Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended: December 31, 2012

or

For the Transition Period from                     to                    

Commission File No. 001-35366

CORONADO BIOSCIENCES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (781) 652-4500

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

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

None.

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  x

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.

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: Not applicable.

As of March 11, 2013, there were 26,023,484 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

Table of Contents

CORONADO BIOSCIENCES, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are not descriptions of historical facts are forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could negatively affect our business, operating results, financial condition and stock price. We have attempted to identify forward-looking statements by terminology including “anticipates,” “believes,” “can,” “continue,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “should,” or “will” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated include those set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” including, in particular, risks relating to:

We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations or any changes in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except as required by law.

PART I

Overview

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel immunotherapy biologic agents for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and cancer. Our two principal product candidates in clinical development are described below.

TSO

TSO, or CNDO-201, is a biologic comprising Trichuris suis ova, the microscopic eggs of the porcine whipworm, which we believe could be used for the treatment of a range of autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn’s disease, or Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis, or UC, multiple sclerosis, or MS, autism, psoriasis, Type 1 diabetes, or T1D, psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. In February 2012, we announced positive results from our Phase 1 clinical trial of TSO in 36 patients with Crohn’s. The trial was a sequential dose-escalation, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine safety and tolerability. TSO was shown to be safe and well tolerated, with no serious treatment-related adverse events reported. To date, a number of investigator-sponsored clinical trials have been conducted using TSO in patients suffering from Crohn’s, UC or MS. These studies also demonstrated that TSO is safe and well tolerated.

1

Table of Contents

In April 2012, our development partner, Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, or Falk, reported that an independent data monitoring committee had found no safety concerns and a positive efficacy trend in an interim analysis (blinded to Falk) of clinical data from the initial 120 patients in Falk’s ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial in Europe evaluating TSO in Crohn’s patients, known as TRUST-II. Based on the committee’s recommendations, Falk has advised us that it is increasing the size of its trial and will conduct a subsequent interim analysis at the time the trial reaches approximately 240 patients, which we expect to occur in the second half of 2013.

In August 2012, we initiated in the U.S. a Phase 2 clinical trial of TSO, known as TRUST-I, designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TSO in approximately 220 patients with Crohn’s and expect to have initial study results in the second half of 2013.

We have the exclusive rights to TSO in North America, South America and Japan (the “Coronado Territories”) under a sublicense agreement with Ovamed GmbH, or Ovamed, as well as a manufacturing and supply agreement with Ovamed to provide us with our clinical and commercial requirements of TSO. In December 2012, we signed the Second Amendment and Agreement to our sublicense agreement with Ovamed, which provides to us the exclusive right to manufacture TSO for the Coronado Territories in exchange for certain consideration to Ovamed. We anticipate that we will continue to purchase our Phase 2 TSO supplies and we may purchase at least a portion of our Phase 3 TSO supplies from Ovamed under the current agreement. Thereafter, we plan to manufacture our remaining Phase 3 supplies from our US facility which we plan to establish in Woburn, MA under a lease acquired from Ovamed as part of the agreement.

In March 2012, we entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Ovamed and Falk, Ovamed’s sublicensee in Europe for gastroenterology indications, under which we agreed to collaborate in the development of TSO for Crohn’s. Under the Collaboration Agreement, Falk granted us exclusive rights and licenses under certain Falk patent rights, pre-clinical data and clinical data from Falk’s clinical trials of TSO in Crohn’s, including Falk’s ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial, for use in North America, South America and Japan. We granted Falk exclusive rights and licenses to data from our clinical trials of TSO in Crohn’s for use in Europe. A steering committee comprised of our representatives and representatives of Falk and Ovamed is overseeing the clinical development program for Crohn’s, under which we and Falk will each be responsible for clinical testing on approximately 50% of the total number of patients required for regulatory approval of TSO for Crohn’s in the United States and Europe and will share in certain pre-clinical development costs.

CNDO-109

CNDO-109 is a biologic that activates the immune system’s natural killer, or NK, cells to seek and destroy cancer cells. We intend to study CNDO-109 initially in patients that have been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia, or AML. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that CNDO-109 activated NK cells directly kill cells that cause hematologic malignancies including myeloid leukemia and multiple myeloma, as well as breast, prostate and ovarian cancers. Eight patients with high-risk AML received CNDO-109 activated NK cells in a recent Phase 1 investigator-sponsored trial. Although the primary endpoint of the Phase 1 clinical trial was safety, based on the data obtained from this Phase 1 study, we believe early efficacy was observed. The clinical investigators observed that the majority of patients experienced a longer complete remission than their previous complete remission. In February 2012, we filed an Investigational New Drug application, or IND, for a multi-center Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients with relapsed AML. In November 2012, we initiated this trial. In June 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, granted orphan drug designation to CNDO-109 activated NK cells for the treatment of AML and, in September 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted the first U.S. patent covering CNDO-109. We have exclusive worldwide rights to develop and market CNDO-109 under a license agreement with the University College London Business PLC, or UCLB.

2

Table of Contents

Industry

Immunology Therapeutics Markets

Autoimmune diseases represent a diverse collection of diseases in terms of their demographic profile and primary clinical manifestations. The phenotypic commonality between them, however, is the damage, driven by a dysfunctional immune system, to tissues and organs that arises from the loss of tolerance or recognition of “self” Autoimmune disorders include inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, such as Crohn’s and UC, MS, autism, psoriasis, T1D and psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis.

According to a 2012 Decision Resources report, in the United States and Japan, the estimated prevalence of Crohn’s was 534,000 patients, UC was 669,000 patients and MS was 485,000 patients (Tim to update market data). Autism statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, identify around 1 in 88 American children as on the autism spectrum–a ten-fold increase in prevalence in 40 years. According to the National Psoriasis Foundation, psoriasis is the most prevalent autoimmune disease in the United States affecting as many as 7.5 million Americans. According to the 2011 National Diabetes Foundation Fact Sheet (released January 26, 2011 by the American Diabetes Association), nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes and between 5-10% or up to 2.5 million have T1D. Per the National Psoriasis Foundation, approximately 1 million Americans have psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis, or RA, affects more than 2 million people in the United States. Prevalence rates for all autoimmune disorders are expected to continue to rise in the next several years. Each of these diseases is believed to be associated with an excessive inflammatory response and dysfunctional immune system, including abnormal activity of T regulatory (Treg) cells.

Crohn’s is characterized by inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract that causes painful and debilitating symptoms. Most patients with Crohn’s experience relapses, and no current therapy is completely effective in preventing acute flares. Although immunosuppressants and TNF-inhibitors are effective maintenance therapies, according to an article published in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics in 2011, fewer than 50% of patients maintain long-term remission with these drugs. According to a 2007 article in Surgical Clinics of North America, a significant percentage of Crohn’s patients require surgery during their lifetime despite available therapies. Therefore, we believe the greatest unmet need is for more effective maintenance therapies that are also safe for long-term use.

The etiology and pathophysiology of UC are not fully understood, but research appearing in several industry publications, including Inflammatory Bowel Disease (2006) and the World Journal of Gastroenterology (2006), strongly suggests that genetic susceptibility and environmental factors, coupled with an abnormal immune response, contribute to the development of the disease. Despite significant advances in the understanding of genetic susceptibility and its role in IBD, novel, targeted therapies for the treatment of UC have yet to be identified. We believe the need for safe and more effective maintenance therapies with sustained long-term efficacy are the greatest unmet need in the management of UC.

MS is an autoimmune inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that is characterized by progressive neuronal loss that manifests clinically as worsening physical disability. The key pathophysiological hallmark of MS is the loss of myelin, a layer of lipids and proteins produced by cells called oligodendrocytes that wrap around the neuron and act like an insulating sheath to facilitate electrical conduction along the nerve. Destruction of myelin by an inflammatory cascade leads to neuronal degeneration. As a result, we believe that there is a substantial unmet need for effective treatments for chronic progressive MS as well as a need for therapies that are more conveniently delivered (e.g., oral agents and less-frequently administered injectable drugs).

Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction, impaired social communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior. The diagnostic criteria require that symptoms become apparent before a child is three years old. Autism affects information processing in the brain by altering how nerve cells and their synapses connect and organize; how this occurs is not well understood. It is one of three

3

Table of Contents

recognized disorders in the autism spectrum, the other two being Aspberger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and pervasive development disorder, not otherwise specified, which is diagnosed when the full set of criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met. Increasingly, researchers are looking at the role of the immune system in autism. Intervention can involve behavioral treatments, medicines or both. There are no FDA-approved medicines for treating all three core symptoms of autism, but there are two drugs for treating the irritability associated with autism (risperidone – Risperdal; and aripiprazole—Abilify).

Psoriasis (psoriasis vulgaris) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by red, scaly, raised plaques. The disease process is driven by T-cell infiltration and associated elevation in cytokine levels leading to increased cell division and aberrant differentiation, resulting in the psoriatic phenotype. While many patients with mild disease are able to control psoriasis symptoms with topical medications alone, patients with moderate to severe disease usually require treatment with systemic agents to achieve good clearance. These systemic agents are usually well tolerated, but can have potentially significant side effects including organ toxicity, infection, malignancy, and teratogenicity that limit their usefulness in the long-term management of psoriasis.

Diabetes mellitus is the condition defined by the body’s inability to regulate blood glucose (sugar) levels. There are two major types of diabetes, T1D and type 2 diabetes, or T2D. T1D, also called juvenile diabetes or insulin-dependent diabetes, is a disorder of the body’s immune system. T1D occurs when the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the beta cells in the pancreas. These cells are located within small islands of endocrine cells called the pancreatic islets. Beta cells normally produce insulin, a hormone that helps the body move the glucose contained in food into cells throughout the body, which use it for energy. But when the beta cells are destroyed, no insulin can be produced, and the glucose stays in the blood instead, where it can cause serious damage to all the organ systems of the body. Insulin is currently the major treatment for people with T1D, and exists as short, medium and long-acting version. A relatively small number of people also use Symlin (pramlintide acetate) injections to help normalize their blood sugar.

Psoriatic arthritis (also arthritis psoriatica, arthropathic psoriasis or psoriatic arthropathy) is a type of inflammatory arthritis that may develop in up to 30 percent of people who have psoriasis. Psoriatic arthritis is said to be a seronegative spondyloarthropathy and therefore occurs more commonly in patients with tissue type HLA-B27. Symptoms involve pain and inflammation, as well as extreme exhaustion that does not go away with adequate rest. The exhaustion may last for days or weeks without abatement. Psoriatic arthritis may remain mild, or may progress to more destructive joint disease. Periods of active disease, or flares, will typically alternate with periods of remission. Treatments are directed at reducing and controlling inflammation. Milder cases of psoriatic arthitis may be treated with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, or NSAIDs alone; however, there is a trend toward earlier use of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs or biological response modifiers to prevent irreversible joint destruction.

RA is a long-term autoimmune disease that leads to inflammation of the joints and surrounding tissues. It can also affect other organs. RA usually affects joints on both sides of the body equally. Wrists, fingers, knees, feet, and ankles are the most commonly affected. The disease often begins slowly, usually with only minor joint pain, stiffness, and fatigue. RA usually requires lifelong treatment, including medications (biologics and immunosuppressants), physical therapy, exercise, education, and possibly surgery. Early, aggressive treatment for RA can delay joint destruction.

Since many autoimmune diseases are being diagnosed in younger patients, the impact of long-term medical treatment, including dosing convenience and safety, is becoming increasingly important.

Oncology Therapeutics Markets

The American Cancer Society estimates that over 1.6 million people in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with cancer in 2012, excluding basal and squamous cell skin cancers and in situ carcinomas (other

4

Table of Contents

than urinary bladder carcinomas). This is an increase of approximately 33% from the estimated number of new cancer diagnoses in 2000. We believe this rate is unlikely to decrease in the foreseeable future as the causes of cancer are multiple and poorly understood.

Despite continuous advances every year in the field of cancer research, we believe there remains a significant unmet medical need in the treatment of cancer, as the overall five-year survival rate for a cancer patient diagnosed between 2001 and 2007 still averages only 67% according to the American Cancer Society. According to that same source, cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in the United States after heart disease. The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately one in four deaths in the United States is due to cancer.

AML is one of the most deadly and most common types of acute leukemia in adults. According to a 2011/2012 Decision Resources report, there are over 43,000 cases worldwide, primarily afflicting elderly and relapsed and refractory populations. Once diagnosed with AML, patients typically receive induction and consolidation chemotherapy, with the majority achieving complete remission. However, about 70–80% of patients who achieve first complete remission will relapse, and the overall five-year survival rate is less than 25%.

One of the main treatments for cancer is chemotherapy. While chemotherapy is the most widely used class of anti-cancer agents, individual chemotherapeutic agents often show limited efficacy because tumors maintain complex machinery to repair the DNA damage to tumor cells caused by chemotherapy. Solutions to this problem include combination chemotherapy, but while combination chemotherapy has been intensively studied, it offers only limited hope for improvement as a result of additive toxicities. The limitations inherent in chemotherapy are mirrored by limitations in other therapeutic modalities for cancer, including radiation therapy, targeted therapies and surgical intervention. Each of these therapies either has high levels of toxicity and/or potentially severe adverse events, which in turn frequently limit the amount of treatment that can be administered to a patient.

As a result, we believe that there is a significant unmet medical need for alternatives to existing chemotherapy drugs that do not have the associated toxicities of traditional chemotherapy drugs.

Our Product Candidates

TSO

TSO is a biologic product candidate for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. We initially plan to investigate TSO for the treatment of Crohn’s, UC, MS, autism, psoriasis, T1D, psoriatic arthritis and RA. TSO originates from the work of Dr. Joel V. Weinstock, currently the Chief of the Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology at Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Weinstock’s research has centered on the evolutionary role of the parasitic helminth, or worm, infections in the prevention of inflammatory diseases such as IBD, specifically Crohn’s and UC. Dr. Weinstock has discovered that when the microscopic eggs of a certain helminth, preferably T. suis, the porcine whipworm, are administered to patients with IBD a beneficial immune response is induced, which provides clinical benefit to the underlying disease with minimal side-effects. Dr. Weinstock is a consultant to us and a member of our scientific advisory board and certain of his colleagues, namely David Elliott, M.D., Ph.D., and William Sanborn, M.D. are also consultants to us.

Background

The use of helminths in the treatment of autoimmune disease is based on the belief that the immune systems of populations living in the relatively sterile environments found in developed countries with little or no exposure to parasites may develop in abnormal ways. This “hygiene hypothesis” is based on epidemiologic findings of an inverse relationship between autoimmune diseases and helminthic colonization. According to articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and Inflammatory Bowel Disease in 2009, the incidence of IBD is highest in the developed world and in temperate climates, with positive correlations noted among persons of

5

Table of Contents

higher socioeconomic status and high levels of domestic hygiene experienced in childhood. Conversely, the incidence of IBD is rare in less developed countries and in persons with blue-collar jobs involving exposure to dirt and physical exercise.

In contrast to the epidemiologic findings of IBD, according to articles by Dr. Weinstock and others published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and the International Journal for Parasitology in 2007, the prevalence of helminths is highest in warm climates and in populations characterized by crowding, poor sanitation, and impure food supply. Furthermore, the incidence of IBD has increased over the past several decades, while the prevalence of helminths in the United States and Europe has steadily declined during the same time period. These findings have led to the hypothesis that eliminating intestinal helminths in the industrialized world has eliminated a natural T regulatory cell mechanism that prevents excessive T-cell activation such as occurs in IBD as well as in other immune-mediated diseases such as MS and allergies.

The immunologic basis for helminth therapy for IBD is derived from experimental animal and human data demonstrating that these organisms alter immune responses beyond those directed against the worms. In animal models, helminths blunt Th1 responses and promote Th2 responses associated with increased production of IL-4 and IL-3. Helminthic colonization in humans can result in diminished Th1 immune responses to challenges with unrelated antigens, as well as increased production of immunomodulatory molecules such as IL-10, transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß, and regulatory T-cells. Thus, as noted in the National Review of Immunology in 2007, genetically susceptible persons who are never exposed to helminths may lack a strong Th2 immune response and develop a poorly regulated and destructive intestinal Th1 response, leading to chronic colitis or ileitis.

TSO was chosen as an appropriate helminth for therapeutic application due to its ability to colonize in humans briefly without invading or infecting the host. Although not a human parasite, T. suis resembles the human whipworm T. Trichuris and is able to colonize in a human host for several weeks before being eliminated from the body without the need for antihelminthic therapy. As reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2005, TSO has potential for being a natural immune system modulator without significant risk of causing disease in humans. Mature T. suis produce ova that exit the porcine host with the stool, however, we believe ova are not infective until incubating in the soil for several weeks, thereby preventing direct host-to-host transmission. We believe that no human diseases have been associated with exposure to T. suis or TSO.

Third Party Clinical Trials

The initial safety and efficacy of TSO in Crohn’s has been evaluated in two open-label investigator-sponsored clinical trials. The first, a pilot clinical trial conducted by Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues and reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2003, administered a single dose of 2500 embryonated TSO orally to four patients with refractory Crohn’s. Patients were followed every two weeks for at least 12 weeks, with the efficacy of therapy determined by the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index, or CDAI and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life questionnaire, or IBDQ. Using an IBDQ score > 170 to indicate remission, three of four (75%) patients achieved remission by week 8. Similarly, three of four (75%) patients achieved remission during the observation period as assessed by a CDAI < 150. However, two of the three patients who achieved remission relapsed at the end of the 12-week observation period. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the patients in this study.

In a subsequent open-label clinical trial reported in GUT in 2005, Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of TSO in 29 patients with active Crohn’s, defined by a CDAI > 220. Patients received TSO in individual aliquots of 2500 ova suspended in a solution every three weeks for 24 weeks. Patients maintained diaries of clinical symptoms, and disease activity was measured by CDAI. Therapy with TSO was associated with substantial and sustained improvement, with 79.3% patients experiencing a response (decrease in CDAI > 100 points or CDAI < 150) and 72.4% achieving remission (CDAI < 150) at week 24. TSO was well tolerated. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the patients in this study.

6

Table of Contents

Falk is currently conducting a Phase 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial in Europe evaluating the efficacy and safety of TSO in Crohn’s. The second interim analysis is expected by the end of 2013. In March 2012, we signed a Collaboration Agreement with Falk and Ovamed for the development of TSO in Crohn’s.

