
|
|
Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of
the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc.,
dated November 15, 2007, as amended
|
|
10.22
|
|
|
Loan and Security Agreement between Silicon Valley Bank and
Ceres, Inc., dated January 29, 2010 and amendments thereto dated
March 17, 2010 and August 10, 2010
|
|
*10.23
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Richard Hamilton,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.24
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Paul Kuc,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.25
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Michael Stephenson,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.26
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and J. Jefferson Gwyn,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.27
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Roger Pennell,
dated ,
2011 Ceres, Inc. Performance Incentive Plan
|
II-3
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit
|
|
|
*10.28
|
|
|
Exclusive Consulting Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Robert
Goldberg, dated January 1, 2006, and the amendments thereto
dated November 17, 2006, December 31, 2010 and
July 20, 2011
|
|
**10.29
|
|
|
Enabling Technology License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and
Monsanto Company, dated April 1, 2002
|
|
21.1
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries
|
|
***23.1
|
|
|
Consent of KPMG LLP
|
|
*23.2
|
|
|
Consent of Shearman & Sterling LLP (included in
Exhibit 5.1)
|
|
24.1
|
|
|
Power of Attorney (included on signature page)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previously filed. |
|
* |
|
To be filed by amendment. |
|
** |
|
Certain provisions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to
a request for confidential treatment. |
|
*** |
|
Filed herewith. |
(B) Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules have been omitted because the information required
to be presented in them is not applicable or is shown in the
consolidated financial statements or related notes.
The undersigned registrant hereby undertakes to provide to the
underwriters at the closing specified in the underwriting
agreement certificates in such denominations and registered in
such names as required by the underwriters to permit prompt
delivery to each purchaser.
Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the
Securities Act may be permitted to directors, officers and
controlling persons of the registrant pursuant to the foregoing
provisions, or otherwise, the registrant has been informed that
in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission such
indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the
Securities Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event
that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other
than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid
by a director, officer or controlling person of the registrant
in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is
asserted by such director, officer or controlling person in
connection with the securities being registered, the registrant
will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been
settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of
appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such
indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in
the Securities Act and will be governed by the final
adjudication of such issue.
The undersigned registrant hereby undertakes that:
1. For purposes of determining any liability under the
Securities Act, the information omitted from the form of
prospectus filed as part of this Registration Statement in
reliance upon Rule 430A and contained in a form of
prospectus filed by the registrant pursuant to
Rule 424(b)(1) or (4) or 497(h) under the Securities
Act shall be deemed to be part of this Registration Statement as
of the time it was declared effective.
2. For the purpose of determining any liability under the
Securities Act, each post-effective amendment that contains a
form of prospectus shall be deemed to be a new registration
statement relating to the securities offered therein, and the
offering of such securities at that time shall be deemed to be
the initial bona fide offering thereof.
II-4
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, the registrant has duly caused this amendment to the
Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Thousand
Oaks, State of California, on July 25, 2011.
CERES, INC.
Paul M. Kuc
Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, this amendment to the Registration Statement has been
signed by the following persons in the capacities and on dates
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Richard
Hamilton, Ph.D. Richard
Hamilton, Ph.D.
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Paul
M.
Kuc Paul
M. Kuc
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
II-5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
July 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*By:
|
|
/s/ Paul
M.
Kuc Paul
M. Kuc
Attorney-in-Fact
|
|
|
|
|
II-6
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit
|
|
|
*1.1
|
|
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Ceres, Inc., as
currently in effect
|
|
*3.2
|
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Ceres, Inc. to be in effect immediately prior to the
consummation of this offering
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Ceres, Inc., as currently in
effect
|
|
*3.4
|
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated Bylaws of Ceres, Inc. to be in
effect immediately prior to the consummation of this offering
|
|
*4.1
|
|
|
Form of Stock Certificate
|
|
***4.2
|
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series E Preferred Stock issued to
Silicon Valley Bank, dated August 16, 2004, as amended
|
|
*4.3
|
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., dated November 28, 2006, as
amended
|
|
***4.4
|
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Texas
A&M University System, dated July 18, 2008
|
|
***4.5
|
|
|
Warrants to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued
to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Investors Rights Agreement, dated
June 25, 2010, by and among Ceres, Inc. and the stockholders
named therein
|
|
*5.1
|
|
|
Opinion of Shearman & Sterling LLP
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended
|
|
***10.2
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
*10.3
|
|
|
Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000
Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
***10.5
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
*10.6
|
|
|
Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010
Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
Restricted Stock Grant Agreement between J. Jefferson Gwyn and
Ceres, Inc., dated December 22, 2008
|
|
*10.8
|
|
|
Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan Form of Stock Option
Grant Notice and Option Award Agreement under the Ceres, Inc.
2011 Equity Incentive Plan
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
Agricultural Lease Agreement between John & Connie
Giesenschlag and Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2008
|
|
***10.10
|
|
|
Ground Lease Agreement between John & Connie Giesenschlag
and Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2008
|
|
**10.11
|
|
|
Exclusive License Agreement between Cambridge University
Technical Services, Ltd. and Ceres, Inc., dated November 1, 2001
|
|
**10.12
|
|
|
Sponsored Research Agreement between The Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and
Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007, as amended
|
|
10.13
|
|
|
Intellectual Property Rights Agreement between The Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University
System and Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007
|
|
**10.14
|
|
|
Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreements between The Texas
A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated April 23,
2008, as amended
|
|
**10.15
|
|
|
Line License Agreement between The Texas A&M University
System and Ceres, Inc., dated October 16, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit
|
|
|
**10.16
|
|
|
Master Research Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble
Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006
|
|
**10.17
|
|
|
Evaluation, Production and License Agreement between The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19,
2006
|
|
**10.18
|
|
|
License Agreement for NF/GA992 and NF/GA993 between The Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated December
1, 2008
|
|
**10.19
|
|
|
License Agreement for NF/GA002 between The Samuel Roberts Noble
Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated September 1, 2009
|
|
**10.20
|
|
|
Collaboration Agreement between the Institute of Biological,
Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University and
Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2007, as amended
|
|
**10.21
|
|
|
Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of
the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc.,
dated November 15, 2007, as amended
|
|
10.22
|
|
|
Loan and Security Agreement between Silicon Valley Bank and
Ceres, Inc., dated January 29, 2010 and amendments thereto dated
March 17, 2010 and August 10, 2010
|
|
*10.23
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Richard Hamilton,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.24
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Paul Kuc,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.25
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Michael Stephenson,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.26
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and J. Jefferson Gwyn,
dated ,
2011
|
|
*10.27
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Roger Pennell,
dated ,
2011 Ceres, Inc. Performance Incentive Plan
|
|
*10.28
|
|
|
Exclusive Consulting Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Robert
Goldberg, dated January 1, 2006, and, the amendments
thereto dated November 17, 2006, December 31, 2010 and
July 20, 2011
|
|
**10.29
|
|
|
Enabling Technology License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and
Monsanto Company, dated April 1, 2002
|
|
21.1
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries
|
|
***23.1
|
|
|
Consent of KPMG LLP
|
|
*23.2
|
|
|
Consent of Shearman & Sterling LLP (included in
Exhibit 5.1)
|
|
24.1
|
|
|
Power of Attorney (included on signature page).
|
|
|
|
* |
|
To be filed by amendment. |
|
** |
|
Certain provisions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to
a request for confidential treatment. |
(B) Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules have been omitted because the information required
to be presented in them is not applicable or is shown in the
consolidated financial statements or related notes.