UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Form 10-K

 

xANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended August 31, 20122015

 

¨TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                      to                

Commission file number: 001-35421

 

Ceres, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Delaware33-0727287
(State of incorporation)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

1535 Rancho Conejo Boulevard

Thousand Oaks, CA

91320
(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip code)

Telephone: (805) 376-6500

(Registrant’s telephone number including area code)

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

 

Title of Each Class

Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

Common Stock, $0.01 par value per shareThe Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Not Applicable

 

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 Exchange 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 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 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 into 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. (Check one):

 

Large accelerated filer  ¨Accelerated filer ¨
Non-accelerated filer¨ x (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)Smaller reporting company ¨x

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

Under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, Ceres, Inc. qualifies as an “emerging growth company,” as defined under the JOBS Act.

As of February 29, 201228, 2015 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter), the aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $208,030,775$11,527,325 (based on the last reported trading price of the Common Stock of $13.96$ 2.73 per share on that date, as reported on the Nasdaq GlobalCapital Market).

As of November 7, 2012,10, 2015, there were 24,803,9868,830,700 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

 

 

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

  Page

Forward-Looking Statements

ii
  ii
PART I

Item 1.

Business1

Item 1A.

Risk Factors3114

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments5434

Item 2.

Properties5434

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings5534

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures34
  55
PART II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities5635

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data5836

Item 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations6038

Item 7A.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk7751

Item 8.

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data7952

Item 9.

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure7952

Item 9A.

Controls and Procedures52
  79
PART III

Item 10.

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance8054

Item 11.

Executive Compensation9162

Item 12.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters9567

Item 13.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence9868

Item 14.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services70
  100
PART IV

Item 15.

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedule72
  101 

Signatures

102 

Financial Statements

F-1

Index to Exhibits

E-1

i

 

i


FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements that we make from time to time, including statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. All statements, other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our efforts to develop and commercialize our products, anticipated yields and product performance, our short-term and long-term business strategies, market and industry expectations and future results of operations and financial position, including anticipated cost savings and projected cash expenditures from our restructuring plan and liquidity, are forward-looking statements. In many cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expect”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “could”, “intend”, “target”, “project”, “contemplate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “potential”, “continue” or other similar words.

We based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events or trends that we believe may affect our business and financial performance. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to materially differ from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. We have described in itemItem 1A, under the heading entitled “Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K the material risks and uncertainties that we believe could cause actual results to differ from these forward-looking statements. Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which we cannot predict or quantify, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as guarantees of future results, performance or achievements.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K represent our views as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to update publicly, except to the extent required by law, any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstancesor achievements may be materially different from what we expect.

Unless otherwise indicated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “Ceres”, “our company”, “the Company”, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Ceres, Inc. and our subsidiary,subsidiaries, Ceres Sementes do Brasil Ltda., Ceres Agrotechnologies Intl LLC and CS Semillas de México, S. de L. de C.V.

Our logos, “Ceres®“Ceres®”, “The Energy Crop Company®“Blade®”, “Blade Energy Crops®“Skyscraper®”, “Blade®“Persephone™ ” and “Skyscraper®“iCODE™ ” and other trademarks or service marks of Ceres, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of Ceres, Inc. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains additional trade names, trademarks and service marks of other companies. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply relationships with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, these other companies.

This Annual Report

Based on Form 10-K contains references to acres, hectares, gallons, liters, wet metric tons, dry tons and kilograms. In the United States, blendstock fuels are typically measured and sold in gallons. In other partsExchange Rate of the world, the standard unit is liters. The following table sets forth the conversion factor between metrics.Central Bank of Brazil, on November 10, 2015, one Real was equivalent to 0.26 U.S. dollars.

 

1 Hectare

=2.471 Acres

1 Gallon

=3.785 Liters

1 Wet Metric Ton

=1,000 Kilograms(Measurement commonly used to measure feedstock yields)

1 Dry Ton

=907 Kilograms(Measurement commonly used to measure dry biomass for cellulosic biofuels and biopower)

1 Brazilian Real

=0.4910 US Dollars(As of November 7, 2012)

1 British Pound

=1.5983 US Dollars(As of November 7, 2012)ii

 

ii


PART I

 

Item 1.Business

Item 1.  Business

Our Company

We are an agricultural biotechnology company sellingthat develops and markets seeds and traits to produce dedicated energy crops – renewable bioenergy feedstocks that can enable the large-scale replacement of petroleumfor feed, forages, sugar and other fossil fuels.markets. We use a combination of advanced plant breeding, biotechnology and biotechnologybioinformatics to develop seed products that we believeand biotechnology traits to address many of the current limitations of first-generation bioenergy feedstocks, such as corn and sugarcane,future challenges facing agriculture. These technology platforms, which can increase crop productivity, improve quality, reduce crop inputs and improve cultivation on marginal land.land, have broad application across multiple end markets, including food, feed, fiber and fuel.

Increased global prosperity is driving increasing agricultural demand. As human societies become wealthier, they typically increase meat and dairy consumption. As a result, demand for forage, feed and hay crops to feed meat and dairy cattle is expected to continue to increase. We believe that growers of forage crops, including vertically integrated businesses such as dairies, will need to seek improved sources of forage as well as utilize more marginal quality cropland, or cropland with limited water availability, to meet their feedstock requirements. To maximize milk and meat production, dairies and livestock producers frequently supplement rations of grasses with other crops and nutritional sources. We believe that a single crop plant with improved forage quality can be a significant supplement to existing livestock feed rations. Using our technology platforms, we are developing forage and feed crops with a better balance of yield, energy and nutrition. In forage sorghum, we are taking advantage of the natural drought tolerance and lower fertilizer requirements of sorghum and combining it with biotech traits for enhanced biomass yield and quality. By utilizing our high biomass or quality traits, such as our high carbohydrate trait, we believe sorghum could potentially surpass silage corn in milk yield per acre, which is a key crop performance metric for dairies. We also believe there is an opportunity to utilize these traits in other forage crops, such as alfalfa and silage corn. Many of these traits have already been developed as part of our historical activities in bioenergy.

Our first large-scalecurrent commercial seed products are proprietary sweethave demonstrated a number of favorable attributes for forage feed, including high yields and lower water requirements, as well as competitive production costs relative to corn and certain hay crops. In addition our product development pipeline contains numerous traits and seed products that have demonstrated further yield improvements as well as enhanced energy content and nutrition. Following commercial field evaluations in 2014, we launched our U.S. forage sorghum hybrids that can be used asbusiness in 2015 and initiated multiple distribution arrangements with well-established providers of crop inputs and services, including Helena Chemical Company, Wilbur-Ellis and 3rd Millennium Genetics. Distributors provide us with local market information, agronomy support and access to their customer base.

In addition to our forage sorghum opportunity, in certain crops, including corn, rice and sugar beet, we have out-licensed a “drop-in” feedstock to extend the operating season of Brazilian sugarcane-to-ethanol mills, the operating days of which are currently limited due to the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth patterns. Our dedicated energy crops can also be used for the production of second-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals, including cellulosic ethanol, butanol, jet fuel, diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like molecules, from non-food biomass. Finally, baseload utility-scale electric power can also be generated from the biomass feedstocks grown from our seeds.

The seed industry has historically required very little capital to produce, condition and package seeds, and seeds have typically been priced based on a share of the value they create and thus have generated high gross margins. As a producer of proprietary seeds, we believe we are in one of the most attractive segments of the bioenergy value chain — upstream from the capital-intensive refining and conversion of biomass. Therefore, we believe our success is tied to adoptionportion of our products rather than the relative profitability of downstream participants. Our upstream position in the value chain also allows ustraits and gene technology to be largely independent of the success of any particular conversion technology or end use.

We develop low input dedicated energy crops capable of producing high yields per acre using innovative plant breedingexisting market participants and trait biotechnology. By developingcontinue to pursue opportunities to out-license these types of crops, we enable the scalable, sustainable and economic production of bioenergy. Our proprietary collection of energy crop parent lines, known as germplasm, in combination with our pipeline of biotechnology traits allows us to develop bioenergy feedstocks to meet the needs of ethanol mills, biorefineries and growers of energy crops, all while using less water and less fertilizer than row crops like corn or soybean, even if grown on marginal land.technologies, among other go-to-market strategies. We believe that the strength of our technology has been validated by our receipt of multiple competitive grants and collaborations, including a United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, grant and one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s first Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E, grants in 2009, as well as a $137 million multi-year collaborationcollaborations with Monsanto Company signed in 2002.leading companies. We also have significant intellectual property rights to our technology platforms, traits and seed products.

Forage Sorghum Seed and Traits

In 2015, we expanded our sorghum offerings to include hybrids for use as livestock feed and forage. We are leveraging our core capabilities in plant transformation and biotech traits and combining them with proprietary forage sorghum hybrids and breeding lines. Our goal is to expand forage sorghum into a major feed crop with higher yield and nutritional quality. We believe that our opportunity is supported by the following capabilities and advantages:

·  Access to Leading Germplasm via Long-Term Relationship with Texas A&M University.   Since 2007, we have acquired access to valuable sorghum parental lines (germplasm) through our strategic collaboration with Texas A&M University. We believe that this long-term relationship will continue to play a key role in developing new hybrids for the forage market similar to the advantages we received during our historical activities with similar types of sorghum.

1

· Multiple Distribution Arrangements.  We have entered into several distribution agreements with well-established distributors of crop inputs and sellservices in North America, including Helena Chemical Company, Wilbur-Ellis and 3rd Millennium Genetics. For the 2015 growing season underway in North America, we sold more than 4,000 acres of our sweetBlade forage sorghum seedsseed products for commercial evaluations, compared to approximately 3,000 acres previously estimated in BrazilJuly 2015 and 600 acres planted the previous season. We believe drought and water supply concerns in certain regions of the U.S. positively influenced customer decisions to plant our switchgrass, high biomassforage sorghum hybrids. As an outlet for previous generations of products in our portfolio, we also introduced generic seed for certain market segments. Plantings of generic seed are expected to cover several thousand additional acres.

·Favorable Performance Compared to Other Forage Sorghum and sweet sorghum seedsSilage Corn.   Our current hybrids, which are traditionally bred and do not yet contain biotech traits, have performed well in numerous commercial and multi-hybrid field trials in the United States under our brand, Blade Energy Crops, or Blade. Our largest immediate commercial opportunityand have demonstrated a number of favorable attributes for forage feed, such as high yields and lower water requirements, as well as competitive production costs relative to corn and certain hay crops. For example, in two university-led evaluations, which included products from well-known seed companies, we achieved the highest milk production yield per acre, which is a key metric for dairy operations. For the Brazilian ethanol market, which currently uses sugarcane as its predominant feedstock. Due to the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth patterns, Brazilian mill operators typically obtain sugarcane that makes mill operation economically feasible approximately 200 days per year, based on a report issued by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture’s crop forecasting agency,Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Conab), dated May 2012. The current crush capacity will need to increase to meet expected domestic demand. The Brazilian government’s energy research institute,Empresa de Pesquisa Energética, projects that ethanol demand will more than double to 73.3 billion liters per year by 2020, from 28.2 billion liters in 2011.

In the 2010-20112015 growing season in collaboration with several mills,North America, we completed a commercial-scale trial on approximately 250 hectares of our sweet sorghum, which was planted and harvested using existing planting and harvesting equipment, fermented into ethanol without retrofitting or altering the existing mill and the remaining

biomass combusted for electricity production, using existing boilers in the last growing season. During the following season, we completed our first sales of sweet sorghum, which amounted to greater than 3,000 hectares toare evaluating more than a dozen mills, including multi-mill conglomerates, which are responsible for approximately 20% of the sugarcane crushed in Brazil, which we derive from the annual sugar and ethanol guide,Anuario Da Cana 2012. Proof of concept was again confirmed, and at a greater scale, although yields were less than optimal due to severe drought conditions that affected agricultural crops in the region, including sugarcane and sweet sorghum. We believe these experiences demonstrate the “drop-in” nature of our sweet sorghum products, and along with higher yielding products in our pipeline, seed-based propagation, shorter growing cycles and lower water and fertilizer requirements of sweet sorghum relative to sugarcane, will serve as the basis for expanded adoption of this product line as a feedstock for ethanol and power production in Brazil and other markets. For the upcoming 2012-2013 season, we have introduced six new hybrids that offer performance advantages such as higher yields and improved nutrition.

·Field Validated Biotech Traits and Non-Regulated Status.  We have significantly outperformedalso advanced our first generation commercial productsbiotech traits in multiplesorghum for additional field evaluations. Based onevaluations in the United States. In a 2014 U.S. field evaluation, one of our trial resultsleading biotech traits provided a greater than 20% biomass yield advantage in a commercial-type sorghum. In 2014, we also received confirmation from the USDA that our high biomass trait was not considered a regulated article under 7 CFR §340 of the USDA’s mandate to dateregulate genetically engineered traits. This determination is likely to make it more cost-effective and pipeline of products under development,timely for us to develop this trait in sorghum, and as a result, we believe the adoption of our sweet sorghum hybrids could extend a mill’s operations by approximately 60 days. Seed sales and deliveries are ongoing and are expected to be completed by mid-December. While we have increased the number of mills planting our hybrids over the previous season, based on current sales trends, we believe that we will sell or provide trial seed to plant thousands of hectares, which is lower than we originally anticipated. This is due in parta clear and near-term path forward to the effectscommercialization of the drought last season and the focus amongthis trait. We are targeting commercial release as early as 2018. By utilizing our customer base on the field performance ofhigh biomass or quality traits, such as our new hybrids,high carbohydrate trait, which can be determined at a smaller scale. We believe that the industrial processing of our products has been validated during the past two seasons.

We also work with refining technology companies in the emerging cellulosic biofuelsgreenhouse, we believe sorghum could potentially surpass silage corn in milk yield per acre, which is a key crop performance metric for dairies.

Biotech Traits for Sugarcane and bio-based chemicals markets. We believe that dedicated energy crops will enable both individual renewable energy projects and the industry as a whole to reach greater scale and sustainability, at lower costs, than other potential sources of biomass because of their yields, hardiness and relatively low input requirements. We believe our dedicated energy crop portfolio is compatible with a number of developing cellulosic biofuel conversion technologies and we have worked with companies focusing on petroleum-refining technologies such as UOP LLC (a Honeywell Company), as well as chemical companies, such as Europe-based Gruppo Mossi & Ghisolfi, or Gruppo M&G, to test our energy crops in their respective production processes. We have also conducted joint trials with, or sold seed to AGCO Corporation, EdeniQ, Inc., Hawai’i BioEnergy, LLC and Sweetwater Energy Inc., among others.Other Crops

Our dedicated energy crops also can be used to generate electricity in existing solid-fuel power facilities, such as coal-fired generating plants. We believe we will see a material increase in demand for biopower in the event that additional renewable energy legislation is passed in the United States, Europe or other regions that requires a higher percentage of generation from low-carbon sources or provides equal production incentives for the co-firing of biomass with coal, as are currently available for wind and solar power. Based on feedback from customers, partners and industry participants, we believe that our products can be used by existing growers, pellet mills and utilities, and can be cost competitive with existing biopower feedstocks, such as wood pellets.

Finally, due to the nature of biotechnology we believe other crops can benefit from many of the traits we are developing for dedicated energy crops, such asinclude traits that improve water use efficiency and salt tolerance. By combining genes into a series of stacks, we believe, and our initial results indicate, that we can achieve step-change improvements to the productivity of many row crops, including corn, soybean, rice and wheat. We have also generated many biotech traits specifically for cereal crops, such as rice, that increase grainbiomass yields and provide greater yield stability across different environments. Evaluations of theseand resilience to drought and other traitsstress conditions. Our strategy is to focus on genes that have shown large, step increases in performance, and whose benefits are now underwaylargely maintained across multiple species. Trait performance is evaluated in India. Subject to regulatory approval,target crops, such as corn, rice and sugarcane, through multi-year field tests in various locations. To date, our field evaluations have largely confirmed earlier results obtained in greenhouse and laboratory settings.

We believe that a number of the first commercial rice hybrids with theseour biotech traits could beginprovide significant benefits to sugarcane production, such as improved biomass yields and greater resilience to drought and other stress conditions. Biotech solutions are particularly attractive in sugarcane because improvements through plant breeding have been cumbersome and slow compared to other crops. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization crop database, FAOSTAT, sugarcane is cultivated on approximately 65 million acres worldwide, including approximately 25 million acres in Brazil, 1 million acres in Colombia and 1 million acres in the U.S., all of which are initial target markets for our traits. In research-scale field evaluations completed in March 2015, our biotech traits demonstrated significant advantages in enhancing and protecting yields in commercial sugarcane varieties under tropical conditions in Latin America. Our yield traits accelerated maturation and ripening while demonstrating significant increases in overall biomass yields over controls. In addition, plants with one of our drought tolerance traits maintained biomass yields under low water conditions, and in certain cases, maintained yields with as little as half the water normally required during production. Plantings for the next stage of field trials were completed in June 2015 ahead of our original schedule. The next stage of research field trials, which should provide more definitive results, is expected to be completed by June 2016. At this current pace, commercial sugarcane cultivars with our traits could be ready for commercial scale-up, in select markets, as early as mid-2013.2018.

Market Opportunity

The world continuesFor crops that have been intensely bred, like corn and rice, we have taken a different approach than other crop biotechnology companies in developing traits. First, we have optimized the expression of our genes differently by using gene promoters in a more precise, sophisticated manner. Promoters are the on-off switches for genes that determine where, when and under what conditions a gene is turned on, or expressed. We also believe that combining our transgenes together provides the best approach to seek economicallygenerate a high impact advantage, such as increased grain yield or better drought tolerance. We describe these as multi-gene traits to distinguish them from first generation biotech crop traits, which usually consist of a single transgene per trait.

2

In two years of field evaluations in corn in China, our multi-gene biotech traits demonstrated significant yield advantages over controls in many of our research-scale field evaluations. Field evaluations represent a critical stage in the development of biotech crop traits, as they provide greater insight into how traits may perform in an agricultural setting. We have since advanced our best multi-gene combinations for additional testing of corn in China. We have expanded the scope of our trials, including evaluations of our traits in a more diverse set of corn breeding lines. Results of these evaluations are expected by January 2016. Favorable results from small-scale evaluations and environmentally sound alternativesresearch settings are not a guarantee of future commercial performance, and further evaluations will be necessary to fossil fuel-based transportation fuels, chemicalsconfirm results. While we believe multi-gene combinations provide a more optimal solution, not all combinations work. Just as important, the promoters, which determine where and power.when a gene is expressed, are a critical to optimizing performance. However, testing the thousands of possible combinations for multiple genes and promoters can easily overwhelm even the most robust trait development pipelines.

To help overcome this challenge, we have also developed a new high-throughput, low-cost approach called iCODE, to rapidly create, evaluate and select optimal combinations of genes and their control components for next-generation biotechnology traits in crops. We believe bioenergy is onethat iCODE may have application in multiple row crops, including canola, corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, soybean and wheat. Due to the efficiency of the few viable replacementssystem, we believe that it can enable new kinds of discoveries and allow even smaller research programs to compete effectively against larger companies. In August 2015, we were awarded a U.S. patent covering our iCODE technology.

In the third quarter of fiscal year 2015, we entered into a multi-year collaboration with a leading agricultural producer to develop biotech traits for fossil

fuels, particularly petroleum. Unlikeour collaborator’s crop in a defined geography. We expect the development and commercialization program will be fully funded by our collaboration partner, with payments to us expected to exceed $1.0 million by mid-2016. Under the agreement, we will also receive royalties for new cultivars commercialized under the collaboration. We are also exploring discussions with other renewable technologies, biofuels are intendedagricultural companies to utilize existing vehiclesdevelop and transportation fuel infrastructure. Similarly, biopower, unlike wind and solar power, can provide baseload and dispatchable generation of renewable electricity. Despite the potential of biofuels, first-generation biofuel feedstocks have demonstrated their limitationscommercialize our biotech traits in terms of scale, perceived competition with food production, net energy balance and dependence on government subsidies. Similarly, current sources of biomass,crops, such as forestry residuescorn and agricultural wastes, are limitedsugarcane, for certain geographies. In October 2015, we entered into a multi-year collaboration with Forage Genetics International (FGI) to develop and commercialize improved alfalfa. We expect that FGI will begin evaluating alfalfa varieties with our traits by next year. Results from these trials will determine commercialization timelines.