Two investigator-sponsored studies of TSO have been conducted in patients with UC. The first study was a pilot study conducted by Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues and published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, in 2003 in which three patients with refractory UC were treated with a single dose of 2500 embryonated T. suis eggs orally and observed every two weeks for 12 weeks. The IBDQ and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index, or SCCAI, were used to determine the efficacy of therapy. Using an IBDQ score > 170 to define remission, all three patients achieved remission by week eight. Using an SCCAI < 4 to indicate remission, each of the UC patients achieved remission during the treatment and observation period, and one patient experienced a relapse. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the patients in this study.

As reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2005, Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues subsequently conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to determine the safety and efficacy of TSO in 54 patients with active UC (defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index, or UCDAI, > 4) who were treated with placebo or 2500 TSO every two weeks for 12 weeks. After the first 12 weeks of treatment, placebo-treated patients were switched to TSO for a second 12-week interval and TSO patients were switched to placebo. The blind was maintained during the crossover phase. In order to calculate UCDAI and SCCAI scores, patients kept diaries detailing their clinical symptoms. The primary measure of efficacy was clinical improvement at 12 weeks, defined as a decrease in UCDAI > 4. Clinical remission, defined as UCDAI < 2, was a secondary endpoint. Of the 54 patients enrolled in the study, 24 received placebo and 30 received TSO during the first 12 weeks of the study. The proportion of patients achieving a favorable response was significantly higher with TSO compared with placebo in both the intention-to-treat, or ITT, (43.3% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.04) and per protocol, or PP, (44.8% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.04) populations. Only patients with active disease (UCDAI > 4) were included in the analysis of the crossover phase of the study. Among 31 patients (n=15 for placebo, n=16 for TSO) analyzed, the percentage of TSO-treated patients achieving response was higher than that for placebo-treated patients (56.3% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.02). When the two study periods were combined, TSO administration was associated with significantly higher responses in both the ITT and PP populations. No significant clinical complications or adverse events occurred in any of the treated patients in this study.

In a study reported in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal in 2011, Dr. John Fleming and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin studied five subjects with newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve, relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, or RRMS. The patients were given 2500 TSO orally every two weeks for three months in a baseline versus treatment controlled trial. The study showed that the mean number of new gadolinium- enhancing magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, lesions (n-Gdþ) fell from 6.6 at baseline to 2.0 at the end of TSO administration, and two months after TSO was discontinued, the mean number of n-Gdþ rose to 5.8 new lesions. No significant adverse effects were observed. In preliminary immunological investigations, increases in the serum level of the cytokines IL-4 and IL-10 were noted in four of the five subjects. These first five patients represented the first part of a 2-part study (known as HINT-1 and HINT-2). Additional patients are currently being studied for up to 10 months. Results from this second cohort are expected in the first half of 2014.

In studies presented by Dr. John Fleming and by Professor Per Soelberg Soerensen at the American Academy of Neurology in New Orleans on April 25, 2012, TSO was observed to be safe and well tolerated in MS patients, suggesting that TSO would be safe to use in indications other than IBD. Abstracts for these studies, entitled “Temporal Changes in MRI Activity, Inflammation, Immunomodulation, and Gene Expression in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Subjects Treated with Helminth Probiotic Trichuris Suis” (Fleming) and “Trichuris Suis Ova Therapy for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis—A Safety Study” (Soerenson) are available on the American Academy of Neurology 2012 Annual Meeting website.

7

Table of Contents

There are also additional ongoing or proposed investigator-initiated clinical trials evaluating TSO in various indications, including UC, MS, autism, psoriasis, T1D, psoriatic arthritis, and RA. We publicly announced the start of two new trials in 2012, one at the New York University School of Medicine (NYU), with Drs. Michael Poles, P’ng Loke and Martin Wolff in UC and one at Montefiore in New York City, with Dr. Eric Hollander in autism. We also issued a statement about the agreement with the National Institute of Health’s Allergy and Immunology Department, NIAID in UC, with the principal investigator being Dr Steven Hanauer, Chicago. All three trials are investigator initiated, but we will provide TSO and have worked closely with the investigators to develop protocols and data management tools. We will continue to work with these sites throughout the trials as part of our overall clinical strategy for TSO. In the first quarter of 2013, we announced the start of an open-label trial in psoriasis, and named the first site of three sites, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. We also plan to initiate additional trials in other indications, including additional sites for the psoriasis trial, autism, psoriatic arthritis, and T1D over the next 12 months. We intend to support certain of these investigator-initiated trials by providing product supply and, in some cases, grants.

Our Clinical Trial Program

In February 2012, we announced positive results from our Phase 1 clinical trial of TSO in patients with Crohn’s and the full study results were presented in May 2012 by Dr. David Elliott, Professor and Director of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Division at the University of Iowa, as a poster at the 8th International Congress on Autoimmunity in Granada, Spain. The Phase 1 clinical trial was a multi-center, sequential dose-escalation, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of TSO. The trial enrolled 36 patients with Crohn’s ranging in age from 20 to 54 with an equal distribution of male and female patients in three single dose cohorts of orally administered 500, 2500 and 7500 ova. Each cohort had twelve patients, with nine patients receiving TSO and three receiving placebo. Primary safety assessments were determined at day 14 post-dose. Dr. Elliot is a consultant to us.

Overall, TSO was found to be safe and well tolerated across all three dose levels tested. There were only two adverse events (metallic taste and sour taste) that were considered to be study drug related as assessed by the investigators, one reported in the 7,500 ova dose group and the other in a patient receiving placebo, respectively. All other reported events were assessed as unrelated to study drug and were self-limiting. Mild gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea (in one placebo-treated patient and two TSO-treated patients) and diarrhea and/or abdominal pain (in two TSO-treated patients) were reported. Safety laboratory values were assessed throughout the study and no clinically significant adverse trends were observed and no laboratory- related adverse events were reported. There were no serious adverse events reported and no patient discontinued the study prematurely.

In March 2012, we signed a Collaboration Agreement with Falk and Ovamed for the development of TSO for Crohn’s. Under the Collaboration Agreement, Falk granted us exclusive rights and licenses under certain Falk patent rights, pre-clinical data and clinical data from Falk’s clinical trials of TSO in Crohn’s, including Falk’s ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial, for use in North America, South America and Japan. We granted Falk exclusive rights and licenses to data from our clinical trials of TSO in Crohn’s for use in Europe. Under the agreement, we agreed to pay Falk (i) a total of €5 million (approximately $6.5 million) after receipt of certain pre-clinical and clinical data, of which €2.5 million (approximately $3.4 million) was paid in 2012 and the remaining €2.5 million is expected to be paid in the first half of 2014, and (ii) a royalty of 1% of net sales of TSO in North America, South America and Japan. A steering committee comprised of our representatives and representatives of Falk and Ovamed is overseeing the clinical development program for Crohn’s, under which we and Falk will each be responsible for clinical testing on approximately 50% of the total number of patients required for regulatory approval of TSO for Crohn’s in the United States and Europe and will share in certain pre-clinical development costs.

In April 2012, we received from Falk a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee that conducted an interim analysis (blinded to Falk) of clinical data from the initial 120 patients in Falk’s Phase 2 clinical trial in Europe evaluating TSO in Crohn’s. The committee noted no safety concerns and a positive efficacy trend in its recommendation that the study continue. Falk advised us that they are adopting the

8

Table of Contents

committee’s recommendations to increase the sample size and to conduct a subsequent interim analysis at the time the trial reaches approximately 240 patients. The Falk Phase 2 clinical trial, known as TRUST-II, was initially expected to enroll approximately 212 patients and to evaluate three different dosages of TSO versus placebo. The interim analysis aimed to verify the assumptions of the sample size calculation or to recalculate sample size based on the effect size estimations of the interim analysis, as well as evaluating whether to discontinue one or two of the active treatment arms. Based on currently projected enrollment rates, we expect the additional analysis to occur in the second half of 2013.

In August 2012, we initiated our TRUST-I trial, a phase 2 clinical trial of TSO designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TSO (7500 ova) given once every two weeks for 12 weeks, in approximately 220 patients with Crohn’s, and expect to have initial study results in the second half of 2013.

In addition, we plan to conduct pilot studies and support certain investigator initiated clinical trials in various other autoimmune diseases. In close collaboration with investigators at NYU and Montefiore, two trials were initiated, one in UC and one in autism, respectively. The UC trial at NYU, led by Drs. Poles, Wolff and Loke, is a primarily mechanism of action trial, including 18 patients, treated with TSO at 2500 ova every second week, for 3 months, followed by a wash-out period and then the patients on TSO will receive placebo and vice versa. Colonoscopies are performed at baseline to characterize the microbe, then again at the end of 12 weeks of treatment of either placebo or TSO (2500 ova). The primary endpoint is the amount of mucus production, but there will also be measurements of clinical efficacy. The adult autism trial at Montefiore, led by Dr. Hollander, is an initial attempt to study the effect of TSO (2500 ova every 2 weeks) on some of the symptoms of autism addressing the immune basis of the disease. It is a small study, in 10 patients, over a period of 12 weeks, followed by a period of 12 weeks when patients cross-over to drug or placebo respectively. The primary outcome includes three different autism scales, Autism Behavior Checklist, Clinical Global Impression, and Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive scale.

The NIH UC trial is a 120 patient randomized, double-blind, study comparing the change in clinical symptoms of ulcerative colitis (using the ulcerative colitis disease activity index) following 12 weeks of treatment of either placebo or TSO (7500 ova).

Manufacturing

To date, we have contracted with Ovamed to produce and supply us with all of our requirements of TSO. Ovamed’s contractor inoculates young pathogen-free pigs with T. suis from a master ova bank and harvests the ova which are incubated to maturity and are processed to remove any viruses and other pathogens. Ova then are processed and extensively tested to assure uniformity. They are then used to repopulate the master ova bank and are processed further by Ovamed into a final formulation of the drug product that is a clear, tasteless and odorless liquid. Ovamed manufacturing is conducted at one facility in Germany, which has received Good Manufacturing Practice, or GMP, certification by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA. Ovamed’s manufacturing operations will be subject to an FDA inspection to assess compliance with FDA standards and is subject to EMA inspections to assess compliance with EMA standards. See “Government Regulation and Product Approval”.

In December 2012, we and Ovamed entered into the Second Amendment amending certain provisions of our exclusive sublicense agreement and our manufacturing and supply agreement, between us and Ovamed, and providing for certain additional agreements between the parties. Pursuant to the Second Amendment, our exclusive license from Ovamed in the Coronado Territory was amended to include an exclusive license to make and have made product containing TSO for the Coronado Territory and Ovamed’s exclusive supply rights in the Coronado Territory will terminate once we establish an operational manufacturing facility in the United States. The Ovamed License now terminates 15 years from first commercial sale in the United States, subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances.

9

Table of Contents

In exchange, we agreed to pay Ovamed a total of $1,500,000 in three equal installments of $500,000 in each of December 2014, 2015, and 2016. Additionally, in lieu of product supply payments that would have been payable to Ovamed as the exclusive supplier, we will pay Ovamed a manufacturing fee for product manufactured and sold by us. The manufacturing fee will consist of the greater of (i) a royalty on net sales of product manufactured by us or (ii) a specified amount per unit, known as the Transfer Fee Component. The Manufacturing Fee is subject to certain adjustments and credits and we have a right to reduce the Transfer Fee Component by paying Ovamed an agreed amount within ten business days following FDA approval of a Biologics License Application approving the manufacturing, marketing and commercial sale of Product in the United States and an additional amount within ninety days after the end of the first calendar year in which net sales in the Territory exceed an agreed amount.

Simultaneously with the execution of the Second Amendment, Ovamed assigned to us a five-year property lease in Woburn, MA for space in which we intend to establish a TSO manufacturing facility. Build out and site preparation of the manufacturing facility are planned to commence in the first half of 2013 and continue throughout the year to enable production of Phase 3 supplies of TSO. Ovamed agreed to assist us in establishing this facility and the Second Amendment contemplates that we and Ovamed would act as second source suppliers to each other at agreed transfer prices pursuant to a Second Source Agreement to be negotiated between the parties. This facility will be required to meet GMP standards and will be subject to FDA and other regulatory authorities’ inspections.

CNDO-109

CNDO-109 is a lysate (disrupted CTV-1 cells, cell membrane fragments, cell proteins and other cellular components) that activates donor NK cells. CTV-1 is a leukemic cell line recently re-classified as a T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia, or ALL. We acquired exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize CNDO-109 activated NK cells for the treatment of cancer from UCLB.

Background

Standard therapy for patients with advanced cancer include chemotherapy therapies, or therapies that are toxic to the cells, that suppress the immune system and carry significant risks of life-threatening infections and other toxicities in the absence of hope for cure. Despite effective cancer therapies that induce clinical responses, including complete remissions, minimal residual disease, or MRD, a term referring to disease that is undetectable by conventional morphologic methods, often remains and serves as a source of cancer recurrence. For years, scientists have studied ways to enhance the patient’s immune system to target cancer cells, maintain remission and possibly even eradicate all cancer cells in the body, including MRD. Researchers believe that a cure for cancer might be possible if immunotherapy is successfully applied to the treatment of cancer.

The most common immunotherapy studied to date involves the use of targeted humanized monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab (anti-CD20) or trastuzumab (anti-HER2/neu). These antibodies bind targets that are over-expressed on cancer cells and promote cell death by a number of immune mechanisms, including antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, or ADCC. In ADCC, the most common mechanism of tumor killing, the antibody tags the cancer cell and recruits the cells from the patient’s immune system to attack the tumor. Immune cells recruited by the antibody to kill the cancer include granulocytes, macrophages and NK cells.

Another common therapy that activates the innate immune system involves the administration of high dose Interleukin-2, or IL-2. Through binding to the IL-2 receptor, IL-2 activates NK cells to attack cancer cells. After high-dose IL-2 therapy, NK cells are activated to search out and kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, the use of IL-2 therapy is limited because of its severe side effects, which include severe life-threatening infusion reactions and induction of autoimmune disease.

The importance of NK cells in the host system’s defense against cancer was recognized by Dr. Mark Lowdell at the Royal Free Hospital in London and others when they noted that patients who could mount an immune

10

Table of Contents

response to their AML became long-term survivors after chemotherapy. Researchers identified that a key to the successful immune response of the patient’s immune systems was the NK cell. Dr. Lowdell determined that activated NK cells were the key to eliminating AML cells and that NK cells require two signals to kill a tumor cell—a priming signal followed by a trigger signal. NK cells that can be activated by certain cancer cells

provide both signals resulting in killing the cancer cell. Cancer cells that cannot be killed only trigger one signal and therefore are considered resistant to NK cells. NK cells which have not been primed cannot respond to the trigger. The “priming signal” can be provided by either cytokines, such as high dose IL-2 or IL-15 or by CNDO-109. In contrast to IL-2 or IL-15, NK cells activated by CNDO-109 retain their activated state after freezing and thawing. This allows commercialization of the process since the NK cells can be activated with CNDO-109 and prepared at a manufacturing facility under GMP conditions and shipped to the clinical center as a frozen patient-specific dose, ready for infusion. The results of the research conducted by Dr. Lowdell and his colleagues were published in the British Journal of Haematology in 2002 and The Journal of Immunology in 2007 and all inventions and related intellectual property that arose from such research are covered by our license agreement with UCL Business PLC, or UCLB. Dr. Lowdell is a consultant to us.

Although AML is the prototype tumor lysed by CNDO-109 activated NK cells, CNDO-109 activated NK cells are expected to be active against most cancer types. Based on in vitro preclinical efficacy studies of CNDO-109 conducted by Dr. Lowdell at the Royal Free Hospital in London using human specimens of breast cancer, prostate and ovarian cancer, we expect CNDO-109 to be active against tumors that have been successfully treated by high dose IL-2 therapy such as renal cell carcinoma and melanoma.

The treatment of patients with CNDO-109 activated NK cells involves several steps. The activated NK cells are infused into the patient after resting NK cells are incubated with CNDO-109 for at least eight hours. Preparation of CNDO-109 activated NK cells takes about 24 hours from start to finish. If the source of the NK cells being used is someone other than the patient, “an allogeneic donor,” the patient will need some form of immunosuppression to allow the CNDO-109 activated NK cells to persist long enough to eradicate MRD. Preliminary data on a small number of patients from the UK Phase 1 clinical trial demonstrated that CNDO-109 activated NK cells can remain active for weeks.

Completed Clinical Trial

An investigator-initiated Phase 1 clinical trial of CNDO-109 activated haploidentical NK cells was conducted at the Royal Free Hospital in London in eight patients with high risk (i.e. chemo-sensitive relapsed/refractory) AML who were not eligible for a stem cell transplant. The results of this trial were presented at the ASH Annual Meeting in December 2011. Although the primary endpoint of the Phase 1 clinical trial was safety, the results demonstrated that the majority of AML patients experienced a longer complete remission after receiving CNDO-109 activated NK cells than their previous complete remission.

Our Clinical Program

We submitted an IND for the CNDO-109 activated NK cell product in the United States in February 2012 using data from UCLB’s Phase 1 clinical trial in the United Kingdom. We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the United States in November 2012 using CNDO-109 to activate NK cells to treat MRD in AML patients with relapsed/refractory disease. In Phase 1/2 oncology clinical trials, dose limiting toxicity stopping rules are commonly applied. The CNDO-109 Phase 1/2 trial is subject to a set of Dose-Limiting Toxicities, or DLTs, that could suspend or stop dose escalation by predetermined criteria, including allergic reactions, prolonged aplasia or other organ toxicities of a serious nature. We are also considering participation in a Phase 1/2 multiple myeloma trial which we believe may initiate in 2014 and selected pilot Phase 1 clinical trials in other tumor types, including breast, prostate and ovarian cancer, with both allogeneic and autologous cells

11

Table of Contents

Manufacturing

The manufacturing process for CNDO-109 activated NK cells is currently under development. We have produced a master cell bank and a working cell bank of CTV-1 cells in collaboration with BioReliance Corp. Manufacture and testing of CNDO-109 activated NK cells for our ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial is being conducted by Progenitor Cell Therapy, LLC or PCT. We have entered into master service agreements with both companies as well as a supply agreement with PCT. The master service agreements provide the general framework for the relationships, with specific terms to be established in connection with particular projects. Indirectly, we also rely on Miltenyi Biotec GmbH to provide the equipment and reagents necessary for the identification and selection of NK cells.