Persephone Bioinformatics Software

We have developed proprietary bioinformatics software, known as Persephone, to deal with the massive amounts of data generated in scaleplant genomics. In September 2015, we licensed Persephone to global seed developer, KWS SAAT SE. Bayer CropScience, Syngenta Biotechnology and are notHZPC Holland BV, all multi-national life sciences companies, have also licensed Persephone as their primary genome browser. The technology is also being evaluated by other companies and institutions in plant genomics.

Persephone is a proprietary bioinformatics technology that enables storage and access to large, complex datasets as well as optimized for use in bioenergy. They are also by-products deriveddata visualizations to view genetic data from other processespublic sources and therefore subject to supply disruptions.proprietary databases. Our dedicated energy crops provide an attractive combination of high yield density, high net energy balances, low input requirements,early need for the ability to growmanage large amounts of plant genomic data led to the effort to develop a scalable informatics platform, which resulted in our Persephone software. We believe that Persephone today is significantly more advanced than comparable products, including many in the human healthcare space. The Persephone software includes a number of proprietary data management optimizations to quickly access and visualize very large datasets. This speed enables more dynamic visualizations, intuitive discovery and greater insights into genetic information. We believe that our direct experience using Persephone internally and our ability to continually develop and launch new versions with additional features and functions will enable us to further establish our market position in the plant sciences and expand into new markets, such as biomedical research and diagnostics.

Realignment Plan

On June 19, 2015, we announced the continued realignment of our business away from bioenergy to focus on marginal landfood and forage opportunities and biotechnology traits for sugarcane and other crops. As part of the realignment, we undertook a restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations. The restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations, includes, among other actions, a workforce reduction that initially impacted 14 positions in Brazil primarily related to administration, operations and manufacturing as well as 2 support positions in the United States. We estimated that we would incur charges of approximately $0.6 million over the five-month period ending in October 2015 with respect to the initial workforce reductions in Brazil and the U.S., including $0.1 million in continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are eliminated, and $0.5 million of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures.

3

As of August 19, 2015, we had initiated a further workforce reduction that impacted an additional 19 positions in Brazil. We estimated that we would incur additional charges of approximately $0.8 million over the four-month period ending on December 31, 2015 with respect to the additional workforce reductions in Brazil, including $0.1 million in continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are eliminated, and $0.7 million of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures. We expect to save up to approximately $8.0 to $10.0 million in cash in fiscal 2016 as a dedicated sourceresult of feedstock, the potentialrestructuring our operations as described above, which is higher than we originally estimated. The restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations is expected to be tailoredsubstantially completed by February 1, 2016. After full implementation of the restructuring plan, our Brazilian operations will be focused on sugarcane trait development activities for specificthe Brazilian sugarcane market.

We believe that these changes represent an important step in the transformation of our business as we refocus on our strengths in agricultural technology and redirect our existing seed products and trait pipelines toward food and feed markets being fueled by global prosperity growth.

Our Markets

Across the world, growers are facing increasing demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel. This increasing demand is being primarily driven by an expanding middle class in certain regions. As global demand for agricultural outputs rises, a concurrent trend toward urbanization is causing a large reduction in the amount of arable land per capita available. The FAOSTAT data shows that the ratio of arable land to population steadily declined by over 50% from 1962 to 2012. Faced with increasing demand and limited supply in addition to stresses from climate variability and competition for water resources, growers are seeking to improve crop productivity through a number of technologies.

Livestock Feed and Forage

Globally, the market for forage feed was valued at approximately $85 billion in 2013, according to a 2014 report from Transparency Market Research. Due to increased global consumption of meat and dairy products, demand for forage feed and hay is expected to continue to increase. In the U.S., forage crops collectively represent the third largest crop by acreage. According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service there were approximately 57 million acres of hay harvested for livestock feed and forage in 2014. While exact production estimates worldwide are difficult to obtain, based on public reports, we estimate that approximately 119 million acres of alfalfa, silage corn and refining processes. Asforage sorghum are planted globally each year. The market that we believe can be targeted by our improved forage sorghum hybrids and traits consists of approximately 2 million acres of forage sorghum and approximately 7 million acres of silage corn in the U.S. as well as approximately 40 million acres of silage corn produced internationally. We believe that growers of forage crops, including vertically integrated businesses such as dairies, will need to seek improved sources of forage as well as utilize more marginal quality cropland, or cropland with limited water availability, to meet their feedstock requirements. To maximize milk and meat production, dairies and livestock producers frequently supplement rations of grasses with other crops and nutritional sources. We believe that a result,single crop plant with improved forage quality can provide a preferable solution.

Sugar

According to FAOSTAT, sugarcane is cultivated on approximately 65 million acres worldwide, including approximately 25 million acres in Brazil, 1 million acres in Colombia and 1 million acres in the U.S., all of which are initial target markets for our traits. Based on favorable greenhouse and initial field results, we believe that dedicated energya number of our biotech traits could provide significant benefits to sugarcane production, such as higher juice and sugar yields, accelerated growth and greater resilience to drought and other stress conditions. Biotech solutions are particularly attractive in sugarcane since improvements through plant breeding have been cumbersome and slow compared to other crops.

Row Crops

Approximately 448 million acres of biotechnology crops will become a critical component for the growth of the biofuel, bio-based chemicals and biopower markets.

Biofuels and Bio-Based Chemicals

Modern lifestyles and economies are highly reliant on petroleum and its by-products across a wide variety of industries, including light-duty transportation, aviation, diesel, shipping, lubricants, polymers and resins. According to the Energy Outlook Report publishedwere planted globally in September 2012 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, global oil production averaged 88.8 million barrels per day in the second quarter of 2012. The transportation fuel component of petroleum is valued at over $2 trillion per year,2014, according to EIA. The vast majority of bio-based replacements for petroleum and petroleum-based chemicals are currently produced by fermentation of starch sources and free or soluble sugars primarily derived from corn and sugarcane, respectively. Commonly referred to as first-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals, the production and conversion processes for these feedstocks are well-established. However, as the world looks to increase its consumption of biofuels and their derivatives, these first-generation feedstocks face challenges to meet increased demand.

In Brazil, which has been importing corn ethanol to meet its domestic demand, we believe that mill operators will seek alternatives that will allow them to increase production utilization of their existing mills beyond the average 200 days per year schedule in order to maximize their market opportunity. On a global basis, we expect petroleum consumption will be further supplemented by products made from the conversion of non-food biomass into biofuels and bio-based chemicals. Today, there are more than 50 companies, including large multinational companies, such as BP p.l.c., Royal Dutch Shell plc and Total S.A., and independent companies, such as KiOR, Inc. and Coskata, Inc., focused on improving or interested in licensing and commercializing non-food biomass conversion technologies. The first commercial-scale facility, constructed by KiOR, Inc., began operations in November 2012 in Mississippi. A similar sized facility, built and operated by Chemtex International, Inc., is expected to begin operations by the end of 2012 in Italy. According to a 2011 report published by International Energy Agency, or IEA, biofuel production could reach approximately 112 billion gallons per year by 2030, up from 26 billion gallons in 2010. To meet these targets, the IEA believes feedstock production would need to increase to 150 million acres in 2030, up from 75 million acres in 2010. We believe quadrupling the volume of biofuels while only doubling the feedstock production acres will require higher yielding second-generation feedstocks. Moreover, in the United States, the U.S. Department of Energy, or the DOE, projects that biomass energy crops will represent the largest potential source of biomass feedstock in its August 2011 report titled,U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry.The DOE projects that acreage of perennial energy grasses and annual energy crops could reach from 35 to 46 million acres in 2022, depending on productivity gains.

Biopower

Globally, 7.7 trillion kilowatthours of electricity were generated from coal in 2008, or 40% of total global power generation, according to the EIA, which we estimate required 3.8 billion tons of coal. By comparison, approximately 270 billion kilowatthours of electricity were generated from biomass and wastes in 2009 which we estimate required 230 million dry tons of biomass. The conversion of biomass to power has traditionally been fueled by bio-based waste products and residues from the paper and timber industries. As is the case for biofuels,

we believe this practice has limited the size, location, efficiency and scale of biomass power generation because power producers cannot reliably secure long-term supplies of consistent quality feedstock. We believe we will see a material increase in demand for biopower in the event that additional renewable energy legislation is passed in the United States, Europe or other regions that requires a higher percentage of generation from low-carbon sources, or that incentivizes the combustion of biomass.

Food and Feed Crops

According to a March 2012January 2015 report published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, or ISAAA, approximately 395 million acres of biotechnology crops were planted globally in 2011.Applications. The global market value of biotechnology crop seeds was $13approximately $15.7 billion, as reported inaccording to the same report by ISAAA.report. In the United States, we estimate, based on the price differential between conventional seed varieties and similar varieties with a trait, that retail premiums for traits and stacked trait combinations in rowfood, feed and fiber crops range from approximately $10 to $50 per acre, depending on crop and geography. We estimate that the value created by traits is typically shared between seed companies and growers at a ratio ranging from approximately 30/70 to 60/40, respectively. As people in many countries become more affluent, they tend to consume more of their dietary protein in the form of meat and dairy products, driving the demand for animal feed grains and forage higher. Therefore, greater production of food, feed, fiber and fuelfiber will require higher crop productivity levels among all crops over time. In order to continue the productivity gains made in many crops over the past 75 years, and to do so in a more sustainable manner, we believe that advanced breeding methods, and biotech traits, in particular, will be required to produce higher performance crops that make more productive use of cultivated land, as well as to develop more robust, stress-tolerant crops that can grow under more difficult conditions and on marginal land. Our belief is consistent with historical yield improvements achieved via plant breeding and the adoption of agricultural biotechnology.

Our Solutions

4

Genomics and Bioinformatics Technologies

The genomics and bioinformatics markets are growing rapidly. According to a May 2014 industry report from Allied Market Research, the bioinformatics market alone is forecast to grow from $3.4 billion in 2013 to $12.8 billion by 2020. Based on a 2014 report by the National Science Board, we estimate that the current market for Persephone consists of approximately 100,000 life science researchers who routinely access and utilize genetic and genomic information for research purposes and discovery. We believe that nearly all bioenergyPersephone has immediate application in multiple scientific and bio-based chemical applicationsmedical fields that utilize genetic information, with a natural extension into clinical and diagnostic settings and additional potential end users in professional and consumer markets. Bioinformatics involves the development and storage methods that help in the organizing, analyzing, and retrieving of biological information. Today, a genome can be sequenced in a few hours for several thousand dollars — a task that took 13 years and $2.7 billion to accomplish during the Human Genome Project. Gathering genetic data is no longer a bottleneck for scientific researchers; however, a major hurdle remains in the efficient organization, analysis, and interpretation of the data. We expect that the low cost and widespread application of DNA sequencing and genetic testing in both plant and medical research will ultimately dependrequire improved tools, like our Persephone bioinformatics platform, to visualize, explore and mine genetic data. Based on high yielding, low-cost, low-carbon, scalable, reliableinternal performance metrics, and sustainable sources of feedstock. Wethose reported by our current collaborators, we believe that our dedicated energy cropsPersephone software offers a number of competitive performance advantages and traits have the potential to become the common denominator inhas applications across a broad arraynumber of bio-based products, including ethanol, butanol, jet fuel, diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like molecules, as well as electric power and heat, and can enable the development of larger-scale processing facilities given the high yield density and conversion efficiency of dedicated energy crops. Specifically, our dedicated energy crops have the following characteristics, which we believe will make them a critical component in the large-scale production of these bio-based products:life science technology platforms that utilize genomics data.

“Drop-in” Products

In Brazil, there is a well-established biofuel industry. Our products are “drop-in” solutions because they can be planted, harvested and processed using existing agricultural equipment with little or no modification and are being developed to be “drop-in” for all conversion technologies using sugarcane or biomass feedstocks, facilitating their rapid adoption. In the 2010-2011 planting season, in collaboration with several mills, we completed a commercial-scale trial on approximately 250 hectares of our sweet sorghum, which was planted and harvested using existing planting and harvesting equipment, fermented into ethanol without retrofitting or altering the existing mill and the remaining biomass combusted for electricity production, using existing boilers in the last growing season. During the following season, we completed our first sales of sweet sorghum, which amounted to greater than 3,000 hectares to more than a dozen mills, including multi-mill conglomerates. Proof of concept was again confirmed, and at a greater scale, although yields were less than optimal due to severe drought conditions that affected agricultural crops in the region, including sugarcane and sweet sorghum. For the upcoming 2012-2013 season, we have introduced six new hybrids that have significantly outperformed our first generation commercial products in multiple field evaluations. Seed sales and deliveries are ongoing and are expected to be completed by mid-December.

In other countries, there are a wide range of cellulosic to biofuel conversion technologies currently being developed; however none have any appreciable market share at this time. To explore this opportunity, we have

conducted smaller trials using our other energy crops with numerous industry participants involved in cellulosic or advanced biofuels and biopower production. For example, our products have been tested in the respective conversion processes of Amyris, Inc., Gruppo M&G., EdeniQ, Inc., ICM, Inc., Novozymes North America, Inc., ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc. and UOP, LLC (a Honeywell company), among others. These tests have confirmed that biomass from our energy grasses can be converted and processed into various fuels or bio-based products, and have provided data we have used to further enhance our energy crops for use with these conversion technologies. For similar purposes, DuPont Cellulosic Ethanol (formerly DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC) also plans to validate our products in its conversion process as part of a publicly announced project with the University of Tennessee.

High Yield Density

Our dedicated energy crops are developed to produce high biomass or sugar yields per acre. For cellulosic biofuels, bio-based chemicals and biopower, energy grasses can yield significantly more dry tons per acre per year compared to agricultural residues and woody biomass. This maximizes the productivity of available land and shortens the collection radius for a conversion facility of a particular size. As harvest and transportation costs can be a significant element in the total cost of biomass, we believe our high yield density crops will facilitate the construction of larger processing facilities because more biomass could be collected from a defined area of land around the facility. In turn, these larger facilities will benefit from economies of scale, resulting in lower production and capital cost per gallon produced.

Dedicated to Bioenergy and Bio-based Chemicals

Unlike many other bioenergy feedstocks, our dedicated energy crops are currently not intended for other uses and are typically grown exclusively to be harvested as part of the bioenergy and bio-chemical value chain, creating a stable supply that will appeal to owners of conversion technologies who have invested significant capital in their infrastructure and therefore require reliable and cost-effective feedstocks. Additionally, we are working to tailor our products to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of certain conversion technologies. For example, we are developing a trait that reduces enzyme requirements to convert biomass into certain bio-based products. As high enzyme costs continue to be an issue for some biochemical cellulosic conversion technologies, this trait could be very valuable to refineries employing those technologies. We believe that our ability to deliver products such as these to our customers will facilitate adoption of dedicated energy crops over other forms of biomass.

Suited to Marginal Land

Our dedicated energy crops can grow in a broad range of environments, including those not well-suited for most food crops. For example, our sweet sorghum hybrids need substantially less water and fertilizer than sugarcane to grow to harvestable maturity. We are developing biotech traits that provide salt tolerance, drought tolerance and greater nitrogen use efficiency. We believe that by facilitating the use of marginal land, our crops will create opportunities for landowners who previously could not use their land as productively.

Scalable to Meet Demand

Our energy crops are highly scalable, allowing us to match our production with growing demand for our seeds on relatively short notice compared to sugarcane, which can take several years to scale up commercially. Our products are generally seed-propagated, similar to row crops such as corn and soybean, which makes them cost-effective to plant on a large scale using existing seed planting equipment. Several of our products also have shorter growing cycles and can be rapidly cultivated as compared to other feedstocks, such as trees or sugarcane. For example, sweet sorghum has growth cycles ranging from 90 to 150 days, while sugarcane has a 12 to 18 month growth cycle and a more laborious planting process because it is vegetatively propagated.

Competitive Strengths

We believe that we possess a number of competitive strengths that position us to become a leading provider of dedicated energy crop seeds, traits and bioinformatics technologies, including:

Current Commercial Products with Multiple Advanced Products in Pipeline

Our current commercial products and product pipeline contain numerous traits and seed products with potential across multiple crops including sorghum, sugarcane and corn, among others. Moreover, we are focused on crops and traits including:outside the primary market areas of major international agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporations.

Commercial Products Available Today

Leading Platform with Full Agricultural Biotech Seed Company Capabilities

We currentlyare an agricultural biotechnology company that uses biotechnology, advanced plant breeding and genomic technologies to create high value traits and seeds to produce agricultural crops. Our integrated technology platform delivers a combination of valuable genetic assets and competencies in genomics and gene mapping, biotechnology and bioinformatics. Our iCODE technology enables high throughput genetic testing that can speed up the trait development process. In addition to possessing the research and development capabilities necessary to generate new product candidates, we are vertically integrated, which gives us the ability to bring agricultural biotechnology products to market in select crops.

Extensive Intellectual Property Portfolio of High Value Traits and Germplasm

We have an extensive intellectual property portfolio of both field-validated high value traits and germplasm, which includes thousands of specimens and breeding lines, as well as multiple pools of regionally adapted germplasm spanning multiple climates. We have extensive filings around unique combinations of gene promotors and protein coding sequences. Having both germplasm and field-validated trait portfolios allows us to leverage the synergies created to facilitate innovation in a way that is not possible with germplasm or traits alone. In our focus geographies, we believe that we have a significant advantage over new entrants who would need several generations of germplasm development and/or access to biotech traits to achieve performance equivalent to our current product portfolio and pipeline.

Multiple Out-Licensing Opportunities

Our biotech traits and core technology platforms provide multiple opportunities for exclusive or non-exclusive out-licensing, by crop and/or geography and market. Traits developed through biotechnology, also known as genetic engineering, can be added to multiple crops with similar effect in most cases. Our strategy is to focus on genes that have shown large, step increases in performance and whose benefits are largely maintained across multiple species.

5

Positioned to Capitalize on Growth of Large End Markets

Our biotechnology platform, which has proven to increase biomass productivity, raise quality, reduce crop inputs and improve cultivation on marginal land, has broad application across multiple end markets and crops. Faced with increasing demand and limited supply in addition to stresses from climate variability and competition for water resources, growers are seeking to improve crop productivity through a number of commercially available seed products, including sweet sorghum, switchgrasstechnologies. Agricultural biotechnology has and high biomass sorghum. Our sweet sorghum hybridswill continue to represent a significant source of innovation for increasing crop yields through improving performance of seeds.

Validated, Robust Bioinformatics Platform

We have been successfully planted, harvestedestablished our Persephone bioinformatics software as a preeminent platform for storing, organizing, accessing and processedvisualizing genetic information, and have displaced incumbent solutions at major life science companies. The software includes a number of proprietary data management optimizations to quickly access and visualize very large datasets. This speed enables more dynamic visualizations, intuitive discovery and greater insights into ethanol and power in Brazil at commercial scale.genetic information. We believe that our direct experience using Persephone internally and our ability to continually develop and launch new versions with additional features and functions will enable us to further establish our market position in the experience of using our productsplant sciences and expand into new markets, such as a “drop-in” feedstock for the past two growing seasons, as well as new higher yielding hybrids in our product portfolio, will serve as the basis for expanded adoption of this product line as a feedstock for ethanolbiomedical research and power production in Brazil and other markets. In addition, for the 2012-2013 sweet sorghum growing season in Brazil, we have offered mills the opportunity to participate in various sales incentive and performance based promotional programs.diagnostics.

Attractive Business Model

Seed businesses traditionally incur significant research and development expenditures and have long product development time lines, but benefit from a combination of high gross margins, low capital expenditure requirements and intellectual property protection. Once developed, seeds require little physical infrastructure or production cost to be replicated for sale. Seeds are typically priced, however, based on a share of the value created to the customer as opposed to their cost of production. In general, seed costs to a growergrowers are a relatively small percentage of their total production cost, but the performance of those seeds is critical to the growers’ economics. We believe we can position our business to take advantage of low production costs relative to the high value of our products to our customers.

Innovative R&D Technology Platforms

In order to maintain the strong position we have established with our combined strengths in germplasm and field-validated traits, we use our research and development expertise to continually improve our product offerings. To develop higher performing varieties and traits, we use several advanced research and development methods, including biotechnology, marker-assisted breeding and genomics. We believe that our innovative integrated breeding and biotechnology approach allows us to efficiently identify traits, effectively express these traits in crops, and more quickly commercialize new and improved seeds and traits for the market. We have both biotech traits and non-biotech traits. Our biotech traits for high biomass yield, nitrogen use efficiency, water use efficiency, drought tolerance and altered flower development, among others, have been successfully evaluated in the field; however, they are still several years away from commercialization. We believe we were one of the first companies to implement the practice of developing biotech traits using two test species, rather than just one, which we believe allows us to more successfully select gene-trait combinations that enhance commercial crops. We believe that our ability to continue to apply our advanced research and development methods will enable us to further enhance our proprietary germplasm and traits portfolios going forward.

Extensive Proprietary Portfolios of Germplasm and Traits

While many companies have developed portfolios of germplasm or traits, we believe we are one of the only companies focused on dedicated energy crops that has large portfolios of both field-validated traits and germplasm, which includes thousands of specimens and breeding lines, as well as multiple pools of regionally adapted germplasm spanning northern temperate to tropical climates. We have also identified to date numerous genes and their relatives from different species that significantly enhance agriculturally relevant traits. Having both germplasm and field-validated trait portfolios allows us to leverage the synergies created by combining the two and facilitates innovation in a way that would not be possible with germplasm or traits alone. We believe new market entrants would need to cultivate several generations of germplasm to achieve performance equivalent to our current product portfolio, by which time we believe we will have further evolved our germplasm.

Therefore, we believe our proprietary position would be difficult and time-consuming to replicate. We also believe that we have established a strong intellectual property position in plant genes, traits and energy crop germplasm. As of November 7, 2012, we owned or had exclusive licensed rights to approximately 100 issued patents and approximately 210 pending patent applications in the United States and in various foreign jurisdictions.

Management Team with Significant Industry Experience

Our Chairman, Walter De Logi, is one of the founders of Ceres. Dr. De Logimanagement team includes leading scientists and Richard Hamilton, our Chief Executive Officer, have been with Ceres for 16 and 14 years, respectively, andindustry experts who have extensive experience in the field of agricultural biotechnology. Our experienced management team possessesbiotechnology and possess a deep understanding of a variety of agricultural chemical and industrial biotechnology businesses, including the seed industry, as well as our regional markets of Brazil, the United States and Europe. Our management team also includes top scientists and industry experts, some of whom have served in leadership roles at large, multinational corporations, served on advisory committees for the U.S. Department of Energy, led ground-breaking research studies and published numerous scientific articles.industry.

Our Strategy

Our objective is to be thea leading provider of dedicated energy crop seeds and traits to the renewable energy industry,a variety of agricultural markets, including first-generation biofuels such as ethanol as well as cellulosic biofuels, biopowerlivestock feed and bio-based chemicals by employing the following strategies:

Expand Our Presence in Brazil

During the 2011-2012 season, 14 mill groups representing approximately 20%forage, sugar and other markets. In our realigned business, we plan to leverage many of the sugarcane crushed in Brazil, planted our sweet sorghum hybrids on more than 3,000 hectares. Our products were grown, harvestedtechnology advances we achieved historically for bioenergy markets, including traits for increased biomass and processed, and produced both ethanol and power using existing agricultural equipment and processing infrastructure. We are using this second season of evaluations, and large scale proof of concept, to expand our presence in Brazil by partnering with additional ethanol mills and other industry participants to conduct field trials and larger scale commercial plantings as well as introduce new products into the Brazilian market. We will continue to position our seeds in the Brazilian market as a premium brand that incorporates the latest technology in energy crops. We believe the adoption of sweet sorghum in Brazil can follow similar rapid adoption curves seen for other seed and agricultural innovations such as hybrid corn in the United States and herbicide-tolerant soybean in the Americas. Our belief is based on the drop-in natureimproved digestibility. Key elements of our sweet sorghum products.business strategy include:

Expand Strategic Collaborations to Develop

·Expand forage sorghum’s use into a major feed crop with greater yield and nutritional quality, increased value capture and expanded market potential;
·Make use of the positive regulatory landscape to introduce biotech traits in our branded sorghum seed products, beginning in the U.S.;
·Pursue additional license and royalty-based collaborations with market leaders in multiple geographies to introduce our biotechnology traits to other forage crops and sugarcane;
·

Continue to realign our business operations in Brazil toward sugarcane trait development and commercialization, and work with well-established local partners; and Market Cellulosic Biofuels

·Increase the number of plant sciences customers utilizing our Persephone platform and expand into the biomedical fields, where genetic information is analyzed and viewed in a similar manner to plant genomics.

We plan to play a significant role in developing the second-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals market, which we believe represents a significant opportunity. Our switchgrass and high biomass sorghum products are specifically targeted at this market. We intend to establish new collaborations and expand upon our current collaborations with leading cellulosic biorefining companies, technology providers and project developers to further validate our products across various downstream technologies and to produce optimized feedstocks that are tailored to meet the specifications of existing and new refining technologies. Our products have been tested in the respective conversion processes of several companies, including Gruppo M&G, EdeniQ, Inc., ICM, Inc., Novozymes North America, Inc., ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc. and UOP, LLC (a Honeywell company). DuPont Cellulosic Ethanol (formerly DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC) also plans to validate our products in their conversion process. We have also conducted joint trials, or sold seed to AGCO Corporation, EdeniQ, Inc. Hawai’i BioEnergy, LLC and Sweetwater Energy Inc., among others.

Expand Our Business into New Markets

We intend to market our Blade Energy Crops brand as a symbol of quality, innovation and value across multiple biofuel, bio-based chemicals and biopower markets in a broad range of climates and geographies. We intend to use our large portfolios of field-validated traits and germplasm, combined with our advanced technology platforms, to develop products for a wide variety of niches and seize upon future market opportunities, regardless of the fuel or chemical molecule (e.g., ethanol, butanol, farnesene, biogasoline, biodiesel, biocrude), biochemical (e.g., bioplastics, lubricants) or engine choice (e.g., all-electric, E85, E15, diesel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid).

Build New Relationships and Enhance Established Collaborations in the Global Biopower Market

Our switchgrass, high biomass sorghum and miscanthus crops can be used in power generation generally, and in particular, for co-firing with coal using the existing power generation infrastructure. To date, we have engaged in field trials of our energy crops with utility companies and independent power producers. We intend to cultivate collaborations with new parties, particularly those in Europe where we believe the market opportunity for biopower is more established today and the market need is more immediate in light of existing government regulations. We will work with utility companies and independent power producers to drive demand for our dedicated energy crops in the biopower market.

Continue Innovation and New Product Development

We are continuing to develop innovative solutions using a broad range of technological tools, including genomics, biotechnology and proprietary bioinformatics in order to produce crop varieties with improved yields and other performance characteristics. We believe we can accomplish these goals by finding innovative ways to utilize and combine traits and germplasm to further enhance our products. In addition, we will continue to develop varieties of seeds to meet the specific needs of growers in different geographic regions. For example, we have identified traits that will help optimize results for growers located in geographies with varying day lengths, rainfall, temperatures and soil composition (e.g., salt, aluminum and nitrogen).

Continue to Build Our Intellectual Property Portfolio

We believe we have established a strong intellectual property position in plant genes, traits and energy crop germplasm, based on the nature, size and filing dates of our patent portfolio and plant variety protection certificates. We believe we are one of the few companies focused on dedicated energy crops that have this combination of intellectual property assets. We use our integrated technology platforms to continually improve our products and develop innovations that will further strengthen our intellectual property position.

Our Technology Platforms

Our integrated technology platforms are a combination of existing genetic assets, specifically germplasm and traits, and competencescompetencies in genomics, biotechnology and bioinformatics. Integration of these platforms allows us to improve our existing genetic assets as well as develop and commercialize new products from them. This combination of assetsWe have also identified to date numerous genes and research and development capability has resulted in one of the largest licensing transactions in the agricultural biotechnology industry, multiple competitive grants and collaborations, including a USAID grant to develop several traits in rice and one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s first ARPA-E grants in 2009. For the fiscal years ended August 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, we spent $16.7 million, $19.0 million and $19.2 million, respectively, on research and development, with the main emphasis on traits and breeding.

their relatives from different species that significantly enhance agriculturally relevant traits.

6

Germplasm

We believe that we have access to the most comprehensivea highly competitive sorghum germplasm collections for our dedicated energy crops, and have assembled a leading germplasm portfolio for dedicated energy crops.collection. Our belief is based on the diversity and nature of the entries we have and how well they have been evaluated, and measured and cataloged. Germplasm comprises collections of parental lines and other genetic resources representing the diversity of a crop, the attributes of which are inherited from generation to generation. Germplasm is a key strategic asset since it forms the basis of plant breeding programs.

Our early entry into the energy crop industry has allowed us to acquireprograms and product development. We have acquired access to valuable germplasm through strategic collaborations with leading institutions. We believe our competitors would need to cultivate several generations of germplasm to achieve performance equivalent to our current product portfolio, by which time we will have further evolved our germplasm. Therefore, we believe that we have a strong proprietary position that would be difficult and time-consuming to replicate. We are currently involved in three major germplasm development collaborations, each with a history of successful research and germplasm development in an energy crop.institutions, including Texas A&M. When we sell varieties developed during such collaborations, or based on the results of such collaborations, we will typically pay our collaborators royalties on net sales of such varieties.

Sorghum — Texas A&M University. In August 2007, we entered into an agreement with The Texas A&M University System, or Texas A&M, for the development and commercialization of high biomass sorghum, sweet sorghum and selected related crops as energy crops, together with the discovery of molecular markers for certain traits. The agreement was amended and restated in September 2011 and provides us with exclusive access to a highly regarded sorghum breeding program and the extensive sorghum genetics, breeding and genomics infrastructure of Texas A&M through September 2026. This agreement provides exclusive options and licenses to defined sorghum germplasm, elite sorghum breeding lines, parental lines, advanced hybrids and genomic markers. We have entered into two exclusive world-wide license agreements with Texas A&M for sorghum lines. The terms of such exclusive license agreements provide that the licenses expire on a country-by-country basis upon the expiration of all registered or patented intellectual property rights of Texas A&M covering the licensed line. Pursuant to such agreements, we pay Texas A&M a royalty on sales of varieties developed using the licensed line at a rate that decreases from low double digits to low single digit rates as a percentage of sales when the licensed line is combined with lines from other sources to develop a variety. We also pay Texas A&M a royalty in the low double digits as a percentage of license income if we grant sublicenses and minimum royalties creditable against royalties on sales. Royalty rates for our current commercial varieties developed using lines licensed from Texas A&M are in the mid single digits as a percentage of sales. Minimum royalties payable to Texas A&M under these agreements escalate on a yearly basis and range from zero to $5,000 per year. We also bear reasonable expenses for intellectual property protection. Further, pursuant to our Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement and Amended and Restated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, we have an option to obtain an exclusive world-wide commercial license with the right to grant sublicenses to the inventions and sorghum lines resulting from our sponsored program. To date, aggregate upfront license fees that have been paid or have become due to Texas A&M under these agreements have been $4,000. There are no milestone payments payable under our agreements with Texas A&M.

Switchgrass — The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc.Traits In May 2006, we entered into an agreement with The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., or the Noble Foundation, a non-profit agricultural institute, for the development and commercialization of switchgrass. This relationship provides us access to extensive breeding infrastructure and exclusive licenses to elite switchgrass varieties, breeding lines and advanced cultivars. We have entered into exclusive license agreements with the Noble Foundation for three switchgrass varieties, which the Noble Foundation has licensed on an exclusive basis from the University of Georgia Research Foundation, or UGARF. Such agreements provide that we will file for intellectual property protection on such varieties at our expense in the joint names of the Noble Foundation and UGARF. The term of each such exclusive license agreement is, on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, the longer of the duration of the intellectual property rights covering the licensed variety or 15 years from the first sale of the licensed variety in

such jurisdiction. Pursuant to one agreement, we pay the Noble Foundation a royalty on sales that ranges from mid single digits to low double digits as a percentage of sales and a royalty on license income in low double digits as a percentage of license income if we grant sublicenses and minimum royalties creditable against royalties on sales and license income. Pursuant to the second agreement, we pay the Noble Foundation a royalty on sales in mid single digits as a percentage of sales, a royalty on license income in the low double digits as a percentage of license income if we grant sublicenses and minimum royalties creditable against royalties on sales and license income. The minimum royalties payable to the Noble Foundation under these agreements escalate on a yearly basis and range from $2,500 to $20,000 per year, per variety.

In addition, we have an outstanding exclusive option to enter into an exclusive license to two switchgrass varieties, which the Noble Foundation has the exclusive option to license, or to the extent exercised, an exclusive license from UGARF. Such option is exercisable at any time, by Ceres providing written notice to Noble, but no later than twelve months from the respective release date of the subject switchgrass variety. The respective release dates have not been set yet. The royalty rates on such varieties are not yet determined.

Further, pursuant to our Master Research Agreement, the Noble Foundation has agreed to grant us an exclusive world-wide license with the right to grant sublicenses to exploit commercially the results of our joint collaboration program, subject to paying the Noble Foundation a reasonable remuneration to be negotiated in good faith. There are no upfront license fees or milestone payments payable under any of our agreements with the Noble Foundation.

Miscanthus — Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University. In April 2007, we entered into an agreement with the Institute of Biological, Environmental, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University in Wales, U.K., or IBERS, for morphological characterization, genetic evaluation, and the development and commercialization of miscanthus species as an energy crop. This relationship provides us access to an extensive scientific research infrastructure. Pursuant to our collaboration agreement, IBERS has agreed to grant us an exclusive world-wide license with the right to grant sublicenses to exploit commercially the results of our joint collaboration program, subject to paying IBERS a reasonable remuneration to be negotiated in good faith, including exclusive licenses to miscanthus germplasm, breeding lines and varieties produced by IBERS, except that IBERS has a non-exclusive license in the United Kingdom to varieties resulting from the joint program. Unless otherwise agreed, license agreements for released varieties will be based on a model license agreement, the duration of which will be until the expiration of the intellectual property rights covering the variety in a given jurisdiction, or in those jurisdictions in which the licensed variety is sold but no such intellectual property rights are obtained, until the tenth anniversary of the first sale of such variety in such jurisdiction. Pursuant to the model license agreement, we have agreed to pay royalties based on sales that range from low to mid single digits as a percentage of sales and royalties on license income at rate to be negotiated. To date, we have not entered into any specific license agreements with IBERS. There are no upfront license fees, milestone payments or minimum royalties payable under our agreement with IBERS.

Our Traits

We are able to further improve the quality of our future product offerings by adding our proprietary traits to our germplasm collections. This can provide additional yield increases, greater water use efficiency, increased nitrogen use efficiency, salt tolerance, enhanced biomass-to-sugar conversion profiles and other improved characteristics. We believe, andThe majority of our results have confirmed, that our integrated breeding andtraits are developed through biotechnology, approachalso known as genetic engineering. Biotechnology allows us to efficiently identifyprecisely add traits effectively express these traits innot readily achievable through conventional breeding methods. In most cases, the same trait can be added to multiple crops and more quickly commercialize new and improved seeds and traits for the market. We target traits with the greatest commercial potential in energy crops. We believe these traits will enable the bioenergy industry to scale more rapidly, by improving production and delivery economics, making greater use of marginal land, providing greater yield stability and increasing energy yield per acre.

We have both genetically engineered traits, or biotech traits, and non-biotech traits.similar effect. In some instances, a gene introduced through biotechnology may confer more than one beneficial trait, such as salt tolerance and drought tolerance, or increased biomass yields through greater nitrogen use efficiency.tolerance. Our strategy is to focus on genes and gene stacks that have shown large, step increases in performance, and whose benefits are largely maintained across multiple species. We have historically focused on traits that increase biomass yields and biomass quality versus grain yields, which has been the focus of many agricultural biotechnology companies. As a result, we believe that we have a competitive advantage in developing traits for improved forage crops and sugarcane.

Biotechnology allows us

We believe we were one of the first companies to precisely add traits not readily feasible through conventional breeding methods. In many cases,implement the same trait can be added to multiple crops with similar effect. For example, our genomics capabilities and proprietary gene expression system have enabled us to expand from single genes and traits to groupspractice of genes and traits, or stacks. We also have control over how, when and where genes are expressed in plants. This system includes using recombinant DNA, cell culture, and related technology as well as gene transfer systems needed to create plants withdeveloping biotech traits and optimized gene-trait combinations identified by our trait pipeline.

To develop biotech traits, we have utilized a novel research and development methodology. Similar to other companies, we use test or model plant systems to speed discoveries and reduce risk and technical uncertainty in the development of biotech traits. This includes evaluating gene function, regulation, interaction and potential usefulness. However, we typically utilizeusing two test species, rather than just one, as is more customary in the industry. Our test or model plants represent the two principal evolutionary branches of flowering plants commonly known as dicots and monocots. This two-species approachwhich allows us to more successfully select gene-trait combinations whichthat enhance commercial crops. The small, fast-growing testOur current portfolio includes genes that have been shown to substantially increase sugar levels or biomass growth and height per plant called Arabidopsis isas well as genes that have been shown to increase biomass under normal and reduced levels of nitrogen fertilizer. We have genes that allow plants to use water more efficiently and/or recover from water deficits more readily. We also have genes that have been shown to provide tolerance and enhanced recovery to both acute and prolonged salt stress, as well as withstand toxic levels of aluminum in the soil. In addition, we have genes that have demonstrated enhanced conversion of biomass to fermentable sugars and genes that regulate flower development.

Our biotech traits are at various stages of development in our model dicot,pipeline. We are currently evaluating their performance in various target crops primarily through replicated, multi-year field evaluations. These evaluations are designed to validate the function of the gene and rice ismeasure the performance of the biotech trait in a specific crop. To date, our model monocot. Rice is a grass species and a close relative of energy grasses. Our evaluations in Arabidopsis are completed at our headquarters in Thousand Oaks, California. Our high-throughput field evaluations of rice are conductedhave largely confirmed previous results obtained in China by the Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, or ICS. Pursuant to our Collaboration Agreement for rice, ICS performs transformation of rice with our genes, evaluates the transformed rice plants in the field according to detailed protocols,greenhouse and reports results and observations to us. We own all results and intellectual property resulting from such activities. We pay ICS for the services pursuant to an agreed upon budget. The program is due to expire on December 31, 2015. We believe, and our results have confirmed, that by selecting genes that perform similarly in both of our model plant species, we can readily identify superior genes among thousands of candidates. We believe that, given the large evolutionary distance between our model species, genes that function similarly in both will likely have application in a broad range of flowering crop plants. We have also identified superior genes by separately utilizing rice or Arabidopsis alone.laboratory settings.

We also intend to stack gene-trait combinations, such as those conferring greater nitrogen or water use efficiency, together to amplify the benefits. We describe the combination of such complementary genes as “synergistic trait stacks.” This differs from many current approaches which produce incremental yield increases through the introduction of a single novel gene.

The commercial development of biotech traits in commercial crops is a multi-year process. Following transformation, when the selected gene is inserted in a target crop, the resulting plants are evaluated in the greenhouse for one to two years, and then in the field to confirm results for two to four years. Following field trials, specific gene-trait combinations are typically selected and, if required, submitted for regulatory approval, or deregulation, which has historically been a multi-year process in the United States and Brazil.other countries. Assuming these averages, we believe that we could introduce our first regulated biotech trait or traits to the market in 20162018 at the earliest.

We intend to price our traits based on the added value they create, which can vary by crop and geography. For our biotech traits, we are considering various pricing models, including separate annual trait fees per acre as well as blended seed and trait prices. For our commercial Skyscraper trait, a per-bag trait fee is included in the seed price. In row crops, we have licensed and intend to license our traits to existing market participants. These licensing agreements are expected to vary by crop, geography, the nature and economic benefit of the trait, and how well advanced the trait is within our pipeline. Future payments to us may be based on a percentage of sales or other performance metrics or milestones.

The following traits have been commercialized or are at various stages of development in our trait development pipeline. Individual commercialization timelines vary based on results of evaluations and the de-regulation or approval process. Skyscraper is a non-biotech trait and the remainder of the traits discussed below are biotech traits.