Strategic Alliances and Commercial Agreements

TSO

Sublicense Agreement with Ovamed GmbH

In January 2011, in connection with our acquisition of the assets of Asphelia relating to TSO, Asphelia assigned the Exclusive Sublicense Agreement, dated December 2005, between Asphelia and Ovamed, as amended, or the Ovamed License, and Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, dated March 2006, between Asphelia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Asphelia, and Ovamed, as amended, or the Ovamed Supply Agreement, to us and we assumed Asphelia’s obligations under these agreements. Under the Ovamed License, we received an exclusive sublicense, with a right to grant additional sublicenses to third parties, under Ovamed’s patent rights and know-how to make, use and sell products encompassing TSO in North America, South America and Japan. Ovamed’s patent rights arise, in turn, from an exclusive license granted in 2005 by the University of Iowa Research Foundation, or UIRF, to Ovamed covering inventions and related intellectual property rights that arose as a result of research relating to TSO performed by Dr. Weinstock and his colleagues while employed by the University of Iowa. In November 2011, we entered into an agreement with UIRF and Ovamed primarily amending certain diligence provisions of the UIRF license agreement with Ovamed and obtaining certain rights in the event of an Ovamed breach of this license.

Under the Ovamed License, we are required to make milestone payments to Ovamed totaling up to approximately $5.45 million, of which $3.0 million has been paid, primarily upon the achievement of various regulatory milestones for the first product that incorporates TSO, and additional milestone payments upon the achievement of regulatory milestones relating to subsequent indications. In the event that TSO is commercialized, we are obligated to pay to Ovamed royalties equal to 4% of net sales. Additionally, we are obligated to pay to Ovamed a percentage of certain consideration we receive from sublicensees (ranging from 10% to 20% of such consideration depending on the stage of clinical development at the time of the sublicense), as well as an annual license maintenance fee of $250,000 and reimbursement of patent costs. We are responsible for all clinical development and regulatory activities and costs relating to licensed products in North America, South America and Japan. Either party may also terminate the agreement under certain customary conditions of breach and we have the right to terminate the Ovamed License with 30 days prior notice.

In January 2011, as part of the purchase price for the Asphelia assets, we paid Ovamed an aggregate of approximately $3.4 million in satisfaction of Asphelia’s agreement to pay Ovamed for certain development costs, the annual license maintenance fee and patent reimbursement costs.

Under the Ovamed Supply Agreement, Ovamed agreed to manufacture and supply us with and we are required to purchase from Ovamed our clinical and commercial requirements of TSO at pre-determined prices. The Ovamed Supply Agreement currently expires in March 2014 but will automatically renew for successive one-year periods, unless we give 12 months’ prior notice of our election not to renew. The Ovamed Supply Agreement is subject to early termination by either party under certain customary conditions of breach and by us in the event of specified failures to supply or regulatory or safety failures.

12

Table of Contents

In December 2012, we and Ovamed entered into the Second Amendment amending certain provisions of our Exclusive Sublicense Agreement and our Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, between us and Ovamed, and providing for certain additional agreements between the parties. Pursuant to the Second Amendment, our exclusive license from Ovamed in the Coronado Territory was amended to include an exclusive license to make and have made product containing TSO for the Coronado Territory and Ovamed’s exclusive supply rights in the Coronado Territory will terminate once we establish an operational manufacturing facility in the United States. The Ovamed License now terminates 15 years from first commercial sale in the United States, subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances.

In exchange, we agreed to pay Ovamed a total of $1,500,000 in three equal installments of $500,000 in each of December 2014, 2015, and 2016. Additionally, in lieu of product supply payments that would have been payable to Ovamed as the exclusive supplier, we will pay Ovamed a manufacturing fee for product manufactured and sold by us. The manufacturing fee will consist of the greater of (i) a royalty on net sales of product manufactured by us or (ii) a specified amount per unit (the “Transfer Fee Component”). The Manufacturing Fee is subject to certain adjustments and credits and we have a right to reduce the Transfer Fee Component by paying Ovamed an agreed amount within ten business days following FDA approval of a Biologics License Application approving the manufacturing, marketing and commercial sale of Product in the United States and an additional amount within ninety days after the end of the first calendar year in which net sales in the Territory exceed an agreed amount.

Simultaneously with the execution of the Second Amendment, Ovamed assigned to us a five-year property lease in Woburn, MA for space in which we intend to establish a TSO manufacturing facility. Build out of the manufacturing facility will commence in early 2013 and continue throughout the year. Ovamed agreed to assist us in establishing this facility and the Second Amendment contemplates that we and Ovamed would act as second source suppliers to each other at agreed transfer prices pursuant to a Second Source Agreement to be negotiated between the parties.

Collaboration Agreement with Ovamed and Falk

In December 2011, we entered into a binding Terms of Agreement with Falk and Ovamed under which we agreed to enter into collaboration agreement relating to the development of TSO for Crohn’s. In March 2012, the parties entered into the Collaboration Agreement, under which Falk granted us exclusive rights and licenses under certain Falk patent rights, pre-clinical data, and clinical data from Falk’s clinical trials of TSO in Crohn’s, including the ongoing Falk Phase 2 clinical trial, for use in North America, South America and Japan. In exchange, we granted Falk exclusive rights and licenses to our pre-clinical data and data from clinical trials of TSO in Crohn’s for use in Europe.

In addition, we agreed to pay Falk a total of €5 million after receipt of certain preclinical and clinical data, half of was paid in 2012 and half of which is expected to be paid by the first half of 2014, and a royalty equal to 1% of net sales of TSO in North America, South America and Japan.

Under the Collaboration Agreement, a Steering Committee comprised of our representatives and representatives of Falk and Ovamed will oversee the TSO development program for Crohn’s, under which we and Falk will each be responsible for clinical testing on approximately 50% of the total number of patients required for regulatory approval of TSO for Crohn’s in the United States and Europe and will share in certain pre-clinical development costs.

The Collaboration Agreement may be terminated by either Falk or us under certain conditions including if the other party fails to cure a material breach under the agreement, subject to prior notice and the opportunity to cure, if the other party is subject to bankruptcy proceedings or if the terminating party terminates all development of TSO.

13

Table of Contents

Research Agreement with FU Berlin

On February 22, 2013, the Company and Freie Universität Berlin, or FU Berlin, entered into a Research Agreement to, among other things, identify and evaluate secretory proteins from Trichuris suis, which we refer to as the Project. The duration of the Project is expected to be four years, during which the Company will pay FU Berlin a total maximum amount of approximately €648,000, or approximately $843,000, in research fees and FU Berlin will periodically produce written progress reports on the Project. The Research Agreement terminates on the later of the date that the last payment or report is due, subject to early termination by either party upon three months written notice for cause or without cause. If the Company terminates the Research Agreement, the Company must pay FU Berlin a termination fee comprised primarily of unpaid research fees due on the first payment date after which termination occurred (subject to adjustment), except where termination is due to a breach by FU Berlin which it fails to cure within 60 days notice or due to FU Berlin’s bankruptcy.

On February 22, 2013, the Company and FU Berlin also entered into a Joint Ownership and Exclusive License Agreement or JOELA, pursuant to which the Company agreed to jointly own all intellectual property arising from the Project, which we refer to as the Joint Intellectual Property. FU Berlin also granted the Company (a) an exclusive worldwide license (including the right to sublicense) to its interest in the Joint Intellectual Property and its know-how related to the Project, which we refer to as the Licensed IP, and (b) the right to commercialize products that, without the licenses granted under the JOELA, would infringe the Licensed IP. FU Berlin retains the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use the Licensed IP for its own internal, academic purposes. Pursuant to the JOELA, the Company must pay FU Berlin a total maximum amount of approximately €3,830,000, or approximately $4,982,000, in potential milestone payments, based primarily on the achievement of clinical development and regulatory milestones, and royalties on potential net sales of products ranging from 1% to 2.5%. The JOELA continues until the last-to-expire patent in any country, subject to early termination by either party without penalty if the other party breaches the JOELA and the breach is not cured within 60 days after receiving notice of the breach or if a party is in bankruptcy. The Company also has the right to terminate the JOELA after giving FU Berlin 60 days written notice of a regulatory action that affects the safety, efficacy or marketability of the Licensed Products or if the Company cannot obtain sufficient materials to conduct trials, or upon 180 days written notice for any reason.

In connection with the Research Agreement and JOELA, the Company entered into a License and Sublicense Agreement, which we refer to as the LSA, with Ovamed GmbH, or Ovamed, on February 22, 2013, pursuant to which the Company licensed is rights to the Joint Intellectual Property and sublicensed its rights to the Licensed IP to Ovamed in all countries outside North America, South America and Japan, which we refer to as the Ovamed Territory. Pursuant to the LSA, Ovamed would pay the Company a total maximum amount of approximately €1,025,000, or approximately $1,333,000 based primarily on the achievement of regulatory milestones, and royalties on potential net sales of products ranging from 1% to 2.5%, subject to adjustment, in each case equal to the comparable payments due under the JOELA. The LSA continues until the last-to-expire patent in any country in the Ovamed Territory, subject to early termination by either party upon the same terms as in the JOELA.

On February 22, 2013, Coronado, Ovamed and FU Berlin entered into a Letter Agreement to amend a Material Transfer Agreement dated May 14, 2012 by and between Ovamed and FU Berlin. The Letter Agreement provides that Ovamed will retain a 10% interest in FU Berlin’s rights to the Joint Intellectual Property in the Ovamed Territory. It also grants Ovamed certain rights if FU Berlin terminates the JOELA due to the Company’s breach, including the right to have the JOELA survive and the Company’s rights and obligations thereunder assigned to Ovamed.

License Agreement with UCLB

In November 2007, we entered into a license agreement with UCLB under which we received an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize CNDO-109 to activate NK cells for the treatment of cancer and related conditions. Pursuant to a September 2009 amendment, we also received a non-exclusive license, without

14

Table of Contents

the right to sublicense, to certain clinical data solely for use in the IND for CNDO-109. Under a May 2012 amendment, additional patent rights and rights to certain additional inventions were added to the license agreement.

In consideration for the license, we will be required to make future milestone payments totaling up to approximately $22 million contingent upon the achievement of various milestones related to regulatory events for the first three indications for which CNDO-109 is developed. In March 2012, we recognized our obligation to pay UCLB a $250,000 milestone related to the IND for CNDO-109. In the event that CNDO-109 is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay to UCLB royalties ranging from 3% to 5% of net sales of the product or, if commercialized by a sublicensee, a percentage of certain consideration we receive from such sublicensee (ranging from 20% to 30% of such consideration depending on the stage of clinical development at the time of the sublicense). Under the terms of the agreement, we must use diligent and reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize CNDO-109 activated NK cells worldwide and may grant sublicenses to third parties without the prior approval of UCLB. In September 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office granted the first U.S. patent directed to CNDO-109. In June 2012 we were notified by the FDA that CNDO-109 was granted orphan drug designation and in September 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the first U.S. patent covering CNDO-109. If CNDO-109 is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay UCLB annual royalties based upon the net sales of product or if we sublicense CNDO-109, a portion of sub-licensing revenue we receive, if any.

The agreement terminates upon the expiration of the last licensed patent right, unless the agreement is earlier terminated. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of material breach by the other party, subject to prior notice and the opportunity to cure, or in the event the other party enters into bankruptcy or is dissolved for any reasons other than in connection with a merger or acquisition. UCLB may terminate the license agreement if we, or our affiliates, commence or assist in legal proceedings to challenge the validity or ownership of the patents licensed to us under the agreement, or if we market or sell a competing product without UCLB’s prior written consent. In addition, we may terminate the agreement by providing written notice to UCLB at least 30 days’ prior to any contemplated termination.

We have entered into consulting agreements with Dr. Mark Lowdell and UCL Consultants Limited (a wholly- owned subsidiary of UCLB) that provide for Dr. Lowdell to provide various services to us relating to our CNDO-109 program.

Services Agreement with PCT

In April 2010 and as amended in September 2012, we entered into a master contract services agreement, or the PCT agreement, with PCT pursuant to which PCT may, from time to time, provide consulting, preclinical, laboratory and/or clinical research-related services, product/process development services, manufacturing services and other services to us in connection with the CNDO-109 development program. PCT is currently performing services related to the development of manufacturing processes for CNDO-109 under the PCT agreement. We pay for services under the PCT agreement pursuant to statements of work entered into from time to time. Any product resulting from the services performed or product improvement, inventions or discoveries, including new uses for product resulting from the services performed and related patent rights which arise as a result of the services performed by PCT under the PCT agreement are owned solely and exclusively by and assigned to us. Through December 31, 2012, we have entered into statements of work with PCT aggregating $2.7 million.

Intellectual Property

General

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates, formulations, processes, methods and any other proprietary technologies, preserve our trade secrets, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek

15

Table of Contents

to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our current product candidates and any future product candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents, both in the United States and abroad. However, patent protection may not afford us with complete protection against competitors who seek to circumvent our patents.

We also depend upon the skills, knowledge, experience and know-how of our management and research and development personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how, which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we currently rely and will in the future rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

TSO

Under the Ovamed License, we have exclusive rights to United States Patent Nos. 6,764,838, 7,250,173 and 7,833,537, owned by the University of Iowa and licensed by UIRF to Ovamed. These patents claim, respectively, methods of producing a pharmaceutical composition comprising an helminthic parasite preparation, pharmaceutical compositions suitable for oral administration comprising an isolated and purified T. suis helminthic parasite preparation, and methods of treating inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s and UC, in an individual by the administration of a helminthic parasite preparation obtained from a group of helminthic parasites. These patents are scheduled to expire in December 2018, except for the ‘537 patent, which is set to expire approximately nine months later. Under the patent term restoration provisions of the patent laws, we may choose to restore a portion of the term of one of these patents, or any other relevant patents that may be granted prior to marketing approval of TSO, to recover at least a portion of the delays associated with obtaining regulatory approval. We also have exclusive rights through the Ovamed License under a second patent family owned by UIRF, which is directed to methods of using helminthic parasite preparations to treat patients with a Th1 or Th2 related autoimmune disease. Any patents that mature from this second patent family would not expire until at least November 2023.

Under the Collaboration Agreement, we have an exclusive license in North America and Japan to Falk’s interest in two patent families: one directed to a process for the preparation of the pharmaceutical product comprised of viable eggs of parasitic helminths and another directed to a method of determining biological activity of embryonated Trichuris eggs. Applications for patents are pending in the United States, Canada and Japan for both patent families.

Our success for preserving market exclusivity for our product candidates relies on our ability to obtain and maintain a regulatory period of data exclusivity over an approved biologic, currently 12 years from the date of marketing approval, and to preserve effective patent coverage. Once any regulatory period of data exclusivity expires, depending on the status of our patent coverage, we may not be able to prevent others from marketing and selling products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with our product candidates. We are also dependent upon the diligence of third parties, which control the prosecution of pending domestic and foreign patent applications and maintain granted domestic and foreign patents.

In addition to any regulatory exclusivity we may be able to obtain, we also seek to protect additional intellectual property rights such as trade secrets and know-how, including commercial manufacturing processes and proprietary business practices.

CNDO-109

We have exclusive rights to International Patent Application No. PCT/GB2006/000960 and all pending United States and foreign counterpart applications including granted U.S. Patent No. 8,257,970 and pending United States Patent Application Serial No. 13/601,153 and the corresponding national phase applications filed in

16

Table of Contents

Australia, Canada, Europe, India and Japan, directed to the stimulation of natural killer cells and related CNDO-109 compositions and methods including methods for the treatment of cancer and other conditions. This patent family has been in-licensed on an exclusive basis from UCLB. This CNDO-109 patent has an expiration date of January 2029 in the absence of any patent term extension.

By way of an amendment to the license agreement with UCLB, we also have exclusive rights to International Application No. PCT/GB2010/051135 and all pending United States and foreign counterpart applications including pending United States Patent Application Serial No. 12/833,694 and the corresponding national phase applications filed in Europe, Brazil, China, Israel, Singapore and South Africa, directed to the preservation of activated natural killer cells and related compositions and methods. The CNDO-109 patents that may issue from the former patent family would expire in July 2030 in the absence of any patent term extension. The amendment includes rights to certain additional confidential technologies as well.

Competition

We operate in highly competitive segments of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical markets. We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than us. Large pharmaceutical companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in cancer research, some in direct competition with us. We also may compete with these organizations to recruit scientists and clinical development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

We expect TSO, if approved for the treatment of Crohn’s, to compete directly with Janssen Biotech Inc.’s (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) Remicade (infliximab), UCB S.A.’s Cimzia (certolizumab pegol) and Abbott Laboratories’ Humira (adalimumab), each of which is currently approved for the treatment of various diseases, including IBD, UC and Crohn’s, and several other products. TSO, if developed and approved for the treatment of MS, would compete with Biogen Idec’s Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals’ Betaseron (interferon beta-1b), Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.’s Copaxone (Glatiramer Acetate) and Novartis AG’s Gilenya (fingolimod) and several other products. New developments, including the development of other pharmaceutical technologies and methods of treating disease, occur in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries at a rapid pace.

Each cancer indication for which we may develop products has a number of established therapies with which our candidates will compete. Most major pharmaceutical companies and many biotechnology companies are aggressively pursuing new cancer development programs, including both therapies with traditional, as well as novel, mechanisms of action. Some of the anticipated competitor treatments for AML include Genzyme Corporation’s Clolar (clofarabine), currently approved as a treatment for ALL, Eisai Corporation’s Dacogen (decitabine), currently approved as a treatment for Myelodysplastic Syndromes, or MDS, Celgene Corporation’s Vidaza (azacitidine), currently approved as a treatment for MDS, and Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Onrigin (laromustine) currently being developed as a treatment for AML, any or all of which could change the treatment paradigm of acute leukemia. Each of these compounds is further along in clinical development than is the CDNO–109 activated NK cell product.

Manufacturing

As of March 2013, we do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of TSO or CNDO-109. We do not plan to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future for CNDO-109. We currently have a five-year property lease in Woburn, MA for space in which we intend to establish a TSO

17

Table of Contents

manufacturing facility. Build out and site preparation of the manufacturing facility are planned to commence in the first half of 2013 and continue to enable production of Phase 3 supplies of TSO. Ovamed agreed to assist us in establishing this facility and the Second Amendment contemplates that we and Ovamed would act as second source suppliers to each other at agreed transfer prices pursuant to a Second Source Agreement to be negotiated between the parties.

We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredient and finished products for our preclinical and clinical trials. Pursuant to the Ovamed Supply Agreement, we are required to purchase from Ovamed and Ovamed has agreed to manufacture and supply us with Phase 2 clinical requirements of TSO at pre-determined prices. We may purchase at least a portion of our Phase 3 supplies of TSO from Ovamed. PCT provides us with clinical services and supplies for CNDO-109. We do not have a contractual arrangement for the manufacture of commercial supplies of CNDO-109.