Skyscraper

Skyscraper is a commercial trait that provides a significant increase in biomass yields and is included in our proprietary high biomass hybrids ES 5200 and ES 5201. Developed through our collaboration with Texas A&M, the Skyscraper trait delays flowering and extends the growth phase of the sorghum plant’s lifecycle. Plants with the Skyscraper trait put more of their energy into growing rather than reproducing (making seeds). Since Skyscraper was identified and developed using molecular marker technology, we have been able to rapidly incorporate it into our elite breeding lines.

High Biomass

We have genes that have been shown to substantially increase biomass growth per plant. We are currently field-trialing a number of these genes in the United States. Results have shown significant yield increases over experimental control plants. We are also creating stacks with some of these genes with the goal of achieving even greater biomass yields per plant. Yield per acre can also be increased through higher plant populations per acre. To this end, we are evaluating genes that make plants grow more upright, allowing greater light capture at higher densities. We anticipate that these genes could allow growers to greatly increase the number of plants they sow per acre.

Nitrogen Use Efficiency

We have genes that increase biomass under normal and reduced nitrogen fertilizer conditions. In field trials, we have previously recorded steady yields on significantly less nitrogen fertilizer than normally used. In addition to greater efficiency in terms of tons of biomass per unit of nitrogen, reducing nitrogen fertilizer inputs would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase lifecycle energy ratios, reduce run-offs and water pollution, and lower production costs. We are currently field-testing a number of nitrogen use efficiency genes in multiple crops in the United States. In addition, we are developing trait stacks involving these genes with the goal of increasing yields and stress tolerance in general.

Water Use Efficiency and Drought Tolerance

We have genes that allow plants to use water more efficiently and/or recover from water deficits more readily. We are currently field-testing water use efficiency and drought tolerance genes in one of our energy crops that have resulted in the production of steady or increased yields on less water in both greenhouse and field tests. In addition to producing more tons of biomass per unit of water, we believe that in seasons of intermittent drought, this trait could provide greater yield stability for rain-fed crops as well as expand the geographic range where economic yields can be obtained.

Salt Tolerance

We have genes that have been shown in our greenhouse to provide tolerance and enhanced recovery to both acute and prolonged salt stress. We are currently evaluating our salt tolerance trait in multiple crops. If greenhouse results are confirmed in the field, we believe that this trait could return salt-damaged acres to productivity and open more marginal land to bioenergy production. We also believe that salt tolerance is complementary to drought tolerance since salt stress tends to induce drought symptoms in plants.

Aluminum Tolerance

We are developing a trait that allows plants to withstand toxic levels of aluminum in the soil, a consequence of highly acidic soils, such as those found in Brazil. We believe that this trait could bring high aluminum soils into cultivation and open more marginal land to bioenergy production. We are currently evaluating this trait in multiple crops.

Enhanced Conversion of Biomass to Fermentable Sugars

We have a number of genes that have been shown to substantially reduce the cellulase enzyme cocktails required to release fermentable sugars from plant biomass. We are currently field-testing a number of these genes. Reducing the recalcitrance of biomass to conversion could significantly reduce enzyme costs in certain biochemical conversion processes, could increase biofuel yields per ton of biomass, and could further reduce both capital and operating costs for the biorefinery. For instance, a more easily converted feedstock would impact installation costs for biorefineries since smaller holding tanks would be required for a given capacity. We believe therefore that this trait could be a key enabler of the large-scale use of biochemical processes and fermentation to produce biofuels and bio-based chemicals from cellulosic biomass. We are also creating trait stacks with these genes, with the goal of achieving even greater reductions in enzyme requirements.

Altered Flower Development

We are pursuing multiple approaches to regulate flower development for the purpose of increasing biomass and sugar accumulation, as well as rendering plants resistant to fungal diseases that infect flowers. Similar to the impact of our Skyscraper trait, preventing flowering or reproduction allows plants to put more of their energy into biomass growth. We have field-tested genes that impact different aspects of flowering, pollen production and seed development. We believe that by creating stacks of these genes we can amplify such effects. In addition, when stacked with genes for our other traits, we believe these flowering genes provide a stewardship advantage. In the unlikely event of an unintended outcross of a biotech trait to a wild plant, for instance, the presence of a stack that included genes that disrupt floral development and reproduction should put the resulting plant at a severe reproductive disadvantage, thereby limiting the spread of unintended progeny plants.

Enabling Technologies

We have developed or acquired licenses to certain technologies that we deem necessary or useful for the development of biotech traits, which while under development remain several years away from commercialization. Such licenses include a non-exclusive license from Monsanto to a transformation technology and certain other technologies, pursuant to which we will pay Monsanto a royalty on sales in the low single digits as a percentage of sales of products covered by the licensed patents. This agreement with Monsanto will terminate upon the expiration of the last patent under certain patent rights listed in the agreement. Such licenses further include an exclusive license with Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. (formerly known as Cambridge University Technical Services Ltd.) to a technology developed at the University of Cambridge (United Kingdom) to regulate gene activity, pursuant to which we will pay a royalty on sales in the low single digits as a percentage of sales of products covered by the licensed patents and a royalty in the low single digits as a percentage of license income. Pursuant to the agreement, the maximum milestone payments payable by us are $250,000. All such milestone payments have been made. The agreement with Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. will expire on the date of the expiration of the last-to-expire patent licensed under the agreement. We expect that the presently issued U.S. patent under this agreement will expire in 2023.

Research and Development Programs

In order to maintain the lead we have established through our combination of superior germplasm and field-validated traits, we

We have developed research and development expertise that we believe will allow us to continue to improve our offerings over time. Our research and development investments have been significant, amounting to

$16.7 million, $19.0 million and $19.2 million in the fiscal years ended August 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. To develop higher performing seeds and traits, we deploy a variety of research and development methods and tools, including genomics, conventional and marker-assistedplant breeding, agronomy and other genomics-based technologies.

For the fiscal years ended August 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we invested $9.7 million, $14.2 million and $16.4 million, respectively, in research and development, with the main emphasis on breeding and traits.

7

Genomics

Plant genomics involves the large-scale, simultaneous study of large numbers of genes, their effects and their interactions. One of our strengths in genomics involves our ability to organize the genetic data we amass into actionable information via proprietary relational databases, software and algorithms. In order to capitalize upon our internal catalog of genetic information as well as information in the public realm, we developed our own proprietary software, including our Persephone genome viewer software, which serves as an important tool for locating, mapping and annotating genetic information in plants. This software program has been non-exclusively licensed to Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., or Syngenta.

We believe that both our technological capabilities and proprietary knowledge base in the field of plant genomics are highly advanced, and their application to both our breeding program, through the development of trait-linked molecular markers, and our trait development program provides us a substantial competitive advantage. In general, we have focused our research efforts on determining gene function, gene regulation and finding which genes enhance desirable traits. In addition to identifying novel gene-trait combinations, our genomics tools allow us to work with large groups of genes and complex biological processes controlled by multiple genes. To date,

In order to capitalize upon our internal catalog of genetic information as well as information in the public realm, we have sequenced more than 100,000 full-length copies of DNA, called cDNA, from a variety of plant species.developed our own proprietary software, including our Persephone bioinformatics platform, which serves as an important tool for locating, mapping and annotating genetic information. We have also identifiedused Persephone in our marker-assisted breeding and characterized hundredsbiotech trait pipelines to speed the development of promoters that can be important for achieving the optimum expression of traits. We believe we are one of the few companies focused on dedicated energy crops with large portfolios of both germplasmelite parental breeding lines and field-validated traits. Having both germplasmimproved sorghum hybrids. This software platform has been non-exclusively licensed to Syngenta Biotechnology, Bayer CropScience, HZPC Holland and trait portfolios allows us to leverage the synergies created by combining the two and facilitates innovation in a way that would not be possible with germplasm or traits alone.KWS SAAT.

Conventional and Marker-Assisted

Plant Breeding

Plant breeding is the act of bringing together specific parent plants to produce a new “offspring”offspring plant. This “cross,” as plant breeders call it,cross creates a new plant that will contain a mixture of the characteristics of its parents. The offspring are tested under various conditions to determine which has the superior combination of desired attributes. Further improvements are made by mating and continuing selection of superior parents and offspring through succeeding generations. Plant breeding allows researchers to identify plants with the most favorable combination of desired characteristics to serve as both parental lines and products.

In addition to conventional plant breeding, we believe that our genomics expertise makes the identification of proprietary molecular markers more direct and more comprehensive, which allows us to select key crop characteristics more rapidly and accurately than conventional plant breeding alone. Marker-assisted breeding integrates molecular biology and information systems with plant breeding to identify and flag important genetic sequences so that they can be readily found in seeds or plant tissue at any stage of plant development. This platform allows us to track and select the most effective combination of genes, increase the number of progenies and breeding lines created at early stages in the breeding program, and cull them using marker-based selection and thereby making greater gains per breeding cycle. Markers are especially useful when seeking to combine multiple non-biotech traits into elite commercial lines.

We have developed thousands of SNP-based (single nucleotide polymorphism) molecular markers, which allow us to differentiate individual plants based on variations detected at the level of a single nucleotide base in the genome. SNPs allow us to automate many processes and are especially useful for hybrid breeding systems. Most importantly, we precisely map these SNPs onto the chromosomes of switchgrass, sorghum and miscanthus, and then link them to important traits by genetic analyses and then deploy them in our breeding programs using proprietary computational biology software systems.

Furthermore, when an important gene is developed in one crop, we can often find the equivalent gene in another related crop using our genomics and molecular marker platforms to gain breeding advantages across crops. Our platform has also been shown to provide breeding advantages in food crops. For example, we have applied our proprietary technology to improve the quality and yield of food products under a development and license agreement with Campbell Soup Company.

Agronomy

The performance of plant varieties and traits is influenced by the growing environment, which includes climate, day length, soil quality, pests, length of the growing season and crop management practices. We have established what we believe is one of the industry’s largestOur network of field trials for energy grasses, based on the number of trials and geographic diversity. Extendingextends across numerous hardiness zones and regions, including Europe, the Americas and Asia, thisregions. This network provides regional performance data and market fit information to support our research and commercialization efforts.

Our Current ProductsProduct Lines and Product Pipeline

We believe that a portfolio of energy crops will be required to produce biofuel, biopower and bio-based chemicals at greater scale than today. The mix of crops will be heavily dependent upon geographic and climatic considerations, soil quality, storage characteristics and harvest timing, among other considerations.

The following table summarizes our product pipeline:Forage Sorghum

 

CropStatusInitial MarketsKey Advantages

Sweet Sorghum

Commercial (2011)Brazil

Season extension;

fast growing; quick scale up;

low water usage

High Biomass Sorghum

Commercial (2009)U.S.

High yields; fast growing;

low water usage

Miscanthus

Seed-propagated

varieties under

development

U.S. and Europe

High yields; highly efficient,

perennial

Forage sorghum seeds are primarily used for growing feed for livestock, including dairy and beef cattle. The crop

Switchgrass

Commercial (2009)U.S. and Europe

High yields; low water usage;

perennial crop

Sweet Sorghum

Sweet sorghum is a type of sorghum that accumulates free sugars in its stalk much like sugarcane. It is sown by seed, grows faster than sugarcane, and typically requires substantially less water and nitrogen fertilizer than sugarcane to grow to harvestable maturity. Sweet sorghum plants can be harvested in 90as hay, made into silage, grazed, or fed as greenchop, a harvest technique that involves cutting and chopping the crop and delivering it directly to 150 days after sowing compared to 12 to 18 months for sugarcane. Because sweet sorghumanimals. Sorghum is an annual crop, multiple harvests or crop rotations may be possible duringa naturally drought tolerant and water efficient crop. Based on reports from USDA, the season compared to sugarcane, a perennial crop. This flexibility allows mill operators to use existing land more efficiently. In general, yieldsUniversity of fermentable sugars from improved sweet sorghum hybrids are comparable to sugarcane during our targeted harvesting period; however, the sugary juice is not well-suited to crystalline table sugar production today on a standalone basis, but may be blended with sugarcane to produce table sugar. We believe that, based on our internal resultsFlorida and data from Brazil’sMinistério da

Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, sweet sorghum yields in Brazil can range from 25 to 120 wet metric tons per hectare with sugar content, or juice Brix values, from 10% to 20%. This compares to typical values for sugarcane of 50 to 90 wet metric tons per hectare on average, and juice Brix values ranging from 14% to over 20%.

In Brazil, sweetTexas A&M University, forage sorghum can be planted from October through January,produce more milk per inch of water than both alfalfa and harvested from February to May, or later if conditions permit. This complements sugarcane, which is grown year-round, but harvested from April to December depending on weather and market conditions. In practice, sweet sorghum juice is extracted through crushing in existing sugarcane equipment, and then fermented to fuel. The leftover biomass, called bagasse, is combusted for biopower like sugarcane bagasse. Because sweet sorghum plants mature more quickly than sugarcane, and reach optimal sugar levels at different times of the year, we believe existing sugar-to-ethanol mills can extend their operational season through the use of our sweet sorghum product by approximately 60 days. We also believe that sweet sorghum will facilitate the geographic expansion of sugar-based ethanol production into areas where sugarcane is not well adapted; for instance, where there is insufficient rainfall for sugarcane. Sweet sorghum is also advantageous during the scale up of new facilities because its seeds can be planted quickly and it has a shorter growing cycle than sugarcane. In contrast, sugarcane requires a laborious process to plant cuttings and, due to a low multiplication factor, typically requires years to provide sufficient feedstock for a mill to operate at full capacity. Therefore, we believe that sweet sorghum can enable new or expanded mill facilities to avoid long lead times or operate at their designed capacity during their first few years of operation.

In 2011, we introduced our first sweet sorghum hybrids for sale in Brazil, following the successful completion of commercial scale evaluations during the 2010-2011 season. At larger scale, and with more mills than the prior season, our products were grown, harvested and processed, and produced both ethanol and power using existing agricultural equipment and processing infrastructure. Due to severe drought conditions that resulted in 40% to 70% less rainfall than normal duringcorn silage. During the growing season, however, overall yieldsforage sorghum requires a minimum of approximately 23.5 inches of water compared to silage corn and biomass quality were negatively impacted, primarily by drought-related damage, such as stunted growthalfalfa, which require a minimum of approximately 29 inches and the late start62 inches of the sugarcane seasonwater, respectively. Our current hybrids, which pushed sweet sorghum harvest dates past their optimal times. The severe conditions also led to wide variabilityare conventionally bred and do not yet contain biotech traits, have performed well in results from location to location. Of thirteen mills that reported results, yields of our first-generation hybrids ranged from approximately 30 to 65 wet metric tons of stalk per hectare. Fermentation yields ranged from 30 to 50 liters of ethanol per metric ton of sweet sorghum stalk.

We are developing a number of improved sweet sorghum hybrids with high sugar content for immediate use in both existing markets in Brazil as well as new marketsnumerous commercial and multi-hybrid field trials in the United States and elsewhere. Duringhave demonstrated a number of favorable attributes for forage feed, such as high yields and lower water requirements, as well as competitive production costs relative to corn and certain hay crops. For example, in two university-led evaluations, which included products from well-known seed companies, we achieved the 2011-2012highest milk production yield per acre, which is a key metric for dairy operations. For the 2015 growing season in Brazil, our next generation of sorghumNorth America, we are evaluating more than a dozen new hybrids significantly outperformed our first generation commercial products in multiple field evaluations. In product development trials and at our breeding center, where field evaluation plots are irrigated and managed more closely than commercial fields, stalk yields averaged up to 80 wet metric tons per hectare. We are currently selling these products. Other hybrids earlier in our development pipeline demonstrated yields exceeding 120 wet metric tons per hectare. Yields obtained in a research setting tend to be higher than in commercial fields, which are subject to more variable growing conditions.

We continue to develop, through marker-assisted breeding and biotechnology, a succession of improved hybrids and traits that offer producers increasedperformance advantages such as higher yields better pest management and greater tolerance to environmental stress, among other features.improved nutrition. We expect to field trial a number ofhave also advanced our biotech traits in sorghum under our ARPA-E grant project. Since sweet sorghum is a fast-growing annual crop, with multiple breeding cycles possible each year, we believe that product development cycles will outpace improvements that can be made in sugarcane. It is much more efficient to breed sweet sorghum varieties and hybrids than commercial sugarcane varieties and hybrids, which suffer from chromosomal instability and other factors that slow the pace and increase the complexity of making improvements through plant breeding and biotechnology. In addition, we are currently working to develop lines of sweet sorghum with sucrose levels that are high enough to produce crystallized table sugar on a standalone basis.

High Biomass Sorghum

High biomass sorghum is a type of sorghum which is primarily developed for enhanced biomass yield potential as opposed to sugar content. As such, high biomass sorghum is ideally suited for the generation of renewable electric power and the creation of cellulosic biofuels. Like other types of sorghum, high biomass types are seed propagated, and generally require less water and nitrogen fertilizer than corn. As an annual crop, sorghum is harvested the year it is planted. This provides bioenergy facilities with a quick growing and flexible source of biomass, and a complementary feedstock to perennials, such as sugarcane, which may require 12 to 18 months before the first harvest, or switchgrass, which may require 12 to 24 months before the first harvest.

In 2009, we introduced our ES 5200 and ES 5201 products that contain our Skyscraper trait. These hybrids, developed through our partnership with Texas A&M, are designed for single-cut production systems that endeavor to maximize per-acre yields while minimizing crop input and management expenditures. Using marker-assisted breeding, we expect to develop and commercialize sorghum hybrids that offer additional increases in biomass. We are also developing hybrids with biotech traits that offer increased yield, greater tolerance to environmental stress and enhanced processing characteristics. We expect to field trial a number of our traits in sorghum under our ARPA-E grant project.

Switchgrass

Switchgrass is a perennial grass indigenous to North America that tolerates a wide range of environmental conditions and offers high biomass yield potential compared to many other perennial grasses and crop plants. It generally requires substantially less water and nitrogen fertilizer than corn, and can grow under semi-arid conditions. Like sorghum, switchgrass is seed propagated. As a perennial, switchgrass is generally not harvested for sale during the first year when the crop is being established. A properly managed stand of switchgrass may persist for a decade. However, we believe that producers will likely choose to upgrade to a new variety in approximately 5 to 7 years as new generations of switchgrass seeds with even higher yields or more desirable characteristics become available.

From 2009 to 2010, we introduced three proprietary products: EG 1101, EG 1102 and EG 2101. These high-yielding varieties, developed through our partnership with the Noble Foundation, have demonstrated higher biomass yields on average over comparable varieties depending on the variety and trial location. EG 1101 and EG 1102 have also shown improved establishment characteristics and better disease resistance when compared to the next best public varieties. Since switchgrass has been subjected to fewer breeding efforts than most commodity crops, we believe that rapid and significant improvements can be made through advanced plant breeding and biotechnology. Current yield increases observed in our breeding program support this view. We plan to introduce a succession of enhancements to our product portfolio, including additional increases in biomass yield and other agronomic and compositional improvements. To this end, in September 2012, we announced the first hybrid switchgrass developed for bioenergy. These pre-commercial products represent an important step in switchgrass plant breeding and have shown significant yield increases over our current products in research plots. Larger-scale field evaluations are scheduled for 2013. We also have ongoing field evaluations of biotech traits that improve crop performance. We believe that switchgrass revenue will ultimately consist of both seed sales as well as annual trait fees.

Miscanthus

Miscanthus x giganteus is a tall perennial grass that grows well in cooler climates. Unlike switchgrass and sorghum, it is vegetatively propagated. It has been used as an energy crop on a small scale across Europe for two decades. The Miscanthus genus includes several perennial species that have potential as dedicated energy crops. The variety adopted in the United States and Europe to date, miscanthus x giganteus, isStates. In a sterile hybrid ofM. sinensisandM. sacchariflorus. While biomass yields for this variety may exceed those of switchgrass within its region of adaptation, we estimate that, due to its vegetative propagation system, very large-scale production is not commercially feasible at this time since establishment costs are as much as 10 times higher than seed-sown switchgrass or sorghum.