We, Ovamed and our third party suppliers are required to comply with applicable FDA manufacturing requirements contained in the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice standards, or cGMP, regulations. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. Pharmaceutical product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceutical products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved New Drug Application “NDA”/Biological License Application “BLA”, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing.

United States Pharmaceutical Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical (drug and biologic) products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and implementing regulations. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States generally includes the following:

18

Table of Contents

The lengthy process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial resources and approvals are inherently uncertain.

Products for somatic cell therapy are derived from a variety of biologic sources, including directly harvested autologous, allogeneic, or cultured cell lines. Product safety requires that these sources be well characterized, uniform, and not contaminated with hazardous adventitious agents. Also, cells directly from humans pose additional product safety issues. Because of the complex nature of these products a controlled, reproducible manufacturing process and facility are required and relied on to produce a uniform product. The degree of reliance on a controlled process varies depending on the nature of the product. Because complete chemical characterization of a biologic product is not feasible for quality control, the testing of the biologic potency receives particular attention and is costly.

Before testing any compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the pharmaceutical product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory practices. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the IND on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a pharmaceutical product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the pharmaceutical product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by the sponsor. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA if conducted under a US IND. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practices requirements. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an Investigator Review Board, or IRB or ethics committee if conducted outside of the US, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB or ethics committee is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB or ethics committee also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. We

19

Table of Contents

intend to use third party clinical research organizations to administer and conduct our planned clinical trials and will rely upon such CROs, as well as medical institutions, clinical investigators and consultants, to conduct our trials in accordance with our clinical protocols and to play a significant role in the subsequent collection and analysis of data from these trials. The failure by any of such third parties to meet expected timelines, adhere to our protocols or meet regulatory standards could adversely impact the subject product development program.

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

Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and may be requested by the FDA as a condition of approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or, if used, its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB or ethics committee can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s or ethics committee’s requirements or if the pharmaceutical product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the pharmaceutical product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the pharmaceutical product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final pharmaceutical product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the pharmaceutical product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

United States Review and Approval Processes

The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the pharmaceutical product, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA/BLA requesting approval to market the product.

20

Table of Contents

The NDA/BLA review and approval process is lengthy and difficult and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA/BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical data or other data and information. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA/BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. We cannot be certain that we or our suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP and other FDA regulatory requirements.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any pharmaceutical products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, promoting pharmaceutical products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the pharmaceutical product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Failure to comply with FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, enforcement letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, risk minimization action plans and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, special incentives exist for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases or conditions, which are defined to include those diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Requests for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the submission of an NDA or BLA. We intend to request orphan drug designation for CNDO-109 for the treatment of AML. In June 2012, we were notified by the FDA that CNDO-109 was granted orphan drug designation and in September 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the first U.S. patent covering CNDO-109. If CNDO-109 is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay UCLB annual royalties based upon the net sales of product or if we sublicense CNDO-109, a portion of sub-licensing revenue we receive, if any.

If a product that has an orphan drug designation is the first such product to receive FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity for that use. This means that, subsequent to approval, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, for seven years. FDA may approve a subsequent application from another person if the FDA determines that the application is for a different drug or different use, or if the FDA determines that the subsequent product is clinically superior, or that the holder of the initial orphan drug approval cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the public’s need. If the FDA approves someone else’s application for the same drug that has orphan exclusivity, but for a different use, the competing drug could be prescribed by physicians outside its FDA approval for the orphan use, notwithstanding the existence of orphan exclusivity. A grant of an orphan designation is not a guarantee that a product will be approved. If a sponsor receives orphan drug exclusivity upon approval, there can be no assurance that the exclusivity will prevent another person from receiving approval for the same or a similar drug for the same or other uses.

21

Table of Contents

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs and BLAs or supplements to NDAs and BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the treatment is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides BLA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity—patent or non-patent—for a product if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within a specific time frame.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), other divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the United States Department of Justice and individual United States Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, and state and local governments.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third party reimbursement may not be available for our products to enable us realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state health care legislation and regulations, including regulations that will be issued to implement provisions of the health care reform legislation enacted in 2010, known as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act and further changes in the law or regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our business.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of any product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Employees

As of December 31, 2012, we had 16 full time employees.

Available Information

Our website address is www.coronadobiosciences.com. We make available, free of charge through our website, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as soon as is reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC, but other information on our website is not incorporated into this report. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains these reports at www.sec.gov.

22

Table of Contents

Our business operations face a number of risks. These risks should be read and considered with other information provided in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to our Business and Industry

We are a development stage company and have a limited operating history upon which to base an investment decision.

We are a clinical development stage biopharmaceutical company. We have engaged primarily in research and development activities since inception, have not generated any revenues from product sales and have incurred significant net losses since our inception. As of December 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $84.2 million. We have not demonstrated our ability to perform the functions necessary for the successful commercialization of any of our products. The successful commercialization of any of our products will require us to perform a variety of functions, including:

Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring, developing and securing the proprietary rights for, and undertaking pre-clinical development and clinical trials of our product candidates. These operations provide a limited basis for our stockholders and prospective investors to assess our ability to commercialize TSO, CNDO-109 or any other future products and the advisability of investing in our securities.

Our product candidates are at an early stage of development and may not be successfully developed or commercialized.

Our two product candidates, TSO and CNDO-109, are in the early stage of development and will require substantial further capital expenditures, development, testing, and regulatory clearances prior to commercialization. The development and regulatory approval process takes several years and it is not likely that either TSO or CNDO-109, even if successfully developed and approved by the FDA, would be commercially available for five or more years. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully completes the FDA regulatory approval process and is commercialized. Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to fund our development programs, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized. Our failure to develop, manufacture or receive regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates could result in the failure of our business and a loss of all of your investment in our company.

Because we in-licensed our product candidates from third parties, any dispute with our licensors or non-performance by us or by our licensors may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidates.

All of our product candidates, including related intellectual property rights, were in-licensed from third parties. Under the terms of our license agreements, the licensors generally have the right to terminate such agreements in the event of a material breach by us. Our licenses require us to make annual, milestone or other payments prior to commercialization of any product and our ability to make these payments depends on our ability to generate cash in the future. These agreements generally require us to use diligent and reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the product candidate. In the case of TSO, Ovamed licenses TSO from a third party, University of Iowa Research Foundation, or UIRF, in exchange for annual and milestone payments, patent cost reimbursement,

23

Table of Contents

royalties based on sales and diligence obligations. Our rights to TSO are, therefore, also subject to Ovamed’s performance of its obligations to UIRF, any breach of which we may be required to remedy in order to preserve our rights.

If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of non-performance between us and our licensing partner regarding our rights or obligations under the license agreement, including any conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to satisfy payment obligations under such agreement, our ability to develop and commercialize the affected product candidate may be adversely affected. Similarly, any such dispute or issue of non-performance between Ovamed and UIRF that we are unable to cure could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize TSO. Any loss of our rights under our license agreements could delay or completely terminate our product development efforts for the affected product candidate.

Because the results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials, if any, or receive regulatory approval.

Pharmaceutical development has inherent risk. We will be required to demonstrate through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are effective with a favorable benefit-risk profile for use in their target indications before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early clinical trials does not mean that later clinical trials will be successful as product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety or efficacy despite having progressed through initial clinical testing. We also may need to conduct additional clinical trials that are not currently anticipated. Companies frequently suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after earlier clinical trials have shown promising results. In addition, only a small percentage of drugs under development result in the submission of a New Drug Application, an NDA, or Biologics License Application, or BLA, to the FDA and even fewer are approved for commercialization.

Any product candidates we advance into clinical development are subject to extensive regulation, which can be costly and time consuming, cause unanticipated delays or prevent the receipt of the required approvals to commercialize our product candidates.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of our product candidates, TSO and CNDO-109, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States and by comparable health authorities in foreign markets. In the United States, we are not permitted to market our product candidates until we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA. The process of obtaining BLA approval is expensive, often takes many years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the products involved. Our development of CNDO-109, which is an individualized immunotherapy, may in particular be affected because to date the FDA has only approved one individualized immunotherapy treatment. In addition to the significant clinical testing requirements, our ability to obtain marketing approval for these products depends on obtaining the final results of required non-clinical testing, including characterization of the manufactured components of our product candidates and validation of our manufacturing processes. The FDA may determine that our product manufacturing processes, testing procedures or facilities are insufficient to justify approval. Approval policies or regulations may change and the FDA has substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval is never guaranteed.

The FDA or and other regulatory agency can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including, but not limited to:

24

Table of Contents

With respect to foreign markets, approval procedures vary among countries and, in addition to the aforementioned risks, can involve additional product testing, administrative review periods and agreements with pricing authorities. In addition, recent events raising questions about the safety of certain marketed pharmaceuticals may result in increased cautiousness by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in reviewing new pharmaceuticals based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

Any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may cause unacceptable adverse events or have other properties that may delay or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization or limit their commercial potential.

Unacceptable adverse events caused by any of our product candidates that we advance into clinical trials could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications and markets. This, in turn, could prevent us from commercializing the affected product candidate and generating revenues from its sale. For example, in Phase 1/2 oncology trials, dose limiting toxicity, or DLT, stopping rules are commonly applied. Our CNDO-109 Phase 1/2 trial is subject to a set of DLTs that could suspend or stop dose escalation by predetermined criteria, including allergic reactions, prolonged aplasia or other organ toxicities of a serious nature.

We have not yet completed testing of any of our product candidates for the treatment of the indications for which we intend to seek product approval in humans, and we currently do not know the extent of adverse events, if any, that will be observed in patients who receive any of our product candidates. If any of our product candidates cause unacceptable adverse events in clinical trials, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize such product or, if such product candidate is approved for marketing, future adverse events could cause us to withdraw such product from the market.

Delays in the commencement of our clinical trials could result in increased costs and delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval.

The commencement of clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in:

25

Table of Contents

Suspensions or delays in the completion of clinical testing could result in increased costs to us and delay or prevent our ability to complete development of that product or generate product revenues.

Once a clinical trial has begun, patient recruitment and enrollment may be slower than we anticipate. Clinical trials may also be delayed as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results or difficulties in obtaining sufficient quantities of product manufactured in accordance with regulatory requirements and on a timely basis. Further, a clinical trial may be modified, suspended or terminated by us, an IRB, an ethics committee or a data safety monitoring committee overseeing the clinical trial, any clinical trial site with respect to that site, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including:

Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance also may occur and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing and the likelihood of a successful completion of a clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or if we must suspend or terminate, any clinical trial of any product candidate, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for that product candidate will be delayed and the commercial prospects, if any, for the product candidate may suffer as a result. In addition, many of these factors may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

Even if approved, TSO, CNDO-109 or any other product candidates that we may develop and market may be later withdrawn from the market or subject to promotional limitations.

We may not be able to obtain the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the promotion of our product candidates if approved. We may also be required to undertake post-marketing clinical trials. If the results of such post-marketing studies are not satisfactory or if adverse events or other safety issues arise after approval, the FDA or a comparable regulatory agency in another country may withdraw marketing authorization or may condition continued marketing on commitments from us that may be expensive and/or time consuming to complete. In addition, if we or others identify adverse side effects after any of our products are on the market, or if manufacturing problems occur, regulatory approval may be withdrawn and reformulation of our products, additional clinical trials, changes in labeling of our products and additional marketing applications may be required. Any reformulation or labeling changes may limit the marketability of our products if approved.

26

Table of Contents

We currently rely completely on Ovamed, and other third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical pharmaceutical supplies of TSO. We plan to establish a U.S. manufacturing facility to manufacture Phase 3 clinical supplies and commercial supplies of TSO. Our dependence on third party suppliers or our inability to successfully produce TSO could adversely impact our business.

We currently rely exclusively on Ovamed to supply us with our requirements of TSO, which it is currently producing at only one facility in Germany and where it also is producing product for third parties, including Falk. If Ovamed becomes unable or unwilling to deliver sufficient quantities of TSO to us on a timely basis and in accordance with applicable specifications and other regulatory requirements, there would be a significant interruption of our TSO supply, which would materially adversely affect clinical development and potential commercialization of the product. In the event that the FDA or such other agencies determine that we, Ovamed or our third-party suppliers have not complied with cGMP, our clinical trials could be terminated or subjected to a clinical hold until such time as we are able to obtain appropriate replacement material. Furthermore, if Ovamed, we or any other contract manufacturer who supply Ovamed or us cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and with FDA regulatory requirements, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain FDA approval for TSO. We, Ovamed and our third-party suppliers are and will be required to maintain compliance with cGMPs and will be subject to inspections by the FDA or comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. Any delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, packaging, or storage of our products as a result of a failure of our or Ovamed’s facilities or operations or of our third party suppliers to pass any regulatory agency inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our products.

We do and will also rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our anticipated clinical trials. There are a small number of suppliers for certain capital equipment and raw materials that are used to manufacture TSO. We will and Ovamed does rely on a single source of ova. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate or the raw material components thereof for an ongoing clinical trial could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We or Ovamed may not have the resources or capacity to commercially manufacture TSO, if approved, and will likely continue to be dependent upon third party manufacturers. Our inability or our dependence on third parties to manufacture and supply us with clinical trial materials and any approved products may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize TSO on a timely basis or at all.

We currently rely completely on Progenitor Cell Therapy, or PCT, and other third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical pharmaceutical supplies of CNDO-109 and expect to continue to rely on these third parties to produce commercial supplies of CNDO-109, and our dependence on third party suppliers could adversely impact our business.

We are completely dependent on third party manufacturers for product supply of CNDO-109. We rely on BioReliance Corporation, or BioReliance, and PCT for our CNDO-109 requirements and our CNDO-109 clinical program would be adversely affected by a significant interruption in the supply of this product. Furthermore, BioReliance and/or PCT or any other contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and with FDA regulatory requirements, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain FDA approval for CNDO-109. Our third-party suppliers will be required to maintain compliance with cGMPs and will be subject to inspections by the FDA or comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. In the event that the FDA or such other agencies determine that our third-party suppliers have not complied with cGMP, our clinical trials could be terminated or subjected to a clinical hold until such time as we are able to obtain appropriate replacement material. Any delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, packaging, or storage of our products as a result of a failure of the facilities or operations of our third party suppliers to pass any regulatory agency inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our products.

27

Table of Contents

We will also rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our anticipated clinical trials. There are a small number of suppliers for certain capital equipment and raw materials that are used to manufacture CNDO-109 We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Any significant delay in the supply of CNDO-109 or the raw material components thereof for an ongoing clinical trial could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of CNDO-109.

We do not expect to have the resources or capacity to commercially manufacture CNDO-109, if approved, and will likely continue to be dependent upon third party manufacturers. Our dependence on third parties to manufacture and supply us with clinical trial materials and any approved products may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize NDO-109 on a timely basis or at all.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not meet our deadlines or otherwise conduct the trials as required, our clinical development programs could be delayed or unsuccessful and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates when expected or at all.

We do not have the ability to conduct all aspects of our preclinical testing or clinical trials ourselves. We intend and do use CROs to conduct our planned clinical trials and will and do rely upon such CROs, as well as medical institutions, clinical investigators and consultants, to conduct our trials in accordance with our clinical protocols. Our CROs, investigators and other third parties will and do play a significant role in the conduct of these trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data from the clinical trials.

There is no guarantee that any CROs, investigators and other third parties upon which we rely for administration and conduct of our clinical trials will devote adequate time and resources to such trials or perform as contractually required. If any of these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, fail to adhere to our clinical protocols or otherwise perform in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated. If any of our clinical trial sites terminate for any reason, we may experience the loss of follow-up information on patients enrolled in our ongoing clinical trials unless we are able to transfer the care of those patients to another qualified clinical trial site. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be jeopardized.

If our competitors develop treatments for the target indications of our product candidates that are approved more quickly, marketed more successfully or demonstrated to be more effective than our product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated.

We operate in highly competitive segments of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical markets. We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Our product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, will compete with established therapies, as well as new treatments that may be introduced by our competitors. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than us. Large pharmaceutical companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in cancer research, some in direct competition with us. We also may compete with these organizations to recruit management, scientists and clinical development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. New developments, including the development of other biological and pharmaceutical technologies and methods of treating disease, occur in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries at a rapid pace. Developments by competitors may render our product candidates obsolete or

28

Table of Contents

noncompetitive. We will also face competition from these third parties in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials and in identifying and in-licensing new product candidates.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or fail to enter into agreements with third parties to market, distribute and sell any products we may successfully develop, we may not be able to effectively market and sell any such products and generate product revenue.

We do not currently have the infrastructure for the sales, marketing and distribution of any of our product candidates, and must build this infrastructure or make arrangements with third parties to perform these functions in order to commercialize any products that we may successfully develop. The establishment and development of a sales force, either by us or jointly with a partner, or the establishment of a contract sales force to market any products we may develop will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If we, or our partners, are unable to establish sales and marketing capability or any other non-technical capabilities necessary to commercialize any products we may successfully develop, we will need to contract with third parties to market and sell such products. We may not be able to establish arrangements with third- parties on acceptable terms, or at all.

If any product candidate that we successfully develop does not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community, the revenues that it generates from their sales will be limited.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. Coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates by third-party payors, including government payors, generally is also necessary for commercial success. The degree of market acceptance of any approved products will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products and may not become or remain profitable.

29

Table of Contents

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications for which there may be a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we have focused on two research programs and product candidates, TSO and CNDO-109, for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or, particularly with respect to TSO, for other indications for which there may be a greater likelihood of success or may prove to have greater commercial potential. Notwithstanding our investment to date and anticipated future expenditures on TSO and CNDO-109, we have not yet developed, and may never successfully develop, any marketed treatments using these products. Research programs to identify new product candidates or pursue alternative indications for current product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. Although we intend to and do support certain investigator-sponsored clinical trials of TSO evaluating various indications, these activities may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates or indications, yet fail to yield product candidates or indications for further clinical development.

We may incur substantial product liability or indemnification claims relating to the clinical testing of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, and claims could be brought against us if use or misuse of one of our product candidates causes, or merely appears to have caused, personal injury or death. While we have and intend to maintain product liability insurance relating to our clinical trials, our coverage may not be sufficient to cover claims that may be made against us and we may be unable to maintain such insurance. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could severely harm our financial condition, strain our management and other resources or destroy the prospects for commercialization of the product which is the subject of any such claim. We are unable to predict if we will be able to obtain or maintain product liability insurance for any products that may be approved for marketing. Additionally, we have entered into various agreements where we indemnify third parties for certain claims relating to our product candidates. These indemnification obligations may require us to pay significant sums of money for claims that are covered by these indemnifications.

Healthcare reform and restrictions on reimbursements may limit our financial returns.

Our ability or the ability of our collaborators to commercialize any of our product candidates that we successfully develop may depend, in part, on the extent to which government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will reimburse consumers for the cost of these products. These third parties are increasingly challenging both the need for and the price of new drug products. Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available for our product candidates to enable us or our collaborators to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on their and our investments in research and product development.

If we fail to attract and retain key management and clinical development personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates.

We will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial and other resources in order to successfully pursue our clinical development and commercialization efforts. As a company with a limited number of personnel, we are highly dependent on the development, regulatory, commercial and financial expertise of the members of our senior management, in particular Harlan F. Weisman, M.D., our chairman and chief executive officer. The loss of this individual or the services of any of our other senior management could delay or prevent the further development and potential commercialization of our product candidates and, if we are not successful in finding suitable replacements, could harm our business. Our success also depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel and we may not be able to do so in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among

30

Table of Contents

biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, as well as universities and research organizations. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel, we may experience significant impediments to our ability to implement our business strategy.

We use biological materials and may use hazardous materials, and any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming or costly.

We may use hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological agents and compounds that could be dangerous to human health and safety or the environment. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and wastes. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our product development efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage and our property and casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended.

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

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Our success will depend upon intellectual property, proprietary technologies and regulatory market exclusivity periods, and the intellectual property protection for our product candidates depends significantly on third parties.

Our success will depend, in large part, on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates and their formulations and uses, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. UIRF, Falk and Ovamed are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining patent protection relating to their respective patents relating to TSO and UCLB is responsible for prosecuting and maintaining patent protection for CNDO-109, in each case at our expense for our territories. If UIRF, Falk, Ovamed and/or UCLB fail to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for these product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize these product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. This failure to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to these product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or our partners will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

31

Table of Contents

In addition to patents, we and our partners also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, third parties may still obtain this information or come upon this same or similar information independently.

We also intend to rely on our ability to obtain and maintain a regulatory period of market exclusivity for any of our biologic product candidates that are successfully developed and approved for commercialization. Although this period in the United States is currently 12 years from the date of marketing approval, there is a risk that the U.S. Congress could amend laws to significantly shorten this exclusivity period, as proposed by President Obama. Once any regulatory period of exclusivity expires, depending on the status of our patent coverage and the nature of the product, we may not be able to prevent others from marketing products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with our products, which would materially adversely affect us.

In addition, United States patent laws may change which could prevent or limit us from filing patent applications or patent claims to protect our products and/or technologies or limit the exclusivity periods that are available to patent holders. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law, and includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include changes to transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system and to the way issued patents are challenged. These changes may favor larger and more established companies that have more resources to devote to patent application filing and prosecution. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently developing regulations and procedures to administer the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act will not become effective until one year or 18 months after its enactment. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will ultimately have on the cost of prosecuting our patent applications, our ability to obtain patents based on our discoveries and our ability to enforce or defend our issued patents.

If we or our partners are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our success also depends on our ability and the ability of any of our future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing products, some of which may be directed at claims that overlap with the subject matter of our intellectual property. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or proprietary technologies may infringe. Similarly, there may be issued patents relevant to our product candidates of which we are not aware.

32

Table of Contents

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims that we or any of our licensors, suppliers or collaborators infringe the third party’s intellectual property rights, we may have to:

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, found to be unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

We may be subject to claims that our consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their other clients or former employers to us.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these consultants were previously employed at, or may have previously been or are currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may become subject to claims that we or these consultants have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers or their former or current customers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Risks Relating to our Finances, Capital Requirements and Other Financial Matters

We are a development stage company with a history of operating losses that are expected to continue and we are unable to predict the extent of future losses, whether we will generate significant or any revenues or whether we will achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a development stage company and our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. We have generated operating losses in all periods since our inception in September 2006, including losses of approximately $10.0 million, $36.4 million and $27.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. At December 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $84.2 million. We expect to make substantial expenditures and incur increasing operating costs and interest expense in the future and our accumulated deficit will increase significantly as we expand development and clinical trial activities for our product candidates. Our losses have had, and are expected to continue to have, an adverse impact on our working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity. Because of the risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses, whether we will ever generate significant or any revenues or if we will ever achieve or sustain profitability.

33

Table of Contents

Our existing $15.0 million term loan agreement contains affirmative and negative covenants that impose significant restrictions on our business and financing activities. If we default on our obligations, whether due to events beyond our control or otherwise, the lender would have a right to foreclose on substantially all of our assets, other than our intellectual property. A default could materially and adversely affect our operating results and our financial condition. The loan agreement also contains several affirmative and negative covenants that impose significant restrictions on our business and operations. . Our failure to comply with the covenants contained in the loan agreement may result in the declaration of an event of default that, if not cured or waived, could cause all amounts outstanding under the loan agreement to become due and payable immediately and could cause the lender to foreclose on the collateral securing the indebtedness, including our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. If an event of default occurs, we may not be able to cure it within any applicable cure period, if at all. If the maturity of our indebtedness is accelerated, we may not have sufficient funds available for repayment or we may not have the ability to borrow or obtain sufficient funds to replace the accelerated indebtedness on terms acceptable to us, or at all. In addition, the loan agreement may limit our ability to finance future operations or satisfy capital needs or to engage in, expand or pursue our business activities. It may also prevent us from engaging in activities that could be beneficial to our business and our stockholders unless we repay the outstanding debt, which may not be desirable or possible.

We will need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more of our research and development programs or commercialization efforts.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 we incurred research and development expenses of approximately $8.3 million, $8.6 million and $17.5 million, respectively. Since our inception in 2006, we incurred research and development expenses of approximately $42.0 million. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts on product development, including conducting clinical trials for our product candidates, establishing manufacturing capabilities for TSO in the United States, and purchasing clinical trial materials from our suppliers. We believe that our current cash will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements through the first quarter of 2014 and that we will require substantial additional funds to support our continued research and development activities, including costs of preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and potential commercialization and for the payment of principal and interest under our existing loan agreement. We have based this estimation on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could spend our available financial resources much faster than we currently expect.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue and achieve profitability, we expect to seek to finance future cash needs through equity or debt financings or corporate collaboration or licensing arrangements. We currently have no agreements to obtain any additional financing and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital, we will have to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more of our research and development programs.

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

To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, the share ownership of existing stockholders will be diluted. Any future debt financing may involve covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, redeem our stock, make certain investments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset sale transactions, among other restrictions. In addition, if we raise additional funds through licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potentially valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

34

Table of Contents

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting in the future, our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements could be impaired, which could harm our operating results, investors’ views of us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and related rules, or SOX, our management is be required to report on, and our independent registered public accounting firm is required to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. To comply with the requirements of being a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, we may need to further upgrade our systems, including information technology, implement additional financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures and hire additional accounting and finance staff. If material weaknesses or deficiencies in our internal controls exist and go undetected, our financial statements could contain material misstatements that, when discovered in the future could cause us to fail to meet our future reporting obligations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Risks Associated with our Capital Stock

One of our directors and principal stockholders can individually control our direction and policies, and his interests may be adverse to the interests of our other stockholders.

At December 31, 2012, Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D., a member of our board of directors, beneficially owned approximately 14.72% of our issued and outstanding capital stock. By virtue of his holdings and his membership on our board of directors, Dr. Rosenwald may influence the election of the members of our board of directors, our management and our affairs and may make it difficult for us to consummate corporate transactions such as mergers, consolidations or the sale of all or substantially all of our assets that may be favorable from our standpoint or that of our other stockholders. In addition, Dr. Rosenwald is an affiliate of National Securities Corporation, or National, which acted as an underwriter of our June 2012 public offering of common stock. National received related commissions of $187,000 in connection with the offering. Dr. Rosenwald purchased at the public offering price 200,000 shares of common stock in the offering.

In connection with our Series C Financing in 2011, National received commissions of $2.6 million and five-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 461,263 Series C shares at an exercise price of $5.59, which were subsequently transferred by National to other individuals and entities and are now exercisable to purchase 458,276 shares of common stock.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile and may fluctuate in a way that is disproportionate to our operating performance.

Our stock price may experience substantial volatility as a result of a number of factors, including:

35

Table of Contents

Many of these factors are beyond our control. The stock markets in general, and the market for pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies in particular, have historically experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. These broad market and industry factors could reduce the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales may occur, may adversely impact the price of our common stock.

Almost all of our 24.4 million outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2012, as well as a substantial number of shares of our common stock underlying outstanding warrants, are available for sale in the public market, either pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, or an effective registration statement. In addition, we recently filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 in September 2012, pursuant to which we may sell up to $75 million of our equity securities over the next three years. Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales may occur, may adversely impact the price of our common stock. We sold 3,361 shares of our common stock resulting in net proceeds to us of $19,000 in 2012 and in the first quarter of 2013, through March 11, 2013 we sold 1,426,250 shares of our common stock resulting in net proceeds to us of $10.5 million pursuant to this Form S-3.

We have never paid and do not intend to pay cash dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of gain.

We have never paid cash dividends on any of our capital stock and we currently intend to retain future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. In addition, the terms of existing and future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and Delaware law might discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management and, therefore, depress the trading price of our common stock.

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and Delaware law may have the effect of deterring unsolicited takeovers or delaying or preventing a change in control of our company or changes in our management, including transactions in which our stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares over then current market prices. In addition, these provisions may limit the ability of stockholders to approve transactions that they may deem to be in their best interests. These provisions include:

In addition, of the Delaware General Corporation Law prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person which together with its affiliates owns, or within the last three years, has owned 15% of our voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

The existence of the forgoing provisions and anti-takeover measures could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. They could also deter potential acquirers of our company, thereby reducing the likelihood that you could receive a premium for your common stock in an acquisition.

36

Table of Contents

On January 2, 2013, the President signed into law The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. Under prior law, a taxpayer was entitled to a research credit for qualifying amounts paid or incurred on or before December 31, 2011. The Taxpayer Relief Act extends the research credit for two years to December 31, 2013. The extension of the research credit is retroactive and includes amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2011. As a result of the retroactive extension, a benefit for qualifying amounts incurred in 2012 will be recognized in the period of enactment, which is the first quarter of 2013.

None.

Our principal executive offices at 24 New England Executive Park, Suite 105, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 are occupied under a lease expiring in October 2017 for approximately 3,200 square feet of space providing for rental payments of approximately $94,000 per year. Total rent expense for the term of this lease will approximate $470,000. The Company took occupancy of this space in October 2012.

On December 2012, the Company assumed a lease from TSO Laboratories, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Ovamed for approximately 8,700 square feet of space in Woburn MA for the purpose of establishing a manufacturing facility. Total rent expense for the lease term will approximate $590,000. Annual rental payments will approximate $118,000 and the Company expects to occupy the space in the second half of 2013.

We are not involved in any litigation that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before or by any court, public board, government agency, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of our executive officers, threatened against or affecting our company or our officers or directors in their capacities as such.

Not applicable.

37

Table of Contents

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock is listed for trading on The NASDAQ Capital Market, or NASDAQ, under the symbol “CNDO.” From November 17, 2011 to December 16, 2011, our common stock was traded in the over-the-counter market and quoted through the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board, or OTCBB, under the same symbol. The following table sets forth the high and low bid prices for our common stock from November 17, 2011, the date trading of our common stock commenced, to December 16, 2011 as reported by the OTCBB, and the high and low sale prices for our common stock from December 19, 2011 through December 31, 2012, as reported by NASDAQ. The OTCBB quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commissions, and may not represent actual transactions.

Holders of Record

As of March 10, 2013, there were 679 holders of record of our common stock.

Repurchases

None.

Dividends

We have never paid cash dividends and currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business.

38

Table of Contents

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

See “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” for a discussion of our equity compensation plans.

Coronado Biosciences, Inc. Stock Price Index Chart As of December 31, 2012
		(1)

Notes:

39

Table of Contents

40

Table of Contents

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Overview

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel immunotherapy biologic agents for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and cancer. Our two principal pharmaceutical product candidates in clinical development are:

We acquired exclusive rights to TSO in January 2011 from Asphelia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Asphelia, for an aggregate purchase price of $20.7 million, consisting of 2,525,677 shares of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, or Series B Shares, valued at $6.38 per share, the assumption of a promissory note due to PCP in the aggregate principal amount of $750,000, which was prepaid in September 2012 and the assumption of Asphelia’s obligation to reimburse Ovamed for certain development costs. Of this purchase price, $3.8 million has been paid in cash, including $3.4 million to Ovamed and $0.4 million for repayment of Asphelia’s debt, including $61,000 to a related party. Under the terms of a sublicense agreement with Ovamed that we acquired from Asphelia, we are required to make annual license payments to Ovamed of $250,000, reimburse patent expenses, make payments totaling up to $5.4 million, of which $3.0 million was paid, contingent upon the achievement of various milestones related to regulatory events for the first product to be approved for marketing, and make additional milestone payments, contingent upon the achievement of regulatory events related to subsequent indications for TSO. In the event that TSO is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay annual royalties based upon net sales of the product. If we sublicense TSO, we must pay Ovamed a portion of sublicense revenues we receive, if any. We have been required to purchase our clinical requirements of TSO from Ovamed at pre-determined prices.

In December 2012, we and Ovamed entered into the Second Amendment amending certain provisions of our Exclusive Sublicense Agreement and our Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, between us and Ovamed, and providing for certain additional agreements between the parties. Pursuant to the Second Amendment, our exclusive license from Ovamed in the North America, South America and Japan known as the “Coronado Territory” was amended to include an exclusive license to make and have made product containing TSO in the Coronado Territory and Ovamed’s exclusive supply rights in the Coronado Territory will terminate once we establish an operational manufacturing facility in the United States. The Ovamed License, as amended, terminates 15 years from the first commercial sale of TSO in the United States, subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances.

In exchange, we agreed to pay Ovamed a total of $1,500,000 in three equal installments of $500,000 in each of December 2014, 2015, and 2016. Additionally, in lieu of product supply payments that would have been payable to Ovamed as the exclusive supplier, we will pay Ovamed a manufacturing fee for product manufactured and sold by us. The manufacturing fee will be the greater of (i) a royalty on net sales of product we manufacture or (ii) a specified amount per unit, the Transfer Fee Component. The manufacturing fee is subject to certain adjustments and credits and we have a right to reduce the Transfer Fee Component by paying Ovamed an agreed amount within 10 business days following FDA approval of a Biologics License Application authorizing the manufacturing, marketing and commercial sale of product containing TSO in the United States and an additional amount within ninety days after the end of the first calendar year in which net sales in the Coronado Territory exceed an agreed amount.

41

Table of Contents

Simultaneously with the execution of the Second Amendment, Ovamed assigned to us a five-year property lease for space in Woburn, Massachusetts, where we intend to establish a TSO manufacturing facility. Build out of the manufacturing facility are planned to commence in 2013 and continue throughout the year to enable production of supplies of TSO, for use in Phase 3 clinical trials. Ovamed agreed to assist us in establishing this facility and the Second Amendment contemplates that we and Ovamed may act as second source suppliers to each other at agreed transfer prices pursuant to a Second Source Agreement to be negotiated between the parties.

In March 2012, we signed a Collaboration Agreement with Falk and Ovamed for the development of TSO for treatment of Crohn’s disease. Under the Collaboration Agreement, Falk granted us exclusive rights and licenses under certain Falk patent rights, pre-clinical data and clinical data from Falk’s clinical trials of TSO as a treatment for Crohn’s disease, including Falk’s ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial, for use in the Coronado Territory. We granted Falk exclusive rights and licenses to data from our clinical trials of TSO in Crohn’s disease for use in Europe. Under the agreement, we agreed to pay Falk (i) a total of €5 million (approximately $6.5 million) after receipt of certain pre-clinical and clinical data, of which €2.5 million (approximately $3.4 million) was paid in 2012 and the remaining €2.5 million is expected to be paid in the first half of 2014, and (ii) a royalty of 1% of net sales of TSO in North America, South America and Japan. A steering committee comprised of our representatives and representatives of Falk and Ovamed is overseeing the clinical development program of TSO as a treatment for Crohn’s disease, under which we and Falk will each be responsible for clinical testing on approximately 50% of the total number of patients required for regulatory approval of TSO for treatment of Crohn’s disease in the United States and Europe and will share in certain pre-clinical development costs.

We acquired an exclusive worldwide license to CNDO-109 in November 2007 from University College of London Business PLC, or UCLB. In consideration for the license, we paid UCLB initial license fees totaling $0.1 million and are required to make milestone payments totaling up to $22 million upon the achievement of various milestones related to regulatory events for the first three indications. In March 2012, we recognized our $250,000 milestone obligation to UCLB related to our IND filed in February 2012 and in April 2012 we paid UCLB for this milestone. In June 2012, we were notified by the FDA that CNDO-109 was granted orphan drug designation and in September 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the first U.S. patent covering CNDO-109. If CNDO-109 is commercialized, we will be obligated to pay to UCLB annual royalties based upon net sales of the product or if we sublicense CNDO-109, a portion of sublicensing revenues we receive, if any.

In June 2012, we completed an underwritten public offering of 5,750,000 shares of our common stock, including 750,000 shares subject to an over-allotment option exercised by the underwriters, at a price of $5.00 per share for proceeds, net of underwriting commissions and other offering expenses, of approximately $26.4 million. In August 2012, we received net proceeds of $14.7 million from a $15 million term loan with Hercules.

In September 2012, the Company filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 pursuant to which the Company may sell up to $75.0 million of common stock over the next three years. In October 2012, the Company entered into an At Market Issuance Sales Agreement, or ATM with MLV & Co. LLC, or MLV, to issue and sell up to $30.0 million of common stock. Under the terms of the ATM we pay directly to MLV fees equal to 3% of the gross proceeds. Through December 31, 2012, the Company sold 3,361 shares of common stock for net proceeds of $19,000. From January 1, 2013 through March 11, 2013, the Company issued 1,426,250 shares of common stock pursuant to the ATM and received net proceeds of $10.5 million.