In general, this miscanthus hybrid requires about the same water as corn, but up to two-thirds less nitrogen depending on crop management practices. As a perennial crop, miscanthus is generally not harvested for sale during the first year when the crop is being established. The focus2014 U.S. field evaluation, one of our workleading biotech traits provided a greater than 20% biomass yield advantage in miscanthusa commercial-type sorghum. In 2014, we received confirmation from the USDA that our high biomass trait was not considered a regulated article under 7 CFR §340 of the USDA’s mandate to regulate genetically engineered traits. This determination is likely to make it more cost-effective and timely for us to develop seed-propagated varieties that have the same high-yielding attributes of giant miscanthus, yet with establishment costs more comparable to other energy crops. We are also working on extending the region of adaptation. To these ends, we are collaborating with the Institute of Biological, Environmental,this trait in sorghum, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University, or IBERS, in Wales, U.K. Under this collaboration, we have characterized miscanthus accessions across the native range of these species. These accessions are currently under evaluation for plant performance in multiple locations. The highest performing lines have been entered into our breeding program, and in small-scale field evaluations have shown significantly higher yield potential under warm conditions than currently available products. As with switchgrass, we believe that continued germplasm improvement through marker-assisted breeding will increase biomass yield, bioenergy conversion yield and agronomic performance. To this end, in March 2012, IBERS and Ceres announced the completion of the first high-resolution genetic map of miscanthus. We are also developing miscanthus with biotech traits that have been validated in switchgrass, rice andas a model test plant called Arabidopsis. We have established field trials of a number of our traits in miscanthus in several states under our ARPA-E grant project, and also a joint U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture Biomass R&D Initiative, or BRDI, grant.

Row Crops

Due to the conservation across species of mechanisms underlying traits, other crops can benefit from many of the biotech traits developed for energy crops. This provides us with an additional outlet for our technology and genes, and mitigates the cost and risk of trait development. By combining these genes into a series of stacks, which can amplify the effects,result, we believe we may be ablehave a clear and near-term path forward to make gains in the productivity in many row crops, such as corn, soybean, ricecommercialization of this trait. Performance results for both our traditionally developed hybrids and wheat. Given the number of entrenched competitors in these markets and the high barriers to entry, we have chosen to be a technology provider or a trait provider to companies in this sector, rather than a direct producer of seeds.

We have already generated many biotech traits specifically for cereal crops such as rice that increase grain yields and provide greater yield stability across environments. Some of these have demonstrated double-digit percentage yield increases in rice, relative to average annual yield improvements for grain of approximately 1% as reportedare expected by Economic Botany. We also have a number of genes that impact flowering time and yield. Flowering-time traits are important for rice breeders since growing season lengths vary widely among different rice cultivation regions. Subject to regulatory approval, field evaluationsthe end of the firstcalendar year. Results from small scale evaluations and research settings are not a guarantee of future commercial hybrids with some of our traits could begin as early as mid-2013.performance, and further evaluations will be necessary to confirm results.

8

Seed Production and Operations

Seed companies typically develop and produce three types of commercial seed and plant lines: inbred, open-pollinated and hybrid. Inbred lines maintain the characteristics indigenous to the specific parent line over many generations. Open-pollinated products are reproduced from a group of plants. These are often populations of plants that are significantly different and vary over generations. Hybrid seeds, called the F1 generation, are the first-generation progeny of two different and distinct parental lines. These seeds often possess the hereditary characteristics of the parent lines as well as enhanced performance characteristics over the parent lines due to a genetic phenomenon called “hybrid vigor.” However, subsequent generations from hybrid seeds will not inherit equivalent enhanced performance characteristics of the hybrid F1 seed. Therefore, growers of hybrid crops generally purchase new seed from seed companies for each new planting.

The production of commercial-scale quantities of seeds requires the multiplication of seeds through a succession of plantings and seed harvests, and if the product is a hybrid, it is produced from parent lines that are mated under controlled conditions to produce commercial hybrid seeds. For perennials, like switchgrass, an

established stand can produce saleable seed for multiple years. Annual seed crops like sorghum are planted for each seed harvest.

harvests. We produce commercial seed either on leased land managed by us or with contract seed producers. Our current production sites are located in the United States and Puerto Rico as well as Bolivia and Brazil. Seed production sites in both the northern and southern hemispheres allow us to schedule planting on a year round basis and reduce inventory requirements. This capability also enables us to scale up inventory to meet demand for a new product in the opposing hemisphere. During the season, we inspect seed fields for quality and anticipated seed yields. When ready,Healthy seeds are harvested using specialized techniques, cleaned, quality tested and packaged prior to sale to the customer. Healthy seed can remain saleable for several years if stored under optimal conditions.

In 2009,the United States, we purchased a 46,000 sq. ft. facility on a 32-acre parcel in Amarillo, Texas to serve as a seed warehouse and order fulfillment center. This site is used to receive, condition, treat, package and warehouse our high biomass sorghum, switchgrass and sweet sorghum seed grown in the northern hemisphere.hemisphere at our seed warehouse and order fulfillment center in Amarillo, Texas. We anticipate that we will be able to warehouse and process up to 8 to 10 million pounds of seed annually at this facility, or about 1.5 million or 2 million acres of commercial switchgrass or sorghum production.

In Brazil, we have contracted with farmers to produce our seeds on irrigated acres. In addition, we are workingwork with several third parties who have complete production and packaging capabilities to complement our own production capabilities. All of these seeds will be processed, packaged and warehoused by third parties who are experienced in these functions. This method of production is able to supply enough seeds to plant up to 250,000 hectares of commercial sweet sorghum. In the event we are able to generate orders in this range, we will plan to invest in our own facilities to be able to handle production amounts capable of planting 2,000,000 or more hectares of commercial sweet sorghum.

Sales and Marketing

We market our seed varieties and traitsproducts under the trade name Blade Energy Crops, or Blade. Our customers have included, among others, dairies and livestock producers, agri-industrial facilities, individual growers and grower cooperatives. We sell, market and distribute our seed products through both direct sales as well as distributors. Distributors provide us with local market information, agronomy support and access to their customer base. They also allow us to cost effectively extend our product development efforts. We select distributors based on shared vision, technical expertise and local market knowledge. We intend to limit the number of distributors with whom we have relationships in any particular area in order to provide adequate support and opportunity to those with whom we choose to do business.

We are positioning Blade in the marketplace as a premium brand that represents the latest technology in energy crops.quality, innovation and value across multiple seed markets. As a result, we price our proprietary products based on their added value, and not on production costs. Our seed prices are determined based on a series of complex considerations, including the best alternative use of land and perceived added value to growers and mill owners.end-users of biomass. Our pricing philosophy is to share a portion of the added value we create with our customers. Our sweet sorghum and high-biomass sorghum seeds are priced by the hectare in Brazil and by seed count, or M (M=1,000 seeds), in the United States. Switchgrass seed is priced by pounds of pure live seed, a common measurement used for grass crops.

To gain greater brand awareness, we actively promote our products, capabilities and brand to the bioenergy and agricultural industries. In the United States, in addition to our direct relationships with bioenergy companies and project developers, we take a leading role in teachingU.S., the grower community about energy crops and related agronomic systems through the publication of crop management guides, speaking roles at industry events, trade show displays and local-level grower meetings. We also use these opportunities to build brand awareness and loyalty.

We sell and distribute our seed products directly to our customers, which include ethanol mills, utilities, independent power producers, cellulosic biofuel companies, individual growers and grower cooperatives. We also work with technology providers and other industry participants such as equipment manufacturers, enzyme or fermentation technology companies, to encourage the usesuggested retail price of our branded commercial and pre-commercial forage sorghum hybrids currently ranges from $25 to $35 per acre.

Our market development activities typically include field evaluations of our current and experimental seed products. We believe that, comparedThese generally small-scale evaluations provide new and prospective customers an opportunity to the corn or soybean seed industry,gain first-hand experience with our sales force can be significantly smaller due to the more consolidated nature and more vertically integrated business models of the bioenergy industry.

We are building our customer base primarily by forming collaborations with biorefineries, power generators and biomass users at their existing, planned and future facility locations. In the United States, our seed sales to date have been driven primarily by pilot and demonstration-scale projects with advanced biofuel and biopower

companiesBlade products as well as growersidentify the best mix of seed varieties for their growing conditions and grower associations. Typically these multi-year collaborations include agronomy trials, harvest and handling evaluations, test conversions or burns, and various post-harvest assays. We conduct similar activities in Europe, although to a lesser extent than in the United States or Brazil at this time. In addition to informing our market development and research efforts, these trials allow participants in the value chain to gain confidencetimelines. For customers with the yields and other performance characteristics they should expect to see from our products. Given the emerging nature of energy crop production and the lack of publicly available energy crop data for many potential growing regions, we believe that our expertise in feedstock performance and production practices across many growing regions, combinedgreater experience with our extensive relationships throughout the bioenergy value chain, is a key competitive advantage.products, we sell and supply various seed products to support larger, commercial-scale evaluations and uses.

In Brazil, we market and sell our sweet sorghum products directly to ethanol mills, rather than to growers, which is the prevailing practice in the seed industry, as mill operators typically manage all major aspects of feedstock selection and production. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are over 400 sugar and ethanol mills in Brazil, which make up the country’s over 600 million metric tons of crushing capacity per year. In the 2011-2012 growing season, according toAnuario Da Cana 2012, the top 20 mill groups accounted for approximately 40% of the total crush. We believe the concentration among Brazilian ethanol mills creates an advantage to us as our focused sales and marketing team will be able to target a large amount of the Brazilian mill capacity by reaching out to the top mill groups. In addition, given the close-knit nature of the ethanol industry in Brazil, we believe that the adoption of our products by large mill groups will encourage other operators to follow. During the 2011-2012 season, 14 mill groups representing approximately 20% of the sugarcane crushed in Brazil, purchased our products. We also have collaborations with international companies active in Brazil, including Amyris, Inc. and Novozymes North America, Inc.

In the biopower market, our current activities encompass field trials, test burns and sales of commercial seed to project developers and growers who sell or intend to sell biomass to power plants or pellet mills. In the United States, we have worked on a trial basis with major utilities and large industrial producers of heat and power. We also expect to help European utilities evaluate and set up supply chains for biomass produced from our dedicated energy crops. Once a supply chain is established, we would expect to market our seed varieties to contracted growers.

In Europe, we are also working with local institutions to build brand recognition and to advance our research, especially in miscanthus, through our collaboration with IBERS. Specifically, we are developing miscanthus crops through a research and development program that incorporates trials for germplasm covering hot, dry climates in the south through the colder, more northerly areas. This strategy is based on both scientific research and potential business opportunities. In addition to our collaboration with IBERS, we are a member of the Sustainable Bioenergy Centre of the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

Our activities in cellulosic biofuels encompass a wide range of activities including field trials, co-evolution agreements, and commercial sales. Our products have been tested in the respective conversion processes of Gruppo M&G, EdeniQ, Inc., ICM, Inc., and UOP, LLC (a Honeywell company), among others. DuPont Cellulosic Ethanol (formerly DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC) also plans to validate our products in their conversion process. We have also conducted joint trials with, or sold seed to, AGCO Corporation, EdeniQ, Inc. and Hawai’i BioEnergy, LLC, among others. Furthermore, we work with refining technology companies to optimize feedstock for their refining processes. These collaborators include Novozymes North America, Inc. and ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc.

Sales Incentive Programs for 2012-2013 Sweet Sorghum Season in Brazil

For the 2012-2013 sweet sorghum growing season in Brazil, we have offered our customers the opportunity to participate in various sales incentive and performance based promotional programs. We believe that these programs will facilitate the adoption of our products in Brazil by demonstrating and encouraging best crop management practices. We are also using the programs to encourage new customers, which may not have experience with sweet sorghum production, to adopt our products sooner and at larger scale.

Certain of these sales incentive programs require the customer to purchase our seed and adhere to our agronomic protocols. Depending on the size of the purchase and the crop yield in biomass or ethanol, we could incur costs representing a portion of some customers’ production costs or anticipated yield. We will also offer qualifying participants purchase discounts during the next three growing seasons. In certain cases, for strategically located customers, we will participate directly in, and may incur certain unreimbursed costs for seed, crop production and agronomy services during this season.

Major Research Collaborations

Texas A&M University

In August 2007, we entered into an agreement with The Texas A&M University System, or Texas A&M, for the development and commercialization of high biomass sorghum, sweet sorghum and selected related crops as energy crops, together with the discovery of molecular markers for certain traits. The agreement was amended and restated in September 2011 and provides us with exclusive access to a highly regarded sorghum breeding program and the extensive sorghum genetics, breeding and genomics infrastructure of Texas A&M through September 2026. This agreement provides exclusive options and licenses to defined sorghum germplasm, elite sorghum breeding lines, parental lines, advanced hybrids and genomic markers. We fund the majority of the activities performed by Texas A&M pursuant to our Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement, or the Sponsored Research Agreement. The specific research projects and budgets undertaken pursuant to such agreement will be determined by an Executive Committee comprised of two members from each of Texas A&M and us as set forth in the Sponsored Research Agreement. Ownership of intellectual property rights on results from the program work are allocated based on inventorship. Pursuant to our Sponsored Research Agreement and Amended and Restated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, or the IP Rights Agreement, we have an option to obtain an exclusive world-wide commercial license to results of the program. Texas A&M has agreed not to conduct any activities in the field of our collaboration under an agreement which would grant rights to a third party during the term of our Sponsored Research Agreement. Our Sponsored Research Agreement expires in September 2026, unless terminated earlier pursuant to customary contract termination provisions or program inactivity. Our licenses on results of the joint program survive termination of the Sponsored Research Agreement and survive until, on a country-by-country basis, the expiration of all registered or patented intellectual property rights of Texas A&M covering the licensed line. Under the Sponsored Research Agreement, we were obligated to enter into good faith negotiations regarding our provision to Texas A&M of certain in-kind research support for Texas A&M’s use in performing project activities under the agreement. We satisfied this obligation by entering into a software license, use and access agreement with Texas Agrilife Research in April 2012, pursuant to which we provide them with up to two years of access to our proprietary Persephone genome viewer software, and by providing other relevant information.

9

We have entered into two exclusive world-wide license agreements with Texas A&M for sorghum lines. The terms of such exclusive license agreements provide that the licenses expire on a country-by-country basis upon the expiration of all registered or patented intellectual property rights of Texas A&M covering the licensed line. Pursuant to such agreements, we pay Texas A&M a royalty on sales of varieties developed using the licensed line at a rate that decreases from low double digits to low single digit rates as a percentage of sales when the licensed line is combined with lines from other sources to develop a variety. We also pay Texas A&M a royalty in the low double digits as a percentage of license income if we grant sublicenses and minimum royalties creditable against royalties on sales. Royalty rates for our current commercial varieties developed using lines licensed from Texas A&M are in the mid-single digits as a percentage of sales. Minimum royalties payable to Texas A&M under these agreements escalate on a yearly basis and range from zero to $5,000 per year. We also bear reasonable expenses for intellectual property protection. Further, pursuant to our Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement and Amended and Restated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, we have an option to obtain an exclusive world-wide commercial license with the right to grant sublicenses to the inventions and sorghum lines resulting from our sponsored program. As of August 31, 2014, aggregate upfront license fees that have been paid or have become due to Texas A&M under these agreements have been $7,000. There are no milestone payments payable under our agreements with Texas A&M. Pursuant to the IP Rights Agreement, we issued warrants in December 2011 to Texas A&M to purchase 66,6668,333 shares of our common stockCommon Stock at an exercise price equal to $14.30.$114.40. The warrants expire on September 24, 2026 and, subject to certain conditions, vest in equal installments on the fifth, tenth and fifteenth anniversary of the IP Rights Agreement.

The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc.

In May 2006, we entered into an agreement withChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences

Our high-throughput field evaluations of rice are conducted in China by the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., or the Noble Foundation, a non-profit agricultural institute, for the development and commercializationInstitute of switchgrass. This relationship provides us access to extensive breeding infrastructure and exclusive licenses to elite switchgrass varieties, breeding lines and advanced cultivars. We use our markers and other genomics technologies to expand the conventional and molecular breeding program in switchgrass at the Noble Foundation. The collaboration further encompasses the development of agronomic systems and management practices for switchgrass. Our funding commitments under this agreement are determined jointly with the Noble Foundation on a three-year project basis. All germplasm and plant varieties resulting from the joint program are jointly owned by us and the Noble Foundation, while the ownership of other intellectual property rights is allocated based on inventorship,

except that Noble Foundation inventions resulting from projects to which we provide a financial contribution are jointly owned. We have exclusive rights to commercialize the resultsCrop Sciences of the joint program. The Noble Foundation has agreed notChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, or ICS. Pursuant to collaborateour Collaboration Agreement for rice, ICS performs transformation of rice with or perform any activities forour genes, evaluates the benefit of or grant any rights to third partiestransformed rice plants in the field of switchgrass without our prior written consent, subjectaccording to certain exceptions. This agreement expires in May 2026, unless terminated earlierdetailed protocols, and reports results and observations to us. We own all results and intellectual property resulting from such activities. We pay ICS for the services pursuant to customary contract termination provisions or under certain circumstances, for example if either party ceases substantially all activitiesan agreed upon budget. The program is due to expire on December 31, 2015. We believe, and our results have confirmed, that by selecting genes that perform similarly in switchgrass, if the institutional mission, purpose or structure of the Noble Foundation changes substantially and adversely affects the Noble Foundation’s ability to satisfy its obligations under the agreement, or if no active collaborative research projects exist for more than two years.

Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University

In April 2007, we entered into an agreement with the Institute of Biological, Environmental, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University in Wales, U.K., or IBERS, for morphological characterization, genetic evaluation, and the development and commercialization of miscanthus species as an energy crop. This relationship provides us access to an extensive scientific research infrastructure and includes exclusive licenses to miscanthus germplasm, breeding lines and varieties produced by IBERS, except that IBERS has a non-exclusive license in the United Kingdom to varieties resulting from the joint program. We use our expertise in genomics-based technologies and plant breeding to expand the miscanthus breeding program at IBERS.

Our funding commitments under this agreement are determined jointly with IBERS on a project basis. All germplasm and plant varieties resulting from the joint program are jointly owned by us and IBERS, while the ownership of other intellectual property rights is allocated based on inventorship, except that IBERS inventions resulting from projects to which we provide a certain financial contribution are jointly owned. We have exclusive rights to commercialize the results of the joint program, except that IBERS has a non-exclusive license in the United Kingdom to varieties resulting from the joint program. IBERS has agreed not to collaborate with or perform any activities for the benefit of or grant any rights to third parties in the field of miscanthus without our prior written consent, subject to certain exceptions. This agreement expires on March 31, 2022, unless terminated earlier pursuant to customary contract termination provisions or under certain circumstances, for example if either party ceases substantially all activities in miscanthus, or if no active collaborative research projects exist for more than two years.

We have entered into a collaboration agreement with IBERS and certain other U.K. academic and commercial entities pursuant to which certain research and development activities covered by our original collaboration agreement with IBERS have been integrated into a collaborative project involving these parties. The collaboration project benefits from funding by certain U.K. government agencies, however, we anticipate that we will continue to fund our obligations at current levels including providing someboth of our ongoing activities as contributions in kind. This arrangement does not involve any significant modification to our intellectual property and commercialization rights as set forth in our original collaboration agreement with IBERS.model plant species, we can readily identify superior genes among thousands of candidates.

Monsanto Company

In April 2002, we entered into a multi-year discovery and development collaboration with Monsanto Company focused on applying genomics technologies to identify genes that provide improvements in corn, soybean and certain other row crops. Pursuant to this agreement, Monsanto licensed rights to a portion of our trait discovery pipeline in certain row crops in exchange for license payments over several years. Monsanto also funded a research program with us, which was completed in 2007. The term of this agreement continues for the life of the last patent licensed pursuant to the agreement. The licenses granted to Monsanto are royalty-bearing, subject to patent protection. The intellectual property rights on inventions conceived by us pursuant to the collaboration vest in us and Monsanto has certain exclusive and non-exclusive licenses to the results of the collaboration activities for certain row crops. We believe the $137 million transaction with Monsanto, a market leader in crop biotechnology, validated our technology platforms and provided us a channel to begin to deploy

our traits into corn, soybean and other commodity crops. We remain free under this agreement to develop and commercialize the genes and traits developed under this collaboration for deployment in our energy crops and certain other crops such as rice. With respect to corn, soybean and other row crops, we are free to license some of the genes discovered during this collaboration on a non-exclusive basis to third parties. We can also develop and exclusively license to third parties genes not covered under this agreement and which we have subsequently developed for use in corn, soybean and other row crops. In connection with the collaboration agreement, Monsanto also obtained an equity interest in us in the form of preferred stock which, at the time of the IPO, represented less than 5% of our common stock.