On December 28, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed current director Dr. Harlan F. Weisman, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. At that time, the Company’s Executive Chairman, Dr. Glenn L. Cooper, resigned his position as Executive Chairman and as a director of the Company. In addition, on December 28, 2012, Dr. Bobby W. Sandage, Jr.’s status as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company changed to President of the Company. Dr. Sandage remains a member of the Board of Directors. (See note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)

42

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued expenses and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K. We believe the following accounting policies to be most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

Research and Development Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued research and development expenses. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, reviewing the terms of our license agreements, communicating with our applicable personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of actual cost. The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our consolidated financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of our estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary. Examples of estimated accrued research and development expenses as of December 31, 2012 include fees to:

We base our expenses related to clinical studies on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contracts with multiple research institutions and CROs that conduct and manage clinical studies on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows and expense recognition. Payments under some of these contracts depend on factors such as the successful enrollment of patients and the completion of clinical trial milestones. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, we adjust the accrual accordingly. Our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in our reporting changes in estimates in any particular period. To date, our estimates have not materially differed from actual costs. Expenses related to annual license fees are accrued on a pro rata basis throughout the year.

Stock-Based Compensation

We expense stock-based compensation to employees over the requisite service period based on the estimated grant-date fair value of the awards and considering estimated pre-vesting forfeiture rates. For stock-based

43

Table of Contents

compensation awards to non-employees, we re-measure the fair value of the non-employee awards at each reporting period prior to vesting and finally at the vesting date of the award. Changes in the estimated fair value of these non-employee awards are recognized as compensation expense in the period of change.

Determining the appropriate fair value of stock-based awards requires the use of subjective assumptions. Prior to November 17, 2011 in the absence of a public trading market for our common stock, we conducted periodic assessments of the valuation of our common stock. These valuations were performed concurrently with the achievement of significant milestones or with a significant financing. We use a Black-Scholes option-pricing model to determine the fair value of stock options. The determination of the grant date fair value of options using an option-pricing model is affected by our estimated common stock fair value as well as assumptions regarding a number of other subjective variables. These variables include the fair value of our common stock, our expected stock price volatility over the expected term of the options, stock option exercise and cancellation behaviors, risk-free interest rates, and expected dividends, which are estimated as follows:

The estimation of the number of stock awards that will ultimately vest requires judgment, and to the extent actual results or updated estimates differ from our current estimates, such amounts will be recorded as a cumulative adjustment in the period in which estimates are revised. We consider many factors when estimating expected forfeitures, including types of awards, employee class and historical experience. Actual results, and future changes in estimates, may differ substantially from our current estimates.

For the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, stock-based compensation expense was $3.6 million, $1.5 million, and $2.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $4.5 million of total unrecognized compensation expense, related to unvested stock options and warrants granted to employees and non-employees, which we expect to recognize over a weighted-average period of approximately 1.4 years.

If any of the assumptions used in a Black-Scholes model changes significantly, stock-based compensation for future awards may differ materially compared with the awards granted previously.

44

Table of Contents

Common Stock Valuations Prior to Becoming a Publicly Traded Company

Prior to our becoming a publicly-traded company on November 17, 2011, the fair value of the common stock underlying our stock options, common stock warrants and restricted stock was determined by our board of directors, which intended all options granted to be exercisable at a price per share not less than the per share fair value of our common stock underlying those options on the date of grant. However, certain options granted on October 5, 2010 were granted with an exercise price that was below the fair value of our common stock as subsequently determined by an independent valuation as of that date. All other options previously granted or to be granted in the future are granted at the determined grant date fair value. The valuations of our common stock were determined in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, or AICPA, Practice Aid, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation, or the Guidelines. The assumptions we use in the valuation model are based on future expectations combined with management judgment. In the absence of a public trading market, our board of directors, with input from management, exercised significant judgment and considered numerous objective and subjective factors to determine the fair value of our common stock as of the date of each option, restricted stock and warrant grant, including the following factors:

In valuing our common stock, we have used a variety of methodologies that have evolved as the life cycle of our company has progressed. For the underlying valuations of our common stock in periods prior to December 31, 2009, given the early stage of our company and its development programs, we used a cost approach to estimate the fair value of our common stock. The cost approach is based on the premise that an investor would pay no more for an asset than its replacement or reproduction cost. The cost to replace the asset would include the cost of constructing a similar asset of equivalent utility at prices applicable at the time of the valuation analysis. Under this methodology, a valuation analysis is performed for a company’s identified fixed, financial, intangible and other assets. The derived aggregate fair value of the assets is then netted against the estimated fair value of all existing and potential liabilities, resulting in an indication of the fair value of total equity. This approach was considered an appropriate indication of value as the programs were still in early stages of the development cycle.

As our business and programs evolved, beginning in 2010, we migrated away from the cost approach to a market approach to incorporate the indication of value established through our development efforts and reflected in our Series A Share issuances during 2010. Under this approach, the business enterprise value was established based on the contemporaneous equity offerings. Pursuant to the AICPA Guidelines, an option pricing method was used to value the shares using a contingent claims analysis, which applies a series of call options whose inputs reflect the liquidation preferences and conversion behavior of the different classes of equity. The value of our common stock was then derived by analyzing the fair value of these options. After the equity value of the business enterprise was determined, the total equity value of any equity instruments such as preferred stock, stock options, restricted stock and warrants outstanding and the concluded common stock value on a converted basis is allocated. Next, the option pricing method was used to allocate the residual equity value (inclusive of any infusion of cash from in-the-money options and warrants) to our common stock. Since our shares were not publicly traded, a discount for lack of marketability was applied. This lack of marketability discount was estimated to be 10% prior to becoming a publicly-traded company. A theoretical put option model was used to capture the cost to ensure stock could be sold at the price prevailing at the valuation date after the time required

45

Table of Contents

to finding a market, or the time until an expected liquidity event. The put option model considers the expected time to a liquidity event, estimated volatility based on peer company data, risk free interest rates and management judgment. The ultimate fair values of our common stock were used as an input in determining the fair value of the warrants, restricted stock and stock options at various periods of time. As our development programs continue we expect to incur an increase in research and development expenses.

Results of Operations

General

To date, we have not generated any revenues from operations and, at December 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of $84.2 million primarily as a result of research and development expenses, purchases of in-process research and development and general and administrative expenses. While we may in the future generate revenue from a variety of sources, including license fees, milestone payments, research and development payments in connection with strategic partnerships and/or product sales, our product candidates are at an early stage of development and may never be successfully developed or commercialized. Accordingly, we expect to continue to incur substantial losses from operations from our operations for the foreseeable future and there can be no assurance that we will ever generate significant revenues.

Research & Development Expenses

Conducting research and development is central to our business. For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 research and development expenses were $8.3 million, $8.6 million and $17.5 million, respectively, and such expenses were $42.0 million for the period from inception (June 28, 2006) to December 31, 2012. Noncash, stock-based compensation expense included in research and development in 2012 and from inception through 2012 was $3.6 million and $7.5 million, respectively. Research and development expenses consist primarily of:

We expect to continue to incur substantial expenses related to our research and development activities for the foreseeable future as we continue product development. Since product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later stage clinical trials, we expect that our research and development expenses will increase in the future. In addition, if our product development efforts are successful, we expect to incur substantial costs to prepare for potential commercialization of any late-stage product candidates and, in the event one or more of these product candidates receive regulatory approval, to fund the launch of the product. From inception through December 31, 2012, direct, external development costs incurred for our TSO product development program were $13.8 million, including $0.2 million, $2.7 million and $10.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Excluded from these costs is $21.7 million of in-process research and development costs, consisting of $20.7 million related to our acquisition of certain rights to TSO in 2011 and $1.0 million related to our domestic manufacturing rights for TSO. From inception through December 31, 2012, direct, external development costs incurred for our CNDO–109 product development program were $6.2 million, including $2.1 million, $1.9 million and $1.9 million, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Our results of operations for the years ended

46

Table of Contents

December 31, 2010 and 2011 include direct, external development costs incurred in connection with two product development programs that have been discontinued. From inception through December 31, 2012, such expenses totaled $5.2 million. No costs were incurred for these programs in 2012.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist principally of personnel-related costs, professional fees for legal, consulting, audit and tax services, rent and other general operating expenses not otherwise included in research and development expenses. From inception to December 31, 2012, G&A expenses were $16.3 million, including $0.9 million, $5.8 million, and $8.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Non cash, stock-based compensation expense included in general and administrative in 2012 and from inception through 2012, was $3.6 million and $7.5 million, respectively. We anticipate general and administrative expenses will increase in future periods, reflecting continued and increasing costs associated with:

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011

NM–Not meaningful

Research and development expenses increased $8.9 million, or 104%, from the year ended December 31, 2011 to the year ended December 31, 2012. This increase was primarily due to $8.3 million of increased external development costs related to TSO. In 2012, we incurred $4.0 million of expense related to our Phase 2 study for TSO. We also incurred an increase in contractual milestone-related costs in 2012. In 2011 we incurred a milestone-related charge of $1.5 million related to the filing of an IND for TSO, and in 2012 we incurred $3.3 million of milestone-related charges in connection with our agreement with Falk and a $0.2 million milestone-related charge pursuant to our agreement with Ovamed. Additionally, we purchased $2.0 million of TSO clinical supply from Ovamed. Personnel costs increased $0.4 million in 2012, primarily due to increased staffing. In addition, in 2012, stock-based compensation expense increased $0.5 million, of which $0.3 million related to the modification of options issued to certain of our executive officers (see Note 15). CNDO–109 development costs were essentially unchanged. We expect our research and development expenses to increase in future quarters as our clinical programs for TSO continue.

General and administrative expenses increased $2.9 million, or 51%, from the year ended December 31, 2011 to the year ended December 31, 2012, reflecting a substantial increase in the level of our business activity during 2012,

47

Table of Contents

our first full year as a public company. The increase in general and administrative expenses to support these activities consisted primarily of a $1.7 million increase in stock compensation expense, including $0.3 million related to the modification of options issued to certain of our executive officers (see Note 15 of Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements), $0.3 million related to warrants issued to consultants and $1.0 million related to options granted to new employees and directors. Personnel-related costs increased $1.0 million, primarily due to the addition of our new Chief Operating Officer in September 2011, and Chief Financial Officer in February 2012.

In January 2011, we acquired a sublicense for TSO from Asphelia, entered into related agreements for TSO and assumed certain liabilities of Asphelia. In connection with these transactions, we issued 2,525,677 Series B Shares valued at $6.38 per share, assumed the PCP Note, in the principal amount of $750,000 and made cash payments totaling $3.8 million, including $3.4 million to Ovamed and $0.4 million for repayment of Asphelia’ s debt, including a $61,000 payment to a related party. The total consideration paid in connection with the acquisition of our rights to TSO from Asphelia was $20.7 million, which was recorded as in-process research and development expense in 2011. In 2012, we acquired from Ovamed manufacturing rights for TSO in the Coronado Territory and agreed to pay Ovamed $1.5 million, which obligation was recorded as in-process research and development expense in 2012 at its estimated net present value of $1.0 million. This liability is included in other long-term liabilities at December 31, 2012. Payments will be made in three equal annual installments of $500,000, commencing in December 2014.

Interest expense of $0.7 million in 2012 included $0.6 million related to the Hercules Note and the remaining $0.1 million related to the PCP Note which was paid in full in September 2012. In 2011, we recognized interest expense of $74,000 related to the PCP Note.

The increase in interest income in 2012 compared to the same period last year was primarily due to higher cash balances.

Warrant expense of $1,407,000 in 2011 was a noncash expense related to the marking-to-market of the warrants for Series C Shares issued to the placement agent for its services in connection with the issuance and sale of the Series C Shares. A warrant liability of $1,286,000 was established at June 30, 2011 upon the issuance of the warrants. This liability was valued for a final time at $2,693,000 on November 15, 2011 upon the effectiveness of our resale registration statement on Form S-1. The expense represents the change in value from June 30, 2011 to November 15, 2011. This liability was reclassified to equity upon effectiveness of the Form S-1.

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2011 and 2010

NM–Not meaningful

48

Table of Contents

Research and development expenses increased $242,000, or 3%, from the year ended December 31, 2010 to the year ended December 31, 2011. This increase was primarily due to $2.5 million of external development costs related to TSO, including a milestone-related charge of $1.5 million recognized in connection with the filing of an IND for TSO and $0.6 million of increased consulting expenses, severance-related costs, and other general expenses, primarily offset by a $1.4 million decrease in stock-based compensation expense related to the 2010 vesting of restricted common stock issued to non-employees in 2007, a $1.2 million decrease in development costs related to discontinued product candidates and a $0.3 million decrease in CNDO–109 development costs. General and administrative expenses increased $4.9 million from the year ended December 31, 2010 to the year ended December 31, 2011, reflecting a substantial increase in the level of our business activity during 2011 and transition to a public company. The increase in G&A expenses to support these activities consisted primarily of a $1.9 million increase in professional fees, consisting of legal and accounting fees, a $1.3 million increase in personnel costs, a $0.5 million increase in stock compensation expense, and a $0.4 million increase in expenses relating to consulting and outside services.

In January 2011, we acquired a sublicense for TSO from Asphelia, entered into related agreements for TSO and assumed certain liabilities of Asphelia. In connection with these transactions, we issued 2,525,677 Series B Shares valued at $6.38 per share, assumed the PCP Note in the principal amount of $750,000 and made cash payments totaling $3.8 million, including $3.4 million to Ovamed and $0.4 million for repayment of Asphelia’ s debt, including $61,000 payment to a related party. The total consideration paid in connection with the acquisition of our rights to TSO from Asphelia was $20.7 million, which was recorded as in-process research and development expense in 2011

In 2011, we incurred interest expense of $74,000 related to the PCP Note. Interest expense of $1,535,000 in 2010 related to an aggregate of $9.9 million of debt, which was either repaid or converted to our Series A Shares between April 2010 and December 2010.

The increase in interest income in 2011 compared to 2010 was primarily due to higher cash balances.

Warrant expense of $1,407,000 in 2011 was a noncash expense related to the marking-to-market of the warrants for Series C Shares issued to the placement agent for its services in connection with the issuance and sale of the Series C Shares. A warrant liability of $1,286,000 was established at June 30, 2011 upon the issuance of the warrants. This liability was valued for a final time at $2,693,000 on November 15, 2011 upon the effectiveness of our resale registration statement on Form S-1. The expense represents the change in value from June 30, 2011 to November 15, 2011. This liability was reclassified to equity upon effectiveness of the Form S-1.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At December 31, 2012, we had cash and cash equivalents of $40.2 million. To date, we have funded our operations through the sale of debt and equity securities aggregating $93.3 million of net proceeds. As of December 31, 2010, all notes and other debt then-outstanding were either repaid or converted into our Series A Shares. In September 2012, we repaid the $750,000 PCP Note. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, no shares of our preferred stock were outstanding.

In June 2012, we completed an underwritten public offering of 5,750,000 shares of our common stock, including 750,000 shares subject to an over-allotment option exercised by the underwriters, at a price of $5.00 per share, for proceeds, net of underwriting commissions and other offering expenses, of approximately $26.4 million. In August 2012, we received net proceeds of $14.7 million from a $15.0 million term loan from Hercules. In October 2012, our registration statement filed in September 2012 on Form S-3 registering to sell, from time to time in one or more offerings, any combination of common stock, preferred stock, warrants, or units having a maximum aggregate offering price of $75.0 million, was declared effective. On October 5, 2012, we entered into an ATM with MLV, pursuant to which we may issue and sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $30.0 million from time to time through MLV, as our sales agent. The offering pursuant to

49

Table of Contents

the ATM will terminate upon the earlier of (i) October 5, 2015; (ii) the sale of all shares of common stock subject to the ATM, or (iii) termination of the ATM. The ATM may be terminated by either party at any time upon 10 days’ notice to the other party, or by MLV at any time in certain circumstances, including upon the occurrence of a material adverse change in our company. In 2012, we sold 3,361 shares of common stock for $19,000 of net proceeds pursuant to the Sales Agreement. From January 1, 2013 through March 8, 2013, we issued 1,426,250 shares of common stock pursuant to the Sales Agreement and received net proceeds of $10.5 million. We intend to continue to utilize this financing vehicle at opportune times during 2013.

We expect to incur substantial expenditures in the foreseeable future for the development of our product candidates. We will require additional financing to develop our product candidates, prepare regulatory filings and obtain regulatory approvals, fund operating losses, and, if deemed appropriate, establish manufacturing, sales and marketing capabilities. We believe that our current cash and cash equivalents are sufficient to fund operations through the first quarter of 2014 based on our current business plan. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategies. If needed, we will seek to raise capital through additional equity or debt financings, collaborative or other arrangements with corporate sources, or through other sources of financing. Adequate additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us, we may be required to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more of our research and development programs.

Cash Flows for the Three Years Ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities increased $12.2 million from the year ended December 31, 2011 to the year ended December 31, 2012. Net loss decreased $8.8 million and stock-based compensation increased $2.2 million due to an increase in the number of stock options and warrants outstanding and the impact of our higher stock price on the value of options and warrants held by non-employees. Offsetting these increases to cash from operations was a $19.7 million decrease in the amount of acquired in-process research development from the year ended December 31, 2011 to the year ended December 31, 2012. This decrease was due to our recognition in 2011 of a $20.7 million noncash expense for in-process research and development in connection with our acquisition of certain rights related to TSO. In 2012, we recognized a $1.0 million noncash expense in connection with our acquisition of TSO manufacturing rights from Ovamed. A $0.3 million decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses and the absence of the $1.4 million increase in the fair value of the Series C warrant liability in 2011 were additional factors leading to the increase in cash used in operations.

Net cash used in operating activities increased $5.3 million from the year ended December 31, 2010 to the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase in net loss of $26.4 million, included a $1.4 million increase in the fair market value of the Series C warrant liability and a $1.9 million increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses, which were offset by $20.7 million of noncash expense for in-process research and development in connection with our acquisition of certain rights related to TSO, a $0.9 million decrease in stock-based compensation and a $0.8 million decrease in the change in fair value of a warrant-embedded conversion feature.

50

Table of Contents

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $0.3 million in 2012 and consisted primarily of a $225,000 deposit for leasehold improvements for our new manufacturing facility and $54,000, related to the purchase of office furniture and equipment and leasehold improvements.

Net cash used in investing activities was $3.8 million in 2011 and consisted solely of cash payments related to our acquisition of certain rights related to TSO from Asphelia.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities of $40.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2012 reflected $26.4 million of net proceeds from our underwritten public offering and $14.7 million of net proceeds from a $15 million term loan from Hercules, offset by our payment of $750,000 in satisfaction of our obligations under the PCP Note.

Net cash provided by financing activities in the year ended December 31, 2011 of $23.1 million consisted of $22.9 million of net proceeds from our issuance of the Series C Shares and $193,000 received upon the exercise of employee stock options.

Cash provided by financing activities of $19.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 primarily reflects our issuance of the Series A Shares for net proceeds of $19.4 million.

Contingent Contractual Payments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2012, excluding amounts related to contingent milestone payments, as described below.

As of December 31, 2012, approximately $0.4 million of contingent contractual payments reflected in accrued expenses and in purchase and other obligations in the table above.

Our purchase and other obligations are primarily associated with our clinical trials, including approximately $10.4 million for our Phase 2 trial evaluating TSO as a treatment for Crohn’s disease, including $0.8 million of product supply from Ovamed and approximately $4.4 million for services associated with our planned Phase 1/2 CNDO-109 trial.

In July 2012, the Company entered into a five-year lease for approximately 3,200 square feet of office space in Burlington, Massachusetts at an average annual rent of approximately $94,000. The Company took occupancy of this space in October 2012.

51

Table of Contents

In December 2012, the Company assumed a lease from TSO Laboratories, Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Quamed for approximately 8,700 square feet of space in Woburn, Massachusetts. Annual average rent will approximate $118,000 and the Company expects to occupy the space in the second half of 2013.

In December 2012, we signed the Manufacturing Agreement with Ovamed, which provides us with the exclusive right to manufacture TSO for sale in the Coronado Territory. Under this agreement, we agreed to pay Ovamed $1.5 million, in three equal annual installments commencing December 2014, which is included in annual license fees.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any financings or other relationships with unconsolidated entities or other persons.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risks

We held no marketable securities at December 31, 2011 and 2012. The Company’s Loan and Security with Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc., or the Hercules Note, pursuant to which the Company issued a $15 million note, bears interest at a rate per annum equal to the greater of (i) 9.25% or (ii) 9.25% plus the sum of the prevailing prime rate minus 3.25%. To the extent the prevailing prime rate exceeds 3.25%, the Company will pay a higher rate of interest on any then-outstanding principal balance.

Net Operating Loss Tax Carry-Forwards

As of December 31, 2012, we had net federal operating loss carryforwards of approximately $53.5 million to offset future federal income taxes which expire beginning in 2026 and state operating loss carryforwards of $16.8 million to offset future state taxes which expire beginning in 2030. Current federal and state tax laws include substantial restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss and tax credits in the event of an ownership change. Even if the carryforwards are available, they may be subject to substantial annual limitations, due to ownership change limitations provided by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended, or IRC and similar state provisions. At December 31, 2011 and 2012, we recorded a 100% valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets, as our management believes it is more likely than not that they will not be realized. If we determine in the future that we will be able to realize all or a portion of our net operating loss carryforwards, an adjustment to our net operating loss carryforwards would increase net income in the period in which we make such a determination.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

Refer to Note 2 of Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of recent accounting standards and pronouncements.

Overview

Not applicable.

The information required by this Item is set forth in the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto beginning at page F-1 of this Annual Report.

None.

52

Table of Contents

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Controls and Procedures

Disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) are designed only to provide reasonable assurance that they will meet their objectives. Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness, as of December 31, 2012, of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e). Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in our Exchange Act reports is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Internal control over financial reporting refers to the process designed by, or under the supervision of, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, and effected by our board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and includes those policies and procedures that:

(1) Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;

(2) Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorization of our management and directors; and

(3) Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisitions, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Internal control over financial reporting has inherent limitations. Internal control over financial reporting is a process that involves human diligence and compliance and is subject to lapses in judgment and breakdowns resulting from human failures. Internal control over financial reporting also can be circumvented by collusion or improper management override. Because of such limitations, there is a risk that material misstatements may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by internal control over financial reporting. However, these inherent limitations are known features of the financial reporting process. Therefore, it is possible to design into the process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this risk.

Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012. In making the assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control – Integrated Framework.

Based on our assessment, our management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2012, our internal controls over financial reporting were effective based upon those criteria.

53

Table of Contents

The effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report, which is included herein.

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting.

As of December 28, 2012, Harlan Weisman was hired as the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer.

None.

54

Table of Contents

PART III

The following table sets forth certain information about our executive officers, key employees and directors as of the date of this Form 10-K. Directors serve until the next annual meeting or their successors have been elected and qualified.

The following is a brief account of the business experience during the past five years (and, in some instances, for prior years) of each director and executive officer of our company.

Executive Officers

Harlan F. Weisman, M.D. has served as a director since August 2012 and our chairman and chief executive officer since December 2012. Dr. Weisman is the founder and Managing Director of And-One Consulting, LLC, a consulting firm which was formed in March 2012 and focuses on assisting companies to formulate and lead successful global strategies for accelerating medical product development, regulatory approval and market acceptance. From October 2005 to March 2012, Dr. Weisman was chief science and technology officer of Johnson & Johnson’s Medical Device and Diagnostics business. Dr. Weisman is a graduate of the University of Maryland and the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Weisman served his residency at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and was a fellow in cardiovascular disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Based on Dr. Weisman’s medical background, our board of directors believes that Dr. Weisman has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board of directors in light of our business and structure.

Bobby W. Sandage, Jr., Ph.D. has served as our president and chief executive officer from April 2011 to December 2012 and since December 2012 has served as our president. Dr. Sandage has over 30 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, most recently as the vice president and head of oncology research and development for Covidien Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceuticals company, a position he held from March 2010 until March 2011. From November 1991 to December 2009, Dr. Sandage held various positions at Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceuticals company, including executive vice president of research and development and chief scientific officer, prior to the sale of the company to Endo Pharmaceuticals. From December 2009 to March 2010, Dr. Sandage was transitioning from his position at Endo Pharmaceuticals to his position at Covidien Pharmaceuticals. Prior to joining Indevus Pharmaceuticals, from 1981 to 1991, Dr. Sandage held senior drug development positions at DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company, DuPont Critical Care (formerly American Critical Care) and Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sandage is currently a member of the board of directors of Gentium S.p.A., a pharmaceutical company. Dr. Sandage has also served as a member of the board of directors of Osteologix, Inc. and Genta Incorporated. Dr. Sandage has a B.S. in pharmacy from the University of Arkansas and a Ph.D. in clinical pharmacy from Purdue University. Based on Dr. Sandage’s

55

Table of Contents

position as the president and chief executive officer, his substantial experience in the pharmaceutical industry and service on boards of directors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, our board of directors believes that Dr. Sandage has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board in light of our business and structure.

Noah D. Beerman has served as our executive vice president and chief operating officer since September 26, 2011. Mr. Beerman has over 25 years of experience in the biopharmaceutical industry. Mr. Beerman, who was a consultant to our company from May to September 2011, served as president and chief executive officer and a director of Galena Biopharma, Inc., formerly RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation, from November 2009 until April 2011. Prior to April 2011, he spent more than 10 years at Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., serving most recently as executive vice president and chief business officer from September 2004 until the sale of the company to Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 2009. Mr. Beerman received an M.B.A. from Northeastern University’s High Technology Program and a B.S. in molecular genetics from the University of Rochester.

Lucy Lu, M.D. has served as our executive vice president and chief financial officer since February 22, 2012. Dr. Lu has over 10 years of experience in the healthcare industry. From February 2007 through January 2012, Dr. Lu was a senior biotechnology equity analyst with Citigroup Investment Research. From 2004 until joining Citigroup, she was with First Albany Capital, serving as Vice President from April 2004 until becoming a Principal of the firm in February 2006. Dr. Lu holds an M.D. degree from the New York University School of Medicine and an M.B.A. from the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University. Dr. Lu obtained a B.A. from the University of Tennessee’s College of Arts and Science.

Karin M. Hehenberger. M.D., Ph.D. joined us as senior vice president of scientific affairs in December 2011 and has served as our executive vice president and chief medical officer since April 19, 2012. Dr. Hehenberger has over 15 years of experience in the healthcare industry. From January 2010 until joining our company, Dr. Hehenberger was Senior Vice President for Strategic Alliances at the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, or JDRF, where she was responsible for advancing JDRF’s involvement with scientific, financial, and commercial partners in the diabetes community. From February 2008 until January 2010, she served as Vice President of Metabolic Strategy and Business Development at Johnson & Johnson. From October 2005 through February 2008, Dr. Hehenberger served as Senior Investment Director and Partner at Scandinavian Life Science Venture. Dr. Hehenberger holds M.D. and Ph.D. degrees from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and continued her research as a JDRF post-doctoral fellow at the Joslin Diabetes Center at Harvard Medical School.

Dale Ritter has served as our senior vice president, finance, and chief accounting officer since May 2011. Mr. Ritter also served as acting chief financial officer until February 2012. Mr. Ritter has over 20 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. From September 2009 until joining us in May 2011, he was an independent consultant, serving as a financial consultant to Helicos BioSciences Corporation, an innovative genetic analysis technologies company. From 1994 to 2009, Mr. Ritter was the senior vice president of finance and chief accounting officer at Indevus Pharmaceuticals until the sale of the company to Endo Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Ritter has a B.A. from Syracuse University and an M.B.A. from Babson College Graduate School of Business Administration.

Non-Employee Directors

Eric K. Rowinsky, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors, as our vice chairman and a consultant since October 2010 and is responsible for overseeing our clinical development plan for acute myeloid leukemia and solid tumor malignancies. Dr. Rowinsky is an internationally renowned expert in oncology with a distinguished background in academics and industry. Following an oncology fellowship at Johns Hopkins, he became an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins and then an associate professor at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Rowinsky then became a professor of medicine and director for drug development, cancer therapy and research at University of Texas, San Antonio. In 2004, Dr. Rowinsky became chief medical officer and senior vice president (later promoted to executive vice president) of ImClone Systems, Inc., a cancer therapeutics company, and spear-headed the further clinical development of Erbitux (cetuximab injection) and eight

56

Table of Contents

additional monoclonal antibodies, prior to ImClone’s acquisition by Eli Lilly & Company in 2008. He remained at ImClone as a consultant until December 2010. Dr. Rowinsky is and has been a consultant to multiple biotech companies in cancer drug development and serves on the boards of directors of Biogen-Idec Inc., Neoprobe Inc., PreScience Labs Inc., and DLVR, Inc., each of which are life sciences companies. During the past five years, Dr. Rowinsky has also served on the boards of directors of Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Adventrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which are life sciences companies. Dr. Rowinsky has been an advisor to academic, industrial and FDA advisory boards and has more than 300 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Rowinsky received his B.A. from New York University and his M.D. from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Based on Dr. Rowinsky’s service on boards of directors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries and his extensive experience and background in oncology, our board of directors believes that Dr. Rowinsky has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board in light of our business and structure.

David J. Barrett has served as a member of our board of directors since May 2011. In July 2010, after transitioning from Neuro-Hitech, Inc., Mr. Barrett became the chief financial officer of Ventrus Biosciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company focused on the late-stage clinical development of gastrointestinal products. From April 2006 to September 2009, Mr. Barrett served as chief financial officer of Neuro-Hitech, Inc., a publicly traded company focused on developing, marketing and distributing branded and generic pharmaceutical products. From September 2003 to April 2006, Mr. Barrett was the chief financial officer/vice president of finance of Overture Asset Managers and Overture Financial Services, which, at the time, was a start-up asset management firm that assembled investment products and platforms to distribute turnkey and unbundled investment solutions to financial intermediaries and institutional investors. From July 1999 to September 2003, Mr. Barrett was employed as a manager at Deloitte & Touche, LLP. Mr. Barrett received his B.S. in accounting and economics in May 1998 and his M.S. in accounting in May 1999 from the University of Florida. He is a certified public accountant. Based on Mr. Barrett’s management experience, particularly in areas of finance and investment management, our board of directors believes that Mr. Barrett has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board in light of our business and structure.

Jimmie Harvey, Jr., M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since December 2008. Dr. Harvey in 1984 founded Birmingham Hematology and Oncology Associates L.L.C., a private medical company located in Birmingham, Alabama. Dr. Harvey has experience in clinical trial execution and management and has recently been a principal investigator in two trials, one investigating a novel monoclonal antibody and the other a small molecule used to treat immunologic malignancies. Dr. Harvey holds a B.A. degree in Chemistry from Emory University and received his M.D. from Emory University School of Medicine. Dr. Harvey completed his medical oncology training at the Vincent T. Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown University. Based on Dr. Harvey’s medical background, including his oncology expertise, our board of directors believes that Dr. Harvey has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board in light of our business and structure.

J. Jay Lobell has served as a member of our board of directors since June 2006. Mr. Lobell is president of Meridian Capital Group, LLC, a commercial real estate mortgage company, which he joined as a senior officer in January 2010. Mr. Lobell also is a founder of, and since December 2009 has served as vice chairman of, Beech Street Capital, LLC, a real estate lending company. Since January 2005, Mr. Lobell has served as president and chief operating officer of Paramount Biosciences, LLC, or PBS, a biotechnology investment and development company. In that capacity, he had substantial responsibility for the assembly and oversight of companies founded and incubated by PBS, including Coronado and Asphelia. Mr. Lobell previously has served on the board of directors of NovaDel Pharma Inc., Innovive Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and ChemRx Corporation. Mr. Lobell was a partner in the law firm Covington & Burling LLP from October 1996 through January 2005, where he advised companies and individuals as a member of the firm’s securities litigation and white collar defense practice group. Mr. Lobell received his B.A. (summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) from the City University of New York and his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal. Based on Mr. Lobell’s biotechnology, legal and financial experience, as well as his in-depth understanding of drug commercialization and corporate governance, our board of directors believes that Mr. Lobell has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board in light of our business and structure.

57

Table of Contents

Michael W. Rogers has served as a member of our board of directors since May 2011. From June 2009 to October 2012, Mr. Rogers served as the executive vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer of BG Medicine, Inc., a life sciences company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel diagnostic tests. Prior to joining BG Medicine, Inc. and since 1999, Mr. Rogers held the position of executive vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer at Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceuticals company, which was acquired by Endo Pharmaceuticals in 2009. In 1998, Mr. Rogers was executive vice president and chief financial and corporate development officer at Advanced Health Corporation, a publicly traded healthcare information technology company. From 1995 to 1997, he was vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer of AutoImmune, Inc., a publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company. From 1994 to 1995, Mr. Rogers was vice president, investment banking at Lehman Brothers, Inc. From 1990 to 1994, he was associated with PaineWebber, Inc., serving most recently as vice president, investment banking division. Mr. Rogers serves as a director of pSivida, Inc., a publicly-traded medical device company. Mr. Rogers received an M.B.A. from the Darden School at the University of Virginia and a B.A. from Union College. Based on Mr. Rogers’s management experience, particularly in areas of finance and corporate development, our board of directors believes that Mr. Rogers has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board.

Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since October 2009. Since November 2008, Dr. Rosenwald has served as Co-Portfolio Manager & Partner of Opus Point Partners, LLC, or Opus, an asset management and broker dealer in the life sciences industry. Prior to that, from August 1991 to October 2008, he served as the Chairman of Paramount BioCapital, Inc., or PBC. Over the last 23 years, Dr. Rosenwald has acted as a biotechnology entrepreneur and been instrumental in the founding and recapitalization of numerous public and private biotechnology and life sciences companies. Dr. Rosenwald received his B.S. in finance from Pennsylvania State University and his M.D. from Temple University School of Medicine. Based on Dr. Rosenwald’s biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry experience and in-depth understanding of our business, our board of directors believes that Dr. Rosenwald has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board in light of our business and structure.

Director Independence

Board Leadership Structure

Our board of directors has a chairman, currently Dr. Weisman, who has authority, among other things, to call and preside over board meetings, to set meeting agendas and to determine materials to be distributed to the board of directors. Accordingly, the chairman has substantial ability to shape the work of the board of directors.

The board of directors believes that having our CEO serve as chairman of the board of directors is suitable for our company at its present stage. Dr. Weisman possesses detailed and in-depth knowledge of the issues, opportunities and challenges facing our company and its business, and is well positioned to develop agendas that ensure the board of director’s time and attention are focused on the most critical matters. Furthermore, the board believes that having our chief executive officer serve as chairman of the board of directors strengthens his ability to develop and implement strategic initiatives and respond efficiently to various situations. The board of directors is aware of potential conflicts that might arise when an employee chairs the board of directors, but believes these potential conflicts are offset by the fact that independent directors comprise each of the committees of the board of directors and a majority of the board of directors. Additionally, the board of directors believes Dr. Weisman’s combined role enables decisive leadership and ensures clear accountability. Until December 28, 2012, Dr. Sandage was our chief executive officer and president and, since that time, he remains our president.

There is no lead independent director for our board of directors, but we believe that our current leadership structure is appropriate, as the majority of our board of directors is composed of independent directors and each committee of our board of directors is chaired by an independent director. The board of directors considers all of its members equally responsible and accountable for oversight and guidance of its activities.

58

Table of Contents

Role of the Board in Risk Oversight

The board of directors is responsible for our company’s risk oversight and has delegated that role to the audit committee. Our audit committee is primarily responsible for overseeing our risk management processes on behalf of the full board of directors. The audit committee receives reports from management at least quarterly regarding our assessment of risks. In addition, the audit committee reports regularly to the full board of directors, which also considers our risk profile. The audit committee and the full board of directors focus on the most significant risks we face and our general risk-management strategies. While the board oversees our risk management, management is responsible for day-to-day risk management processes. Our board of directors expects management to consider risk and risk management in each business decision, to proactively develop and monitor

risk-management strategies and processes for day-to-day activities and to effectively implement risk-management strategies adopted by the audit committee and the board of directors. We believe this division of responsibilities is the most effective approach for addressing the risks we face and that our board leadership structure, which also emphasizes the independence of the board in its oversight of its business and affairs, supports this approach.

Board Committees

The audit committee comprises Messrs. Rogers, Barrett and Lobell, each of whom is an independent director as defined in Rule 5605(a)(2) of the NASDAQ Marketplace Rules and Section 10A(m)(3) of the Exchange Act. Mr. Rogers serves as the chair of the audit committee.

The functions of the audit committee include, among other things:

Our board of directors has determined that each member of the audit committee meets the financial literacy requirements under the applicable NASDAQ Marketplace Rules and that Mr. Rogers’ employment experience qualifies him as an audit committee financial expert within the meaning of SEC rules and regulations.

The compensation committee comprises Mr. Rogers and Drs. Harvey and Rosenwald. Mr. Rogers serves as the chair of the compensation committee. The functions of the compensation committee include, among other things:

59

Table of Contents

The nominating and corporate governance committee of the board originally comprised Mr. Lobell and Dr. Rosenwald. Mr. Lobell serves as the chair of the nominating and corporate governance committee. The functions of the nominating and corporate governance committee include, among other things:

Each of the above-referenced committees operates pursuant to a formal written charter. The charters for each committee, which have been adopted by the Board, contain a detailed description of the respective committee’s duties and responsibilities and are available under Committee Charting in the Investors – Governance section of our website at www.coronadobiosciences.com.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our executive officers, directors and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our common stock and other equity securities. These executive officers, directors, and greater than 10% beneficial owners are required by SEC regulation to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms filed by such reporting persons.