Research Activity Costs

At August 31, 20122015, the future minimum payments under the Company’sour research collaboration agreements are as follows:

 

   (in thousands) 

2013

  $2,524  

2014

   2,178  

2015

   2,617  

2016

   2,772  

2017

   613  
  

 

 

 
  $10,704  
  

 

 

 
  (in thousands) 
2016 $602 
2017  50 
  $652 

Government Grant Awards

Grant awards help mitigateEnabling Technologies

We have developed or acquired licenses to certain technologies that we deem necessary or useful for the costs and risksdevelopment of developing new products and have historically allowed us to broaden the scope and speed of our research and development activities. Over the past five years, we have received several grants from the DOE, the USDA, the USAID, and the joint USDA/DOE BRDI program as well as state-level grants. These have allowed us to investigate the use of our biotech traits, for increased yield, nitrogen use efficiency, flowering regulation, improved carbon sequestration, droughtwhich while under development remain several years away from commercialization. Such licenses include a non-exclusive license from Monsanto to a transformation technology and salt tolerance, and enhanced biochemical conversion in crops. Our grant funding totaled $2.4 millioncertain other technologies, pursuant to which we will pay Monsanto a royalty on sales in the fiscal year ended August 31, 2012.

Our projects fundedlow single digits as a percentage of sales of products covered by the licensed patents. This agreement with Monsanto will terminate upon the expiration of the last patent under certain patent rights listed in whole or in part by grants during fiscal year ended August 31, 2012 include:

A $5.1 million U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E grantthe agreement. Such licenses further include an exclusive license with Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. (formerly known as Cambridge University Technical Services Ltd.) to develop high biomass, low-input energy crops;

A $3.0 million USAID grant to develop several traits in rice for Asia;

A subcontract award of $2.2 million under a $25 million DOE Integrated Biorefinery grant awarded to Amyris, Inc. to conduct multi-site trials of sweet sorghum;

A $883,000 BRDI grant with Choren USA, LLC, a biorefining company, to investigate desirable biomass compositional characteristics for biomass gasification;

A subcontract of $521,000 under a $1.1 million BRDI grant to Exelus, Inc. to develop drought and salt tolerant traits in switchgrass and miscanthus;

A $491,000 subcontract award from the DOE’s BioEnergy Science Center to field trial traits to reduce recalcitrance and improve conversion of switchgrass to biofuels;

A subcontract award of $86,000 under a $4.7 million BRDI grant totechnology developed at the University of Tennessee together with DuPont Cellulosic Ethanol (formerly DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC)Cambridge (United Kingdom) to plant 1,000 acres of switchgrassregulate gene activity, pursuant to investigate agronomy and biomass supply chain logistics; and

A contract of $22,000 under a $25 million DOE Integrated Bio-Refinery, or IBR, grant to UOP, LCC (a Honeywell company) to build a demonstration unit in Hawaii to convert cellulosic biomass into renewable transportation fuels.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in large part on our proprietary products and technology for which we will pay a royalty on sales in the low single digits as a percentage of sales of products covered by the licensed patents and a royalty in the low single digits as a percentage of license income. Pursuant to the agreement, the maximum milestone payments payable by us are $250,000. All such milestone payments have been made. The agreement with Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. will expire on the date of the expiration of the last-to-expire patent licensed under the agreement. We expect that the presently issued U.S. patent under this agreement will expire in 2023.

10

Intellectual Property

We seek protectionto protect our plant genes, traits, germplasm and other technology and know-how under patent, plant variety protection, plant breeders’ rights, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws. Protection of products, technology and trade secrets is also maintained using confidential disclosure agreements entered into by our employees, consultants and potential and actual third party collaborators. ProtectionFrom time to time, we align our intellectual property strategy and portfolio with our business objectives, which can result in a change in the total number of our technologies enables us to offer our customers and partners proprietary products unavailable from our competitors, and to exclude our competitors from practicing technology that we have developed orissued patents, exclusively licensed from other parties. If competitors in our industry have accessrights to the same technology, our competitive position may be adversely affected.

We believe that we have established a broad intellectual property position in plant genes, traitspatents and energy crop germplasm.pending patent applications. As of November 7, 2012,August 31, 2015, we owned or had exclusive licensed rights to approximately 10090 issued patents and approximately 21070 pending patent applications in the United States and in various foreign jurisdictions. The patents for Ceres-developed inventions are set to expire beginning in 2020. Our patents or patent applications generally relate to compositions of matter for DNA and protein sequences, plants and plant parts, and methods of improving plants. Our patentsplants and applications encompass more than 100,000 full-length, functionally annotated cDNA sequences from several species, hundreds of gene-trait associations, and hundreds of characterized promoters with specialized expression patterns.seed products. In addition, we hold dozens ofnumerous granted rights or pending applications for patents and Plant Variety Protection certificates and plant breeders’ rights for our commercial varieties, hybrids and inbreds, as well as for methods for the improvement, propagation, production, and use of dedicated energyvarious crops. Our filings in foreign jurisdictions, such as Europe (approximately 25 pending patent applications, pending plant breeder’s rights applications, and patents registered in specific countries) and Brazil (approximately 25 pending patent and plant variety protection certificate applications), are generally targeted to the products we plan to offer in those respective markets. We continue to file new patent applications, for which terms generally extend 20 years from the filing date in the United States. The duration of plant variety protection and plant breeder’s rights protection varies among jurisdictions, e.g., the duration is 20 years from issue in the United States, 25 years from filing in Europe, and 15 years from grant of a Provisional Certificate of Protection in Brazil. Our registered and pending trademarks in the United States and in selected foreign countries include Ceres, The Energy Crop Company, Blade, Energy Crops, BladeiCODE, Persephone and Skyscraper.

We will continue

Government Grant Awards

Grant awards help mitigate the costs and risks of developing new products and have historically allowed us to filebroaden the scope and prosecute patent, plant variety protection certificate, plant breeders’ rights,speed of our research and trademark applications indevelopment activities. Over the United Statespast five years, we have received grants from the DOE, the USDA, the USAID, and foreign jurisdictions,the joint USDA/DOE BRDI program as well as maintain trade secrets asstate-level grants. Our grant revenue totaled $1.0 million in the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015. In July 2014, our Brazilian subsidiary was selected for a competitive grant and a multi-year credit facility to fund a product development project for sorghum and sugarcane for up to approximately 85 million reais, or $22.1 million, under the government’s PAISS Agricola program. The project consists of a non-repayable grant of up to approximately 10 million reais, or $2.6 million, and a government-subsidized credit facility for up to approximately 67.5 million reais, or $17.55 million. The Company is consistent withexpected to fund up to approximately 7.5 million reais, or $1.95 million, of the project. While we have received approval for the grant and approval in principle for the credit facility, in light of the restructuring of our business plan in an ongoing effortBrazilian operations first announced on June 19, 2015, we have approached the Brazilian government to protect our intellectual property.narrow the focus and significantly reduce the size of the project, and it is uncertain at this time if we will draw from the grant or the credit facility.

Significant Customers

For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2012,2015, USAID, Syngenta, Exelus, Florida Crystals and Bayer represented 33.5%, 13.1%, 12.2%, 11.9% and 10.4% of our revenues, respectively. For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, USAID, ARPA-E, Campbell Soup Company, USAIDExelus, and Syngenta represented 24.7%41.9%, 17.4%17.5%, 16.8%16.5% and 14.0%11.6% of our revenues, respectively.

Competition

The renewable energy industry isseed, agricultural biotechnology and genomics industries are rapidly evolving and new competitors with competing technologies and products are regularly entering the market. We expect to face competitors on multiple fronts. First, we expect to compete with other providers of seed and vegetative propagation materials in the market for sweet sorghum, high biomass sorghum, switchgrassour crops as well as other developers of biotech traits, genetic technologies and miscanthus. While the competitive landscape in these crops is limited at this time, we anticipate that as our products gain market acceptance, other competitors will be attracted to this opportunity and produce their own seed varieties. Second, we believe that new as yet unannounced crops will be introduced into

the renewable energy market and that existing energy crops will attempt to gain even greater market share. Existing crops, such as corn, sugarcane and oil palm trees, currently dominate the biofuels market.bioinformatics software. Based on our experience with current and potential customers, we believe the primary competitive factors in the energy crop seed industry are yield, product quality, performance, scale, price, reliable supply and sustainability. As new products enterWe believe that the competitive factors affecting the market for our Persephone software include product functionality and features, performance, price, ease of product implementation and quality of customer support services. We believe that our products and services currently compete favorably with respect to such factors. However, we may become obsolete or our competitors’ products maynot be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than our products. Changes in technology and customer preferences may result in short product life cycles. To remain competitive, we will need to develop new products and enhance and improve our existing products in a timely manner. Our failureable to maintain our competitive position could have a material adverse effect onagainst current and potential competitors.

In the seed industry, our business and results of operations.

Our principal competitors may include major international agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporations, such as Advanta India Limited, The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred (DuPont), KWS Saat AG and Syngenta AG, all of which have substantially greater resources to dedicate to research and development, production or marketing than we have and some of which are selling or have announced plans to sell competitive products in our markets. We also face direct competition from other seed companies, such as Chromatin, Inc., S&W Seed Company and Winfield Solutions LLC, a subsidiary of Land O’ Lakes, as well as biotechnology companies, and from academic and government research institutions. New competitorsIn the genomics and bioinformatics market, we face direct competition from academic and government-funded research institutions as well as commercial software developers. In addition, well established companies, such as Illumina, Inc., F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Google Inc., may emerge, including through consolidation withinexpand the seed or renewable energy industry.scope of their current analytical software and services to include visualization and exploration functions and features similar to Persephone. We are unable to predict what effect evolution of the industrythese industries and potential new entrants may have on price, selling strategies, intellectual property or our competitive position.

In the broader market for renewable energy, we expect to face competition from other potential feedstocks, including biomass residues from food crops, forestry trimmings and municipal waste materials as well as other energy crops. There are multiple technologies that process biomass into biofuels and we have yet to determine compatibility of our feedstocks with all of these processes. Our failure to develop new or enhanced products that are compatible with these alternative technologies, or a lack of market acceptance of our products as the common denominator in a broad array of bio-based products that are alternatives to petroleum based products, could have an adverse effect on our business. Significant developments in alternative technologies, such as the inexpensive and large-scale storage of solar or wind-generated energy, may materially and adversely affect our business in ways that we do not currently anticipate.

11

Government Policies and Incentives

There are numerous mandates, incentive programs, tax credits, support schemes and pending legislation that impact the establishment and growth of bioenergy markets. Some of the most relevant to our near term business opportunities are highlighted below:

Brazil: Low-Interest Loans and Credit for Sweet Sorghum — In 2012, the Brazilian government for the first time incorporated sweet sorghum as a strategic crop in its annual agricultural and livestock plan (Plano Agrícola e Pecuário 2012/2013). As a result, sweet sorghum can be financed under special credit plans reserved for certain agricultural production crops. In addition, to encourage the cultivation of sweet sorghum, especially in sugarcane renewal areas, the government has made available R$270 million, or $132.6 million, in low-interest loans to finance up to 100,000 hectares of sweet sorghum during the 2012-2013 season. Under the program, individual companies or growers can receive up to R$1.6 million, or $0.8 million, in low-interest loans. While we do not believe that sweet sorghum adoption is dependent on such support, this low-interest loan program could have a positive effect on adoption rates and sales volume of our products.

Renewable Fuel Standard 2 — The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022, representing an increase of 27 billion gallons from the 2008 target level of 9 billion gallons. EISA also established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one, including a 16 billion gallon per year target by 2022 for cellulosic biofuels. While these targets have been adjusted periodically to take into account cellulosic production capabilities, we believe this target demonstrates the U.S. commitment to significantly expand its use of cellulosic fuels. EISA required the

Environmental Protection Agency to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer greenhouse gases than the petroleum fuel it replaces. Of our energy crops, switchgrass and miscanthus have been approved as feedstocks for the production of cellulosic biofuels; high-biomass sorghum is currently under review by the EPA. We anticipate approval in 2013 at the earliest.

Renewable Electricity Standard — Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have Renewable Electricity Standards (also known as Renewable Portfolio Standards or RPS); eight additional states have voluntary goals. There is no federal standard currently. States with renewable portfolio standards require that a certain percentage (or absolute amount) of electricity be generated from renewable sources by a specified date. Under existing state regulations, these standards typically range from 10% to 40% of electricity production. To comply, companies must typically own a qualified facility and its output, purchase renewable energy credits or purchase bundled renewable electricity. Contracted, closed-loop biomass is an eligible renewable feedstock in all states with RPS.

Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit — Originally enacted by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992, and updated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, or PTC, provides federal tax incentives for renewable energy projects. In general, the PTC reduces the federal income taxes of qualified tax-paying owners of renewable energy projects based on output. In 2012, the credit ranged from 1.1 to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Currently, a full PTC is available to dedicated biomass-fired facilities which are commissioned before December 31, 2013 and which utilize100% closed-loop biomass, which is biomass grown exclusively for energy. A half-PTC is available for dedicated biomass-fired facilities utilizing open-loop biomass and other biomass sources, usually waste materials. The PTC is not available for co-firing coal with open-loop biomass, but it is technically available for co-firing closed-loop biomass with coal or open-loop biomass. We believe our customers can utilize our products to produce closed-loop biomass, thereby taking advantage of these tax credits to improve the economics of their operations. However, due to a legislative error, new PTC applications for co-firing with closed-loop biomass, whether with coal or in a dedicated biopower facility with open-loop biomass, cannot be approved since the approving agencies no longer exist despite multiple extensions of the biomass option by Congress and an existing federal budget line item for the program. We have joined utility industry representatives in lobbying Congress for new legislation to correct the error.

Renewables Obligation Certificates — The United Kingdom, which is a potential export market for U.S.-grown biomass, favors biomass from energy grasses in its renewable electricity mandates. Renewables Obligation Certificates, or ROCs, are issued for each megawatt hour, or MWh, of renewable electricity generated. These ROCs are tradable. Compliance can be achieved by acquiring ROCs from generation or purchase, or paying a buy-out price. On August 31, 2012, the average price for ROCs was £40.17, or $64.20. ROCs are earned at various rates, with different categories of generation receiving a different number of ROCs per MWh generated. Co-firing of biomass, for instance, currently receives 0.3 to 0.9 ROCs/MWh, depending on the percentage of biomass combusted with coal. A full 1.0 ROC/MWh can be earned for units fully converted for biomass, and 1.4 ROCs can be earned for new units built specifically for biomass. These rates and categories are subject to final approval by the legislature. We believe that this regulatory scheme provides attractive economics for U.S. growers with nearby access to seaports.

Regulatory Matters

Some of our products and operations are subject to complex regulations.

U.S. Regulatory Process for Our Biotechnology Products

Under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, regulatory approval is required before the introduction, including the environmental release, interstate movement, and importation, of certain genetically engineered organisms, includingwhich encompasses many of our biotechnology products. The primary U.S. regulatory agency overseeing field testing and deregulation for commercialization of our biotechnology products is the United States Department of

Agriculture, or USDA. Currently,Should our products intended for the U.S. market do not include herbicide-tolerance or pesticidal traits, and, consequently, do not requirethey would fall under the involvementadditional regulatory oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency.Agency, or EPA. Moreover, review by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, would be required for our energy cropbiotechnology products are notshould they be intended for food or animal feed uses and, consequently, do not require the involvement of the Food and Drug Administration.uses. The Biotechnology Regulatory Services, or BRS, within the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, has direct oversight of the field-testingfield testing and deregulation of our biotechnology products.

In the typical product development process for our biotechnology products, approval by APHIS initially is required for field testing of a new product. Field testing of our biotechnology products is subject to a rigorous permit process that, if successful, results in authorization by APHIS for a defined field testing period in a specific location. As of November 7, 2012, we have been granted permits for field trials of certain of our biotechnology products in development in four field test locations, located in Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas. We are currently trialing, or intend to trial, several traits in switchgrass, miscanthus and sorghum.

The permit application must contain detailed information about the product, including a description of the inserted genes, their origin, the purpose of the test, how it will be conducted and any actions taken to prevent the release of pollen or seed from the test site. In determining whether to grant a permit and what conditions to impose, APHIS considers any possible impacts of the field test on the environment and any endangered or threatened species. The permitting process for the establishment of initial field tests typically ranges from two to four months, but can be significantly longer for novel products or circumstances.

If successful, APHIS authorizes field testing for a period in a specific location. We must petition APHIS to deregulate certain of our biotechnology products before being able to commercialize the product. The petition process is a multi-year process that varies based on a number of factors, including the extent of the supporting information required, the nature and extent of review by APHIS, including the type and scope of the environmental review conducted, and the number and types of public comments received. Deregulation of a product is not a guaranteed outcome when a petition to deregulate a biotechnology plant is submitted to APHIS.

The process for obtaining favorable action on petitions for non-regulated status, as well as permits for field testing, has become more complex and time consuming in recent years. In October 2008, APHIS issued proposed regulations that would significantly revise the permitting process; however, whether or when APHIS will issue final regulations is not known.

We are a founding member of the Excellence Through Stewardship, or ETS, organization, which encourages implementation of biotechnology-derived product stewardship practices, including third-party audits of members to verify that stewardship programs and quality management systems are in place and consistent with ETS initiative. We successfully completed an ETS third party audit in December 2009 as well as a regularly scheduled ETS third-party audit in August 2012. Under the program, we continue to conduct yearly internal audits and a third-party audit every three years.

We also voluntarily participate in the USDA’s Biotechnology Quality Management System, or BQMS program, which helps organizations involved in biotechnology research and development analyze the critical control points within their management systems to better maintain compliance with the APHIS regulations for the import, interstate movement and field release of regulated biotechnology traits. In August 2012, a third party audit verified that our stewardship, plant product integrity and incident response management procedures conform to the BQMS program audit standard.

Some of our biotechnology products are not regulated by APHIS. For instance, in April 2012, at our request, APHIS confirmed to us that, based on our description of the origin and development of onecertain of our high-yieldbiotech traits, certain experimental switchgrasssorghum lines were not regulated articles.articles under 7 CFR §340 of the USDA’s mandate to regulate genetically engineered traits. We believe that the ruling from APHIS will make it more cost-effective for us to develop this traitthese traits in energy and forage crops. As a participant inmember of the ETS and BQMS programs,Excellence Through Stewardship organization, we continue to follow standard stewardship procedures for field evaluations of this trait. These switchgrass linestraits that have been granted non-regulated status by APHIS. Such traits may still be subject to other applicable APHIS regulations and other regulatory authorities such as EPA and FDA.

Brazilian Regulatory Process for Our Biotechnology Products

In Brazil, the approval of biotechnology products is regulated by the National Technical Commission of Biosafety, Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança, or CTNBio under the Ministry of Science and Technology. CTNBio is composed of 27 members with specialists with scientific and technical knowledge from four different areas, including specialists in animal, plant, environment and health (12 members), ministerial representatives of the federal government (9 members) and specialists from other areas such as consumer defense and family farming (6 members) that meet once per month to review applications. CTNBio has developed guidance describing the information required as part of anThe application process for commercial approval of a biotechnology product. Once an application is submitted it is analyzed by a team of reviewers who then present the application to the broader committee for a decision. The review team or the committee can request additional information from the applicant. The application processproduct is generally an iterative process with the applicant providing additional data for review and consideration at subsequent monthly meetings until all the reviewers’ and the committee’s questions have been resolved. During the review process, CTNBio will evaluate the need for further environmental impact assessments. CTNBio may conduct public hearings on certainas requested by CTNBio. Prior to commercialization, biotechnology products to seek additional input. CTNBio may refer applications to, among others,must also be approved by the National Biosafety Council, or CNBS, to reviewwhich reviews any socio-economic aspects or national interests that may be implicated.

In March 2012, we received a Certificate of Quality in Biosafety from CTNBio, which allows us to submit requests to import and evaluate plants with traits developed through biotechnology at our plant breeding facility in Centralina, Minas Gerais. Since then, we have submitted an import and field trial request for several traits for sweet sorghum, which are currently under review by CTNBio for approval.

The company’s current commercial product offerings in Brazil do not include biotech traits, and are not subject to CTNBio oversight.

European Regulatory Process for Our Biotechnology Products

The European Union, or EU, has established a legal framework for activities involving what it describes as “genetically modified organisms,” or GMOs, and some of our biotechnology products will fall within the scope of this legislation.

Development Product development field trials and commercial introduction are primarily governed by European Directive 2001/18/EC on the introduction into the environment of GMOs. This Directive requires activities with GMOsand, in the open environment to obtain a mandatory approval before the activity can be initiated and provides principles for environmental risk assessment and evaluation of the risk assessment by independent expert panels.

The procedure for field trials requires submission of an application substantiated with scientific information to the national authority of the Member State within whose territory the experimental release is to take place. This authority will typically request the advice of a national expert panel and decide whether the trial can proceed, possibly with additional conditions. While the procedure is harmonized, there are differences among Member States.

Under Directive 2001/18/EC, a company intending to market a GMO must first submit an application to a competent national authority of an EU Member State, which will issue a formal opinion in the form of an assessment report. In the event of a favorable opinion, the assessment report is shared with other Member States via the European Commission. The other Member States and the European Commission may issue observations and objections to the report. If there are no objections by other Member States or by the European Commission, the competent authority that carried out the original assessment authorizes the placing on the market of the product. The authorized product may then be placed on the market throughout the European Union in conformity with any conditions set out in the authorization. The authorization has a maximum duration of 10 years and may be renewed.

If objections are raised, the procedure provides for a conciliation phase among the Member States, the Commission and the notifier. If at the end of the conciliation phase the objections are maintained, a decision must

be taken at European level. The Commission first asks for the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), composed of independent scientists in the fields associated with medicine, nutrition, toxicology, biology, chemistry and other similar disciplines. The Commission then presents a draft decision to the Regulatory Committee composed of representatives of the Member States for an opinion. If the Committee gives a favorable opinion, the Commission adopts the decision. If not, the draft Decision is submitted to the Council of Ministers for adoption or rejection by qualified majority. If the Council does not act within three months, the Commission shall adopt the decision.

In cases where our biotechnology products or derivatesderivatives thereof are intended to be used as food or feed, or could end up in food or feed, additional legal requirements are required; in particular Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Under EU legislation, regulatory approval is required before conducting product development field trials or commercially introducing such products. The Regulation attempts to put in place a centralized, uniformlegislation also provides principles for environmental and transparent EU procedure for all applications for placing on the market, whether they concern the GMO itself or the food and feed products derived therefrom. This means that business operators may file a single application for the GMO and all its uses: a singlesafety risk assessment is performed and a single authorization is granted for aby expert advisory panels. While approval procedures within the EU are harmonized, there are differences among member states. The GMO and all its uses (cultivation, importation, processing into food/feed or industrial products). If one of these uses concerns food or feed, all the uses may be treated under Regulation 1829/2003.

The European Commission and Member States review and adapt the GMOregulatory framework regularly. Several scientific advisory bodies, most prominently the EFSA, update theiritself as well as guidance notes and recommendations on data requirements. Finally,from expert advisory panels are also updated regularly. In addition, the political acceptance of biotech traits crops is known to differ considerably between Member Statesmember states and between consecutive governments in a Member State.member state. Therefore, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any application made in the EU.

We are not currently subject to the GMO oversight as our Our current productproducts offerings in the EU do not include biotechnology products. However, we do anticipate introducing biotechnology products in the EU in the future.biotech traits and are not subject to regulatory oversight for GMOs.

12

Other Regulation

Phytosanitary Certification.   Nearly all countries, including the United States and Brazil, and many local jurisdictions, require phytosanitary certificates to import seed or plant materials. These certificates, issued by government agricultural inspectors where seeds or plants are produced or packaged, attest that seeds or plants are clean, free of prohibited impurities and have been tested for the presence of various pathogens that can be carried in or on the seeds or plant tissue. We obtain such certificates when necessary, including in connection with the use of our seeds for research or sample testing.

Seed and Plant Variety Registration.   Seed and plant variety registration provides an organized system for protecting seed and plant variety owners as well as growers from misleading marketing practices. Registration of seed and plant varieties is voluntary in the United States under the Federal Seed Act. Applicants must attest that their product is phenotypically unique; that is, verifiably different from varieties that currently exist in the market. A similar system exists in Brazil, the European Union and many other countries; however, the registration process itself may be more regulated, and is sometimes required prior to the commencement of seed sales. In Brazil, sweet sorghum requires two seasons of trial data to be registered, which must be completed prior to the commencement of sales. We have received the necessary governmental variety registrations for the sweet sorghum varieties we are marketing in Brazil. Similarly, in the European Union, two years of field trials with a national authority are typically required to receive registration for all member states.registration. Registration is required prior to the commencement of sales for new high biomass sorghum and sweet sorghum seed varieties; there is no registration requirement for switchgrass or miscanthus at this time.varieties.

Regulation of Laboratory and Greenhouse Facilities.Activities.   The use of genetically engineered organisms in laboratory and greenhouse facilities is subject to rules intended to ensure that such organisms are handled safely and do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. The National Institute of Health’s Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, or the NIH Guidelines, describe methods for

the safe handling of transgenic materials in laboratory settings. Appendix P (Physical and Biological Containment for Recombinant DNA Research Involving Plants) of the NIH Guidelines describes specific requirements for facilities and practices to meet containment standards for each of the different biosafety levels from lowest containment (designated BL1-P) through the highest containment (designated BL4-P). Appendix P is also used as a guideline for practices relating to conducting experiments to construct, develop, and propagate genetically engineered plants. Our current biosafety level is BL1-P, which requires a low level of containment for experiments involving our plants with genetically engineeredbiotechnology traits.

Hazardous Materials. Our In addition, our laboratory and field activities inherently involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, which are subject to health, safety and environmental regulations. Our infrastructure, procedures and equipment are designed to meet our obligations under these regulations. We perform recurring internal and third-party audits and provide employees ongoing training and support, as required. All employees must comply with safety instructions and procedures, which are codified in our employment policies.

Employees

As of November 7, 2012,10, 2015, we had approximately 9644 full-time employees. Of these employees, approximately 62 were engaged in research and development. Our employees are located in the United States and Brazil. We consider our employee relations to be good. None of our U.S. employees are represented by a labor union or collective bargaining agreement.

About Ceres

We were incorporated in Delaware in March 1996 under the name Ceres, Inc. Our principal offices are located at 1535 Rancho Conejo Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 and our telephone number is (805) 376-6500. Our website address iswww.ceres.net. www.ceres.net. We do not incorporate the information on our website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Available Information

We file or furnish periodic reports, including our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Such reports, proxy statements and other information may be obtained by visiting the Public Reference Room of the SEC at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549, by calling the SEC at (800) SEC-0330 or by sending an electronic messageemail to the SEC at publicinfo@sec.gov. In addition, the SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically. Our reports, proxy statements and other information are also made available, free of charge, on our investor relations website at http://investor.ceres.net as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such information with the SEC. References to our corporate website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are intended to be inactive textual references only, and none of the information contained on our website is part of this report or incorporated in this report by reference.

13

Item 1A.Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Business

We have a history of net losses; we expect to continue to incur net losses andlosses; we may not achieve or maintain profitability.

With the exception of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2003, 2005 and 2006, we have incurred net losses each fiscal year since our inception. As of August 31, 2012,2015, we had an accumulated deficit of $242.1$332.1 million. We expect to incur additional losses for at least the next several years as we continue to move forward with our commercialization activities, invest in our research and development programs and develop new products and move forward with our commercialization activities.products. The extent of our future net losses will depend, in part, on our product sales growth and revenue from collaborations and government grants, and on the level of our operating expenses. To date, substantially all of our revenue has been derived from collaboration agreements and government grants, and we have had very limited revenue from seed sales. Over the next several years, we expect our revenue will shift from being derived primarily from collaborations and government grants to product sales. However, this may take longer than expected due to the time it takes to evaluate our seeds in various markets. Our ability to generate future revenue will depend upon our ability to meet our obligations under our collaborations and government grants, to enter into new collaborations or out-licensing agreements and to successfully commercialize our products. The market for seeds for dedicated energy crops is relatively new and still developing and ourOur success in generating revenue from product sales depends in the near term in large part on the success of our sweet sorghum products in Brazilthe United States, and in the future, on the adoption of other dedicated energy cropsour traits or genetic technologies, such as a biomass feedstock.Persephone bioinformatics software and iCODE multi-gene trait development system. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability onprofitability.

We may not be able to continue as a quarterly or annual basis.going concern.

Our products areconsolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the early stagesnormal course of commercialization.business. We expect to incur further losses in the operations of our business and have been dependent on funding our operations through the issuance and sale of equity securities. Our accumulated deficit as of August 31, 2015 was $332.1 million. Our cash and cash equivalents of $8.1 million as of August 31, 2015 is not sufficient to enable us to remain in business beyond January 2016 without raising further capital or significantly curtailing our operations. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result of this uncertainty and the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as of August 31, 2015, our independent registered public accounting firm issued a report dated November 23, 2015 stating that the Company has incurred recurring losses and expects that the current level of cash and cash equivalents will only be sufficient to fund operations until January 2016 which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Investors in our securities should review carefully the report of our independent registered public accounting firm, which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern. Therefore, you should not rely on our consolidated financial statements as an indication of the amount of proceeds that would be available to satisfy claims of creditors, and potentially be available for distribution to stockholders, in the event of liquidation.

We will require additional financing and may not be able to obtain such financing on favorable terms, if at all, which would force us to significantly curtail our operations.

We will continue to need capital to fund our research and development projects, to commercialize our products and to provide working capital to fund other aspects of our business. As of August 31, 2015, we had cash and cash equivalents of $8.1 million. We believe this will only be sufficient to fund our operations until January 2016. In order to fund our operations beyond that time, we will need to raise additional funds. We are evaluating opportunities to secure additional financing, including the issuance of equity or debt, sale or divesture of business units, and additional revenues from grants or collaborations. However there are no assurances that such opportunities will be available or available on terms that are acceptable to us. If future financings involve the issuance of equity securities, our existing stockholders would suffer dilution. If we are able to raise debt financing, we may be subject to restrictive covenants that limit our operating flexibility or require us to encumber our assets. We may not be able to raise sufficient additional funds on terms that are favorable to us, if at all. If we fail to raise sufficient funds and continue to incur losses, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage of strategic opportunities, develop and commercialize products or technologies, or otherwise respond to competitive pressures will be significantly limited. If this happens, we may be forced to obtain funds through collaborative and licensing arrangements that may require us to relinquish commercial rights, grant licenses to our technology and sell assets on terms that are not favorable to us or delay or terminate research and development programs or the commercialization of products or significantly curtail or cease our operations.

We have shifted our business focus and strategy from seeds for dedicated energy crops to seeds and traits for food and forage markets and other crops and we may not be successful in implementing this new strategy.

In 2014, we began realigning our business to focus on food and forage opportunities and biotechnology traits for sugarcane and other crops. Previously, we prioritized our working capital in Brazil, where, since 2010 we were focused on the large-scale evaluation and adoption of our high biomass sorghum for power generation and sweet sorghum for ethanol production. Due in part to the economic challenges faced by the Brazilian ethanol industry, including low oil prices, the struggling Brazilian economy and unfavorable government policies in Brazil, in June 2015, we began restructuring our operations in Brazil to substantially scale back those operations. We cannot assure you that as a new entrant to these markets, we will be successful in commercializing our products and services, recouping development and commercialization-related expenses, or competing against established market participants. If we are not able to bring our existing products or new products and services with significant commercial potential to market in a timely manner, we will not be successful in building a sustainable or profitable business.

14

The realignment of our business announced on June 19, 2015 to focus on food and forage opportunities and biotechnology traits for sugarcane and other crops may not deliver the expected results.

On June 19, 2015, we announced the continued realignment of our business to focus on food and forage opportunities and biotechnology traits for sugarcane and other crops. As part of the realignment, we undertook a restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations. The restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations, includes, among other actions, a workforce reduction that initially impacted 14 positions in Brazil primarily related to administration, operations and manufacturing as well as 2 support positions in the United States. We estimated that we would incur charges of approximately $0.6 million over the five-month period ending in October 2015 with respect to the initial workforce reductions in Brazil and the U.S., including $0.1 million in continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are eliminated, and $0.5 million of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures.

As of August 19, 2015, we had initiated a further workforce reduction that impacted an additional 19 positions in Brazil. We estimated that we would incur additional charges of approximately $0.8 million over the four-month period ending on December 31, 2015 with respect to the additional workforce reductions in Brazil, including $0.1 million in continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are eliminated, and $0.7 million of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures. We expect to save up to approximately $8.0 to $10.0 million in cash in fiscal 2016 as a result of restructuring our operations as described above, which is higher than we originally estimated. The restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations is expected to be substantially completed by February 1, 2016. After full implementation of the restructuring plan, our Brazilian operations will be focused on sugarcane trait development activities for the Brazilian sugarcane market. There can be no assurance that we will achieve the cost savings we expect in fiscal 2016 after fully implementing the realignment plan.

Our realignment plan and its implementation may interfere with our ability to achieve our business objectives, may be difficult to manage and may increase the likelihood of turnover of other key employees, all of which may have an adverse impact on our business. In addition, we cannot be sure that the realignment plan will be as successful in reducing our overall expenses as expected, that we will be successful in our new markets or that additional costs will not offset any cost reductions from our realignment plan. If our realignment plan does not achieve the expected results, our business and results of operations will be adversely impacted.

Our forage products are in the early stages of commercialization and we have generated minimal sales from our products.

We have refocused our business on new market opportunities, including the forage feed markets and sugarcane markets, and our existing products for these markets are also still in the early stages of commercialization. Our efforts to commercialize our products may not be successful. Our seed product sales for the years ended August 31, 20122015, August 31, 2014 and August 31, 20112013 were minimal and were derived mainly from sales to third parties that were evaluating our products.products in the Brazilian market. We began selling seedsseed in the Brazilian market in November 2011.

The markets for our other products, mainly switchgrass2011 and high biomass sorghum, are not fully developed. We completed our first sale of switchgrass seedsin the U.S. in 2009, and high biomassentered into the forage sorghum seeds market in 20102014. As of August 31, 2015, product sales, which include both seed sales and to datebiomass sold under our various sales incentive and promotional programs, have soldbeen approximately $0.6$2.0 million in the aggregate since our inception.

15

One of theseour largest immediate commercial opportunities is the U.S. forage market. Since 2014, we have completed a limited number of commercial-scale evaluations of our sorghum products in the aggregate. Our seed-propagated miscanthusU.S. forage market with growers, dairies and livestock producers, and we have limited experience in the sorghum market. To the extent that our sorghum products do not result in expected yields, we may have difficulty convincing customers to purchase or trial our current and future sorghum products.

Even if we are successful in commercializing our biotechnology traits in sugarcane, the pace of adoption may be constrained by the relatively lower multiplication rates of vegetatively propagated crops like sugarcane compared to seeded crops like sorghum.

Sugarcane is a vegetatively propagated crop, meaning that commercial fields are planted with segments of living plant stalks rather than seeds. Sugarcane “seed” plantings are typically managed by mills and growers themselves in close proximity to their commercial fields. In a commercial setting, one acre of “seed” sugarcane can be used to plant up to approximately 10 acres of commercial sugarcane. For seeded crops, like sorghum, one acre of a seed production can plant up to 500 acres or more. While faster multiplication methods for sugarcane exist, they are significantly more costly than current methods. While we believe the improved yields and other potential benefits of our traits will convince customers to employ these more costly methods, they may not be willing or able to do so, and our sales may grow more slowly than our expectations.

We are at the beginning stages of developing our brand awareness for our crops, and we have limited experience in marketing and selling our products and will need to expand our sales, marketing and distribution support capabilities.

We are in the beginning phases of building brand awareness for our crops. To date, we have had limited experience selling our products. In addition there is limited public data available regarding the sorghum market which makes it more difficult to direct and implement an effective sales and marketing strategy. We currently have limited resources to market and sell products and support our distributors on a commercial-scale across various geographic regions. As of November 10, 2015, we had approximately 2 employees in various sales, marketing and business development functions. Developing our sales and marketing support capabilities and gaining the necessary expertise will require that we hire additional personnel, which could take longer than we expect and may require significant resources. We may be unable to grow our sales and marketing or business development capabilities to adequately cover the geographic regions where we see the most opportunity, which could slow the adoption of our products and the growth of product is still underrevenue.

We license our biotechnology traits in certain crops to third parties, and are dependent on them to successfully reach development milestones, commercialize our traits and generate royalties.

In crops such as corn, rice and sugarcane, we have licensed or intend to license our biotechnology traits to third parties, including other agricultural biotechnology companies, mills, germplasm providers and growers. Once we provide a trait to our collaborators, they typically oversee the development and commercialization, and, if applicable, the deregulation of our trait in their products. In such crops, our ability to achieve milestone payments or generate royalties is not within our direct control. If our partners are delayed or not successful in introducing our traits to their products, conducting field trials, deregulating or commercializing products containing traits, among other activities, we may not receive royalties or milestone payments as expected and our financial results could suffer.

Our biotech products require a multi-year development process and are not yet available for commercial sale.use.

Our business strategy going forward includes the introduction of crops with genetically engineered, or biotech, traits. The commercial development of biotech traits in commercial crops is a multi-year process. Following transformation, when the selected gene is inserted in a target crop, the resulting plants are evaluated in the greenhouse for one to two years, and then in the field to confirm results for at least two to four years. Following field trials, specific gene-trait combinations are typically selected and, typicallyif required, submitted for regulatory approval, or deregulation, a process thatwhich has historically taken one to three yearsbeen a multi-year process in the United States and Brazil. Assuming these averages, we believe that we could introduce our first biotech trait or traits to the market in 2016 at the earliest.other countries. By contrast, our existing sweet sorghum, switchgrass and high biomasscommercial sorghum products have all been created through the use of conventional and marker-assisted breeding. As a result, even if these products are successfully sold and adopted by customers, they do not necessarily demonstrate our ability to successfully develop, market and sell biotechnology products. If we are not able to bring our existing products or new products with significant commercial potential to market in a timely manner, we will not be successful in building a sustainable or profitable business.

The markets for some of our dedicated energy crops are not well established and may take years to develop or may never develop and our growth depends on customer adoption of our dedicated energy crops.

16

We sell proprietary seeds to produce dedicated energy crops for the renewable energy market, which is not well established and is evolving. Although our sweet sorghum products are targeted for use as a feedstock to

produce ethanol, ethanol has historically been produced from corn in the United States and sugarcane in Brazil and we will need to continue to demonstrate on a commercial scale that sweet sorghum can reliably be used as a cost-efficient feedstock for ethanol production. Cellulosic biofuels have been produced on a limited scale from woody biomass, such as wood chips, or agricultural residues, and we will need to demonstrate on a commercial scale that biomass grown from our seed products, including switchgrass and high biomass sorghum, can be used as cost-efficient feedstocks for the production of biofuels, biopower and other bio-based products.

Currently the market for dedicated energy crops is not well established, primarily because of the lack of infrastructure to support the development of this market, including the lack of commercial-scale production facilities capable of converting cellulosic feedstocks, referred to as cellulosic biorefineries. Existing first-generation ethanol biorefineries are not capable of using cellulosic feedstocks to produce ethanol. The development of this industry is also dependent, in large part, upon the efforts of many companies to improve conversion technologies which will play a significant role in enabling more cost-effective means of converting biomass into energy. A delay in the construction of cellulosic biorefineries or a failure to meaningfully improve conversion technologies could curtail one of our most significant market opportunities. Even if cellulosic biorefineries are established in the future, they may elect to use agricultural residues, waste material or woody biomass as feedstocks rather than dedicated energy crops, resulting in the lack of a robust market for our products.

Traditionally the market for biopower, which is the generation of electric power from combusting biomass, has been fueled mainly by bio-based waste products from the paper and timber industries. We believe that expansion of this market will be driven by governmental policies such as additional state and new federal mandates that require a certain percentage or absolute amount of electricity be generated from renewable sources by specified dates or production tax credits for co-firing biomass. We cannot predict the effect that existing legislation or the lack of legislation will have on the development of the biopower market in the United States or the European Union. To the extent that the market does not develop or biopower producers elect to continue to rely on bio-based waste products from the paper and timber industries, rather than dedicated energy crops, our market opportunity will be limited.