Based solely on our review of such forms furnished to us, we believe that during the prior fiscal year, all of our executive officers and directors and every person who is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 10% of any class of our security complied with the filing requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act.

Code of Ethics

We adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to all directors, officers and employees. Our Code of Ethics is available on our website at www.coronadobiosciences.com. A copy of our code of ethics will also be provided to any person without charge, upon written request sent to us at our offices located at 24 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.

Material Changes to the Procedures by which Security Holders May Recommend Nominees to the Board of Directors

There have been no material changes to the procedures by which security holders may recommend nominees to the board of directors.

60

Table of Contents

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The members of the board of directors who served on the compensation committee in 2012 are Jimmie Harvey, Jr., M.D., Michael W. Rogers and Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D. None of these individuals has ever served as an officer or employee of ours. None of the members of the compensation committee serves or in the past has served as one of our officers or has been employed by us and none of our executive officers have served on the compensation committee or board of any company that employed any member of our compensation committee or board of directors.

In June 2012, we issued an aggregate of 5,750,000 shares of common stock in an underwritten offering, or the June 21012 Offering, for an aggregate purchase price of $28.8 million. Dr. Rosenwald, who serves on our compensation committee and is also a principal stockholder, purchased an aggregate of 200,000 shares of our common stock in the June 2012 Offering. For additional discussion regarding the June 2012 Offering, please see Item 13 “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence” below.

Compensation Committee Report

The compensation committee has reviewed and discussed the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) with our Company’s management. Based on this review and discussion, the compensation committee recommended to the board of directors that the CD&A be included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Michael W. Rogers, chair

Jimmie Harvey, Jr., M.D.

Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D.

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis explains our compensation philosophy, policies and practices with respect to our named executive officers. The compensation committee of the board is responsible for creating and reviewing the compensation of our executive officers, as well as overseeing our compensation and benefit plans and policies and administering our equity incentive plans.

Compensation Philosophy

We believe in providing a competitive total compensation package to our executive management team through a combination of base salary, discretionary bonuses, grants under an equity incentive compensation plan, severance and change in control benefits and broad-based benefits programs. Our executive compensation programs are designed to achieve the following objectives:

Our board of directors believes that our executive compensation programs should include short- and long-term components, including cash and equity-based compensation, and should reward consistent performance that

61

Table of Contents

meets or exceeds expectations. The board evaluates both performance and compensation to make sure that the compensation provided to executives remains competitive relative to compensation paid by companies of similar size and stage of development operating in the life sciences industry, taking into account our relative performance and our own strategic objectives.

Setting Executive Compensation

We have historically conducted a review of the aggregate level of our executive compensation, as well as the mix of elements used to compensate our executive officers. We have based this review primarily on the experience of the members of our board of directors, many of whom sit on the boards of directors of numerous companies in the life sciences and healthcare fields. It is expected that in the future, our compensation committee will take into account publicly available data relating to the compensation practices and policies of other companies within and outside our industry. Although we expect the compensation committee to use such survey data as a tool in determining executive compensation, we expect that members of the compensation committee will continue to apply their subjective discretion to make compensation decisions. Our board has not yet determined to benchmark executive compensation against any particular group of companies or use a formula to set executive compensation in relation to such survey data.

Elements of Executive Compensation

The compensation program for our executive officers consists principally of three components:

Base Salary

Base salaries for our executives are initially established through arm’s-length negotiation at the time the executive is hired, taking into account such executive’s qualifications, experience, prior salary, the scope of his or her responsibilities, and competitive market compensation paid by other companies for similar positions within the industry. Base salaries are reviewed annually, typically in connection with our annual performance review process, and adjusted from time to time to realign salaries with market levels after taking into account individual responsibilities, performance and experience. In making decisions regarding salary increases, we may also draw upon the experience of members of our board of directors with other companies. The board of directors has not previously applied specific formulas to determine increases, although it has generally awarded increases as a percentage of an executive officer’s then-current base salary. This strategy is consistent with our intent of offering base salaries that are cost-effective while remaining competitive.

We hired our former executive chairman, Dr. Cooper, in July 2010. Initially, Dr. Cooper was compensated as a consultant for a monthly fee of $25,000. This amount was determined as part of the negotiation of Dr. Cooper’s compensation, conducted on our behalf by Dr. Rosenwald and our former chief executive officer and approved by the board of directors. In April 2011, Dr. Cooper’s consulting arrangement was transitioned into an employment arrangement and his annual base salary of $300,000 was approved by the board of directors at that time. In connection with Dr. Cooper’s resignation from the board of directors in December 2012,, we entered into a one-year consulting agreement with Dr. Cooper that provides for monthly payments of $25,000.

We hired Bobby W. Sandage, Jr., Ph.D. to serve as our president and chief executive officer in April 2011. Dr. Sandage’s annual base salary for 2011 was set at $375,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Dr. Sandage’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Dr. Cooper on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Dr. Sandage’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team. Dr. Sandage’s salary was most similar to that of the

62

Table of Contents

preceding chief executive officer, reflective of the fact that Dr. Sandage succeeded such person as our president and chief executive officer. In February 2012, Dr. Sandage’s base salary was increased to $395,000 to recognize his performance and achievements in 2011. Dr. Sandage’s salary was increased to $406,850 reflecting a 3% cost of living adjustment.

We hired Noah D. Beerman to serve as our executive vice president and chief operating officer in September 2011. Mr. Beerman’s base salary for 2011 was set at $325,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Mr. Beerman’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Drs. Cooper and Sandage on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Mr. Beerman’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team. In February 2012, Mr. Beerman’s base salary was increased to $328,000 and in 2013 it was increased to $337,840 reflecting a 3% cost of living adjustment.

We hired Lucy Lu, M.D. to serve as our executive vice president and chief financial officer in February 2012. Dr. Lu’s base salary for 2012 was set at $300,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Dr. Lu’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Dr. Sandage on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Dr. Lu’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team. In 2013, Dr. Lu’s base salary was increased to $307,875 reflecting a 3% cost of living adjustment.

We hired Karin M. Hehenberger, M.D., Ph.D. to serve as our senior vice president of scientific affairs in December 2011 and appointed Dr. Hehenberger executive vice president and chief medical officer on April 19, 2012. Dr. Hehenberger’s base salary for 2012 was set at $300,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Dr. Hehenberger’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Dr. Sandage on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Dr. Hehenberger’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team. In 2013, Dr. Hehenberger’s base salary was increased to $309,000 reflecting a 3% cost of living adjustment.

We hired Dale Ritter to serve as our senior vice president, finance, chief accounting officer and acting chief financial officer in May 2011. Mr. Ritter’s base salary for 2011 was set at $250,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Mr. Ritter’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Drs. Cooper and Sandage on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Mr. Ritter’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team. Mr. Ritter’s salary was most similar to that of the preceding chief financial officer, reflective of the fact that Mr. Ritter succeeded to much of the preceding chief financial officer’s responsibilities, while taking in account the fact this his role as acting chief financial officer was temporary until such time as we retained Dr. Lu as our full-time chief financial officer. In February 2012, Mr. Ritter’s base salary was increased by the board of directors to $275,000 as an incentive to retain Mr. Ritter’s services subsequent to the hiring of Dr. Lu and in 2013 it was increased to $283,250 reflecting a 3% cost of living adjustment.

We hired Harlan W. Weisman, M.D. to serve as our chairman and chief executive officer in December 2012 and entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Weisman on January 7, 2013. Dr. Weisman’s annual base salary for 2013 was set at $600,000. This salary was determined as part of the negotiation of Dr. Weisman’s employment agreement, which was conducted by Dr. Rosenwald on our behalf and approved by the board of directors. In approving the salary, the board considered Dr. Weisman’s requested salary and the salaries of other members of the management team.

Annual Discretionary Bonuses

In addition to the payment of base salaries, we believe that discretionary bonuses can play an important role in providing appropriate incentives to our executives to achieve our strategic objectives. As part of the annual performance reviews, the compensation committee reviews and analyzes each executive officer’s overall performance against such executive’s goals as approved by the compensation committee. Dr. Sandage,

63

Table of Contents

Mr. Beerman, Dr. Lu, Dr. Hehenberger and Mr. Ritter are eligible for a maximum discretionary bonus of 50%, 45%, 40%, 40% and 40%, respectively, of their respective salaries pursuant to the terms of their employment agreements. In addition, Dr. Sandage is eligible for additional bonuses of $137,500, $125,000, $250,000, and $500,000 based on the achievement of milestones tied to reaching a market capitalization of $125 million, $250 million, $500 million and $1 billion, respectively. Mr. Beerman and Dr. Lu are also eligible for additional discretionary bonuses of $46,875, $93,750, $187,500, and $375,000 based on the achievement of milestones tied to reaching a market capitalization of $125 million, $250 million, $500 million and $1 billion, respectively. In 2013, the first additional bonuses were earned and paid as follows: $137,500 to Dr. Sandage and $46,875 to each of Mr. Beerman and Dr. Lu.

Following the end of 2011, our board of directors reviewed the annual performances in 2011 of Dr. Sandage, Mr. Beerman and Mr. Ritter, the only executive officers eligible for a discretionary bonus, as well as our overall performance and approved the payments of discretionary bonuses to Dr. Sandage in the amount of $140,000, Mr. Beerman in the amount of $39,000 and Mr. Ritter in the amount of $62,000. Such discretionary bonuses were paid in cash in 2012 and were provided in order to continue to motivate the executives to achieve our financial and business objectives and was paid in part based on achievements made by the executives and by us during 2011.

Following the end of 2012, our compensation committee of board of directors reviewed the annual performances in 2012 of Dr. Sandage, Mr. Beerman, Dr. Lu, Dr. Hehenberger and Mr. Ritter, the only executive officers eligible for a discretionary bonus. The compensation committee reviewed the 2012 performance targets which included goals related to initiating and conducting clinical trials, business development, transactions, and maintenance of cash balances, the weight given to each target, specific comments and circumstances surrounding each target and the Company’s overall performance. After detailed discussion, the compensation committee approved that 2012 executive bonuses be paid at 90% of the full bonus amount and approved bonuses, prorated for the time each person was employed by Coronado, to Mr. Beerman in the amount of $132,840, Dr. Lu in the amount of $92,492, Dr. Hehenberger in the amount of $108,000 and Mr. Ritter in the amount of $99,000. Dr. Sandage received a bonus of $200,000 pursuant to his amended employment agreement.

Dr. Weisman is eligible for an annual bonus. At the beginning of each calendar year, but no later than February 15 of such calendar year, or later as agreed between Dr. Weisman and the compensation committee in writing, Dr. Weisman and the compensation committee shall meet and establish the parameters of Dr. Weisman’s annual bonus. The parameters of his annual bonus shall establish a target and range of bonus amounts as a percent of his base salary. The amount of bonus to be paid shall be based on Dr. Weisman’s attainment of certain financial, clinical development, and/or business milestones, or the Weisman Milestones, to be established and agreed to annually by the compensation committee and Dr. Weisman. The Weisman Milestones shall be defined business objectives, and whether or not any such objectives have been met shall not be subject to the Company’s discretion.

On December 28, 2012, in connection with the amendment of Dr. Sandage’s employment agreement, the board of directors approved the payment to Dr. Sandage of his 2012 performance bonus of $200,000 as well as a retention bonus of $100,000 payable on December 31, 2013, if he remains employed through that date.

Long-Term Incentive Plan.

We believe that by providing our executives the opportunity to increase their ownership of our stock, the interests of our executives will be more closely aligned with the best interests of our stockholders and we will encourage long-term performance. The stock awards enable our executive officers to participate in the appreciation of the value of our stock, while personally participating in the risks of business setbacks. We have not adopted stock ownership guidelines and our stock incentive plan has provided our executive officers a means to acquire equity or equity-linked interests in our company. We do not have any program, plan or obligation that requires us to grant equity compensation on specified dates. Authority to make equity grants to executive officers rests with our

64

Table of Contents

board of directors, which considers the recommendations of the executive chairman and the chief executive officer for officers other than themselves, and will in the future take into account the recommendation of the compensation committee.

We have granted equity awards primarily through our 2007 Stock Incentive Plan, or the 2007 Plan, which was adopted by our board of directors and stockholders to permit the grant of stock options, stock bonuses and restricted stock to our officers, directors, employees and consultants. The material terms of our 2007 Plan are further described under “2007 Stock Incentive Plan” below.

Dr. Sandage was awarded an option in April 2011 to purchase 300,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan in connection with the commencement of his employment. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of his overall employment package and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Dr. Sandage and the equity ownership of other members of our management team.

Mr. Beerman was awarded an option to purchase 225,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan in connection with the commencement of his employment in September 2011. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of his overall employment package and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Mr. Beerman and the equity ownership of other members of our management team.

Dr. Lu was awarded an option to purchase 225,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan in connection with the commencement of her employment in February 2012. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of her overall employment package and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Dr. Lu and the equity ownership of other members of our management team.

Dr. Hehenberger was awarded an option to purchase 100,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan in connection with the commencement of her employment in December 2011 and was awarded an option to purchase 125,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan in connection with her appointment as executive vice president and chief medical officer on April 19, 2012. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of her overall employment packages and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Dr. Hehenberger and the equity ownership of other members of our management team.

Mr. Ritter was awarded an option to purchase 120,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan in connection with the commencement of his employment in May 2011. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of his overall employment package and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Mr. Ritter and the equity ownership of other members of our management team. In February 2012, Mr. Ritter was awarded an option to purchase an additional 30,000 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan.

In connection with his resignation as our executive chairman and his execution of a one-year consulting agreement with us, Dr. Cooper was awarded an option to purchase 25,000 shares of our common stock that will vest on December 28, 2013 if he remains a consultant through that date. The exercise price of the option is $4.75 per share.

Dr. Weisman was awarded an option in January 2013 to purchase 1,686,590 shares of our common stock under the 2007 Plan in connection with his employment agreement. The number of shares was determined as part of the negotiation of his overall employment package and was approved by our board of directors. In approving the number of shares, the board considered the number of shares requested by Dr. Weisman and the equity ownership of other members of our management team.

65

Table of Contents

Prior to November 2011, there was no public trading market for our common stock. In the absence of a public trading market for our common stock at the time any of the grants described above were made, the board of directors determined the fair market value of our common stock in good faith based upon consideration of a number of relevant factors including the status of development efforts, financial status and market conditions and valuations obtained from an independent valuation firm. All options granted after November 2011 were granted at the fair market value of our common stock as determined by the closing price of our shares on NASDAQ on the date of grant.

All option grants typically vest over three years, with one-third of the shares subject to the stock option vesting on each anniversary of the vesting commencement date. All options have a 10-year term. Additional information regarding accelerated vesting upon or following a change in control is discussed below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control.”

Executive Employment Agreements

We entered into employment agreements with Dr. Sandage in April 2011, with Mr. Ritter in May 2011, with Mr. Beerman in September 2011, with Dr. Lu in February 2012, with Dr. Hehenberger in April 2012 and with Dr. Weisman in January 2013. All employment agreements provide for at-will employment, base salary, incentive bonuses, standard employee benefit plan participation and recommendations for initial stock option grants. The employment agreements were each subject to execution of standard proprietary information and assignment of invention agreements and proof of identity and work eligibility in the United States.

Dr. Sandage, Mr. Beerman, Dr. Lu, Dr. Hehenberger, Mr. Ritter and Dr. Weisman are each entitled to severance and change in control benefits pursuant to their employment agreements, the terms of which are described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” below. We believe that these severance and change in control benefits help us from a retention standpoint and they are particularly necessary in an industry, such as ours, where there has been market consolidation. We believe that they help our executive officers maintain continued focus and dedication to their assigned duties to maximize stockholder value if there is a change in control. We believe that these severance and change in control benefits are an essential element of our overall executive compensation package.

On January 7, 2013, we entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Weisman, our chairman and chief executive officer. Pursuant to the employment agreement, we will pay Dr. Weisman an annual base salary of $600,000. At the discretion of our board of directors, he will also be eligible for an annual cash bonus based on the attainment of financial, clinical development and/or business milestones to be established by our board. Pursuant to the employment agreement, we also granted Dr. Weisman an option to purchase 1,686,590 shares of our common stock, which is equal to 6% of our fully diluted capitalization. The option has an exercise price of $5.57 per share. One-third of the shares underlying the option will vest on December 28, 2013 and each anniversary thereafter, subject to Dr. Weisman’s continued employment with our company. Dr. Weisman will be entitled to four weeks paid vacation.

Perquisites

From time to time our board of directors has provided certain of our named executive officers with perquisites that the board believes are reasonable. We do not view perquisites as a significant element of comprehensive compensation structure, but do believe they can be useful in attracting, motivating and retaining the executive talent for which we compete. We believe that these additional benefits may assist our executive officers in performing their duties and provide time efficiencies for executive officers in appropriate circumstances, and we may consider providing additional perquisites in the future. All future practices regarding perquisites will be approved and subject to periodic review by the compensation committee.

Other Compensation

Consistent with our compensation philosophy, we intend to continue to maintain the current benefits for executive officers which are also available to our other employees; however, the compensation committee, in its discretion, may in the future revise, amend or add to the benefits of any executive officer if it deems it advisable.

66

Table of Contents

Deductibility of Compensation under Section 162(m)

Section 162(m) of the Code generally limits our deduction for federal income tax purposes to $1 million of compensation paid to certain executive officers in a calendar year. However, compensation above $1 million that is considered “performance-based compensation” may be deducted. However, it is expected that the compensation committee will evaluate the effects of the deduction limits of Section 162(m) on any compensation it proposes to grant in the future and that future compensation will be provided in a manner consistent with our best interests and those of our stockholders.

Risk Analysis of our Compensation Program

Our board of directors has reviewed our compensation policies as generally applicable to our employees and believes that the policies do not encourage excessive and unnecessary risk taking, and that the level of risk that they do encourage is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us. The design of our compensation policies and programs encourage the employees to remain focused on both short- and long-term goals. For example, while our cash bonus plans measure performance on an annual basis, the equity awards typically vest over a number of years, which we believe encourages employees to focus on sustained stock price appreciation, thus limiting the potential value of excessive risk- taking.

Summary Compensation Table

The following table provides information regarding the compensation paid during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012 to our principal executive officer and certain of our other executive officers, who are collectively referred to as “named executive officers” elsewhere in this Form 10-K. Since none of our named executive officers served us during the year ended December 31, 2010, we have no information to disclose regarding compensation paid during that year.