Our crops are new and most growers will require substantial instruction to successfully establish, grow and harvest crops grown from our seeds.

As part of our product development activities and customer support, we provide agricultural producers and biomass procurers with information and protocols regarding the establishment, management, harvest, transportation and storage of our energy crops for use in bioenergy. In addition to seed selections, such crop management recommendations may include equipment selection, planting and harvest timing, application of crop protection chemicals or herbicides and storage systems. While some of our crops, such as sorghum and switchgrass, have been grown for other uses, the crop management practices required for energy crop production are still new and are evolving. Our general or specific protocols may not apply to all circumstances, may not be sufficient, or may be incorrect, leading to reduced yields, crop failures or other production problems or losses by our customers or collaborators. Such failures may harm our customer or collaborator relationships, our reputation and our ability to successfully market our products, and may lead to liability claims against us. Further, the use of our seeds may require a change in current planting, rotation or agronomic practices.

Our largest immediate commercial opportunity is the Brazilian ethanol market, where we only recently completed a second season of commercial-scale production of our sweet sorghum products in Brazil.

We concluded our second commercial-scale plantings of sweet sorghum in Brazil during the 2011-2012 growing season. The 2011-2012 sweet sorghum crop generally suffered from reduced yields due wholly or in part to weather, soil conditions, harvest timing, failure to follow our crop management recommendations or other causes. To the extent that the results of these plantings wholly or in part do not meet our collaborators’ expectations, we may experience a significant delay in commercializing our sweet sorghum products in Brazil. These results could create the perception that the overall season was a failure. This could discourage the mill owners that planted our

seeds during the 2011-2012 growing season from planting our seeds again and discourage other mill owners from trying our sweet sorghum products. The future success of our “drop-in” sweet sorghum products in Brazil will depend on mill owners’ ability or willingness to devote proper resources, including land, to our products and the timing of planting and harvesting of our sweet sorghum products. The decision to devote land and resources to a particular crop is dependent on many factors, some of which are outside of our control. To the extent that our sweet sorghum products do not result in expected yields, we may have difficulty convincing sugarcane-to-ethanol mill owners to purchase or trial our current and future sweet sorghum products.

Our sales incentive and performance based promotional programs for the 2012-2013 season in Brazil may result in costs in excess of our seed sales revenue.

For the 2012-2013 sweet sorghum growing season in Brazil, we have offered our customers the opportunity to participate in various sales incentive and performance based promotional programs. While we believe that these programs will facilitate the adoption of our products in Brazil, and our own experimental results lead us to believe that our new generation of hybrids will meet or exceed our performance targets, we have limited experience with the performance of these products at a large scale as well as what level of yield shortfalls to expect across wide area plantings, which are subject to the vagaries of weather and the environment. A net loss in revenue from Brazil seed sales could cause the perception that our commercial plantings were unsuccessful, and adversely affect our ability to sell seed of our sweet sorghum products in following seasons. Moreover, customers may insist on us repeating these sales incentive and performance based promotional programs in future seasons, exposing us to ongoing costs.

The pricing for our products, including our sweet sorghum products for the Brazilian market, may be negatively affected.

Our products are in the early stages of commercialization and there is no established market for them. We have based the pricing of our products on our assessment of the value that our products provide to the customer, rather than on the cost of production. We may include trait fees in our seed prices, but our potential customers may be unwilling to pay such fees. If our customers attribute a lower value to our products than we do, they may not be willing to pay the premium prices we expect to charge. Pricing levels may also be negatively affected if our products are unsuccessful in producing the yields we expect. In addition, if our competitors are able to develop competitive products and offer them at lower prices, we may be forced to lower our prices.

The customers we are targeting in Brazil are generally large mill owners with long operating histories in the sugarcane-to-ethanol market that will have significant leverage in negotiating commercial relationships with us. As a result, we do not know whether these pricing negotiations will result in adequate margins or accurately reflect our pricing strategies, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our business will be adversely affected if the field trials being conducted by our collaborators or potential customers fail to perform as expected.

We and our collaborators and potential customers are currently conducting field trials of our products in various geographies around the world. We have limited control over field trials that are conducted by third parties and are dependent on their ability to follow our suggested protocols. There are various reasons these trials may fail to succeed, including weather, planting our seeds too late in the growing seasons or the incorrect use of fertilizers, and we have in the past conducted trials that we believe failed to fully meet the expectations of our collaborators. Statements by our collaborators or potential customers about negative field trial experiences could harm our reputation and the decision by these parties not to proceed with large-scale trials or seed purchases based on negative results could harm our business, revenue and profitability.

Environmental factors, including weather, moisture, and plantpest infestations, may negatively affect the crops grown from our seeds or our seed inventories.

The plants grown from our seeds are subject to the vagaries of the weather and the environment, either of which can reduce crop yields. Weather conditions and natural disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail, floods, tornados, freezing conditions, drought, fire or other natural disasters, can affect the timing of planting or harvesting and the acreage planted, as well as yields. The effects of disease, pests, fungi, bacteria and insect infestations can also be unpredictable and devastating to crops, potentially rendering all or a substantial portion of the affected harvests unsuitable for use. In addition, our crops and harvests may be adversely affected by climate change resulting from global warming, including changes in precipitation patterns and the increased frequency of extreme weather events. Each of these weather and environmental factors affects geographic regions differently. Should these or other environmental factors adversely affect the crops grown from our products, growers may be unable or unwilling to purchase our seeds or they may choose to purchase other seeds deemed better adapted to the particular climatic or environmental conditions they are facing. For example, South-Central Brazil experienced a significant drought during the 2011-2012 growing season. As a result, agricultural production in the region was adversely affected to varying degrees. This included the 2011-2012 sweet sorghum crop, which generally suffered from reduced yields and increased variability in crop performance, which has been adversely affecting the demand for our seeds for the 2012-2013 growing season.

The quality of our seed inventory could deteriorate due to a variety of factors, including the passage of time, temperature variations, moisture, insects, fungi, bacteria, disease or pests. If the quality of our seed inventory were to deteriorate below an acceptable level, the value of our seed inventory would decrease significantly and we might not be able to meet product demand. Should a substantial portion of our seed inventory be damaged by moisture, insects, fungi, bacteria, disease or pests, our business and financial condition could be materially and adversely harmed.

Our seed business is highly seasonal and subject to weather conditions and other factors beyond our control, which may cause our sales and operating results to fluctuate significantly.

The sale of seeds is dependent upon planting and growing seasons, which vary from year to year, and are expected to result in both highly seasonal patterns and substantial fluctuations in quarterly sales and profitability. OurWhile forage sorghum seed sales for the 2015 growing season in the U.S. increased on a percentage basis, our product sales for the yearyears ended August 31, 20122015, August 31, 2014 and August 31, 2013 were minimal and, accordingly, we have not yet experienced the full nature or extent to which our business may be seasonal. We expect that sales of our seeds in Brazil will typically be higher in our first and second fiscal quarters, due to the timing of the planting decisions made by our customers. As we increase our sales in our current markets, and as we expand into new markets in different geographies, it is possible that we may experience different seasonality patterns in our business. Weather conditions and natural disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail, floods, tornadoes, freezing conditions, drought or fire, also affect decisions by our customers about the types and amounts of seeds to plant and the timing of harvesting and planting such seeds. Disruptions that cause delays by our customers in harvesting or planting can result in the movement of orders to a future quarter, which would negatively affect the quarter and cause fluctuations in our operating results.

A decline

The cropland made available by our customers for sorghum production may be limited by the relative attractiveness of producing other crops.

The decision to devote land and resources to a particular crop is dependent on many factors, some of which are outside of our control. To the extent that our customers select other potentially more profitable crops over our products, the cropland available for our products within a given geography and the overall size of our market opportunity may be limited. For example, increases in the price of petroleum-based productscertain commodities, such as other crops, may reduceencourage growers to dedicate more land to these crops instead of sorghum. In addition, our success is dependent, in part, on our gaining acreage from other forage crops like alfalfa and silage corn.

Loss of or damage to our germplasm collection would significantly slow our product development efforts.

We have access to comprehensive collections of germplasm for sorghum, switchgrass and miscanthus, in part, through strategic collaborations with leading institutions. Germplasm comprises collections of genetic resources covering the demand for manydiversity of a crop, the attributes of which are inherited from generation to generation. Germplasm is a key strategic asset since it forms the basis of plant breeding programs. To the extent that we lose access to these germplasm collections because of the termination or breach of our collaboration agreements, our product development capabilities could be negatively impacted. In addition, loss of or damage to our germplasm collections would significantly impair our research and development activities. Although we restrict access to our germplasm at our research facilities to protect this valuable resource, we cannot guarantee that our efforts to protect our germplasm collection will be successful. The destruction or theft of a significant portion of our germplasm collection would adversely affect our business and results of operations.

17

The successful commercialization of our products depends on our ability to produce high quality seeds cost-effectively on a large scale.

The production of commercial-scale quantities of seeds requires the multiplication of the seeds through a succession of plantings and seed harvests, and if the product is a hybrid, it must be produced from parental lines, which are mated under controlled conditions. The cost-effective production of high quality, high-volume quantities of some of our products depends on our ability to scale our production processes to produce seeds in sufficient quantity to meet demand. We cannot assure you that our existing or future seed production techniques will enable us to meet our large-scale production goals cost-effectively for the products in our pipeline. Even if we are successful in developing ways to increase seed yields and enhance seed quality, we may not be able to do so cost-effectively or on a timely basis, which could adversely affect our business.

We believe that some ofability to achieve profitability. If we are unable to maintain or enhance the projected demand for renewable alternatives to fossil fuels is a result of the recent increase and volatility of oil prices that has occurred over the past few years. Oil and petroleum prices are currently at or near historically high levels. We anticipate that mostquality of our product sales will be driven byseeds as we increase our production capacity, including through the expected use of third parties, we may experience reductions in customer demand, for alternatives to petroleum-based products. If the price of oil falls,higher costs and periods of lower oil prices are sustained, demand for biofuels or other bio-based products could also decline. Declining oil prices, or forecasts of a future decline in oil prices, may adversely affect the prices for renewable energy products and the prices we can obtain from our potential customers or cause potential customers to not buy our products, which could

increased inventory write-offs.

materially and adversely affect our operating results. We believe that our market opportunity to sell sweet sorghum seeds in Brazil is based, at leastdepend, in part, on the shortages Brazil has encountered in producing sufficient quantities of sugarcane-based ethanolthird parties to satisfy local demand. produce our seeds.

We cannot predict whether these shortages will be sustainedproduce commercial seed either on leased land managed by us or whether the Brazilian market will experience periods of ethanol shortageswith contract seed producers. Our primary production sites are located in the future.

A significant increaseUnited States. We also multiply seeds in the price of sugar relativeother countries in North and South America. In order to the price of ethanol may reduce demand for our sweet sorghum and may otherwise adversely affect our business.

We are marketing our sweet sorghum varieties in Brazil as a “drop-in” feedstock to extend the operating season of Brazilian sugarcane-to-ethanol mills, the operating days of which are currently limited due to the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth patterns. For example, our proprietary varieties of sweet sorghum can typically be harvested from February to May while sugarcane, which is grown year-round, is typically harvested from April to December, depending on weather and market conditions. In addition, we may market our sweet sorghum seeds for planting on marginal land which would not otherwise be well suited for sugarcane. However, if the price of sugar, which is produced from sugarcane and which cannot be produced from sweet sorghum alone today, rises significantly relative to the price of ethanol, it may become more profitable for ethanol mill operators to grow sugarcane even in adverse conditions, such as through the expansion of sugarcane fields to marginal land or the extension of the sugarcane harvesting season. During sustained periods of significantly higher sugar prices,meet increased demand for our seeds, we will need to enter into additional land leases or arrangements with contract seed producers. If we need to engage contract seed producers, we may decrease, which could materiallynot be able to identify suitable producers in a specific region and adversely affectif we do, we do not know whether they will have available capacity when we need their production services, that they will be willing to dedicate a portion of their production capacity to our products or that we will be able to enter into an agreement with them on acceptable terms. If any contract seed producer that we engage fails to perform its obligations as expected or breaches or terminates their agreements with us, or if we are unable to secure the services of such third parties when and as needed, we may lose opportunities to generate revenue from product sales.

Our third-party distributors may not effectively market and sell our products.

We depend in part on third-party distributors for the marketing and selling of our seed products, yet we are unable to control their efforts completely. In addition, we are unable to ensure that our distributors comply with all applicable laws regarding the sale of our products. If our distributors fail to effectively market and sell our products, and in full compliance with applicable laws, our operating results.results and business may suffer.

Our business will be adversely affected if the field trials being conducted by our collaborators or potential customers fail to perform as expected.

We and our collaborators and potential customers are currently conducting field trials of our products in various geographies around the world. We have limited control over field trials that are conducted by third parties and are dependent on their ability to follow our suggested protocols. There are various reasons these trials may fail to succeed, including weather, disease or pests, planting our seeds too late in the growing seasons or the incorrect use of fertilizers, and we have in the past conducted trials that we believe failed to fully meet the expectations of our collaborators. Statements by our collaborators or potential customers about negative field trial experiences could harm our reputation and the decision by these parties not to proceed with large-scale trials or seed purchases based on negative results could harm our business, revenue and profitability.

Our failure to accurately forecast demand for our seeds could result in an unexpected shortfall or surplus that could negatively affect our results of operations or our brand.

Because of the length of time it takes to produce commercial quantities of seeds, we must make seed production decisions well in advance of product bookings. For example, we must determine our expected demand for our sweet sorghum varieties approximately six to twelve months in advance of delivery, on average, while growers or mill operatorsour customers make seed purchase decisions sometimes as late as 30 days in advance of planting. Our ability to accurately forecast demand can be adversely affected by a number of factors outside of our control, including changes in market conditions, environmental factors, such as pests and diseases, and adverse weather conditions. A shortfall in the supply of our products may reduce product sales revenue, damage our reputation in the market and adversely affect customer relationships. Any surplus in the amount of seed we have on hand, may negatively impact cash flows, reduce the quality of our inventory and ultimately result in write-offs of inventory. Any failure on our part to produce sufficient inventory or overproduction of a particular product could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, our customers may generally cancel an order or request a decrease in quantity at any time prior to delivery of the seed, which may lead to a surplus of our products. Even after delivery, a customer may occasionally return our seeds.

The performance of our sweet sorghum products in Brazil may be adversely affected by delays to the start of the Brazilian ethanol production season.

18

Once a mill begins to crush sugarcane or other feedstock, it generally seeks a continuous supply of the feedstock to run its mill without interruption until the feedstock is depleted. Our sweet sorghum is intended to be used as a season-extending crop. Should the sugarcane harvest season be delayed due to weather or other factors, a mill may choose to delay the harvest of sweet sorghum to avoid the downtime caused by a supply gap between a season-extending crop like sweet sorghum and sugarcane, which occurred during the 2011-2012 season. Since our sweet sorghum grows quickly and maintains its peak sugars for one to two weeks, depending on growing conditions, delays in harvesting beyond this time period may result in lower sugar volumes per acre as well as other potential production issues as mature plants begin to decline and may lodge. Such issues could impact growers’ perception of the quality or usefulness of our products and, as a result, their willingness to purchase these products from us in the future.

Our product development efforts use complex integrated technology platforms and require substantial time and resources to develop and our efforts may not be successful or the rate of product improvement may be slower than expected.

The development of successful agricultural products using complex technology discovery platforms such as ours requires significant levels of investment in research and development, including field testing, to demonstrate their effectiveness and can take several years or more. For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2012, we spent $19.2 million on research and development. We intend to continue to spend significant amounts on research and development in the future to continue to improve the performance of our products. Our substantial investment in research and development may not result in significant product revenues, particularly over the next several years. To date, companies have developedWhile we intend to spend significant amounts in research and commercialized relatively few dedicated energy crops,development in the future to continue to improve the performance of our products and no genetically engineered dedicated energy crops.to develop new products, our investment in research and development may prove to be insufficient, particularly as we reduce annual research and development expenditures compared to historical levels. This may result in delays in reaching our product development goals and lead to slower product introductions.

Development of new or improved agricultural products involves risks of failure inherent in the development of products based on innovative and complex technologies. These risks include the possibility that:

 

·our products will fail to perform as expected in the field or fail to perform consistently;
·our products will not receive necessary regulatory permits and governmental clearances in the markets in which we intend to sell them;

our products will fail to perform as expected in the field;

·our products will be viewed as too expensive by our potential customers compared to competitive products;

·our products will be difficult to produce on a large scale or will not be economical to grow;

·proprietary rights of third parties will prevent us, our collaborators, or our licensees from marketing our products; and

·third parties may develop superior or equivalent products.

 

our products will not receive necessary regulatory permits and governmental clearances in the markets in which we intend to sell them;

our products will be viewed as too expensive by our potential customers compared to competitive products;

our products will be difficult to produce on a large scale or will not be economical to grow;

proprietary rights of third parties will prevent us, our collaborators, or our licensees from marketing our products; and

third parties may develop superior or equivalent products.

Loss of or damage to our germplasm collection would significantly slow our product development efforts.

We have access to comprehensive collections of germplasm for sweet sorghum, high biomass sorghum, switchgrass and miscanthus through strategic collaborations with leading institutions. Germplasm comprises collections of genetic resources covering the diversity of a crop, the attributes of which are inherited from generation to generation. Germplasm is a key strategic asset since it forms the basis of plant breeding programs. To the extent that we lose access to these germplasm collections because of the termination or breach of our collaboration agreements, our product development capabilities would be severely limited. In addition, loss of or damage to these germplasm collections would significantly impair our research and development activities. Although we restrict access to our germplasm at our research facilities to protect this valuable resource, we cannot guarantee that our efforts to protect our germplasm collection will be successful. The destruction or theft of a significant portion of our germplasm collection would adversely affect our business and results of operations.

The successful commercialization of our products depends on our ability to produce high-quality seeds cost-effectively on a large scale.

The production of commercial-scale quantities of seeds requires the multiplication of the seeds through a succession of plantings and seed harvests, and if the product is a hybrid, it must be produced from parental lines, which are mated under controlled conditions. The cost-effective production of high-quality high-volume quantities of some of our products depends on our ability to scale our production processes to produce seeds in sufficient quantity to meet demand. We cannot assure you that our existing or future seed production techniques will enable us to meet our large-scale production goals cost-effectively for the products in our pipeline. Even if we are successful in developing ways to increase seed yields and enhance seed quality, we may not be able to do so cost-effectively or on a timely basis, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve profitability. If we are unable to maintain or

enhance the quality of our seeds as we increase our production capacity, including through the expected use of third parties, we may experience reductions in customer demand, higher costs and increased inventory write-offs.

We depend, in part, on third parties to produce our seeds.

We produce commercial seed either on leased land managed by us or with contract seed producers. Our current production sites are located in the United States and Puerto Rico as well as Bolivia and Brazil. In order to meet increased demand for our seeds, we will need to enter into additional land leases or arrangements with contract seed producers. If we need to engage contract seed producers, we may not be able to identify suitable producers in a specific region and if we do, we do not know whether they will have available capacity when we need their production services, that they will be willing to dedicate a portion of their production capacity to our products or that we will be able to enter into an agreement with them on acceptable terms. If any contract seed producer that we engage fails to perform its obligations as expected or breaches or terminates their agreements with us, or if we are unable to secure the services of such third parties when and as needed, we may lose opportunities to generate revenue from product sales.

We are at the beginning stages of developing our Blade brand and we have limited experience in marketing and selling our products and will need to expand our sales and marketing infrastructure.

We are in the beginning phases of building brand awareness for our dedicated energy crops. To date, we have had limited experience selling our products. We currently have limited resources to market and sell our products on a commercial-scale across various geographic regions. As of November 7, 2012, our sales and marketing and business development departments together had six full-time employees. Developing our sales and marketing infrastructure and gaining the necessary expertise will require that we hire additional sales and marketing personnel, which could take longer than we expect and may require significant resources. We may be unable to grow our sales and marketing or business development infrastructure to adequately cover the geographic regions where we see the most opportunity, which could slow the adoption of our products and the growth of product revenue.

We face significant competition in all areas of our business, and if we do not compete effectively, our business will be harmed. We are relatively new to the forage sorghum seeds market and face existing competitors.

The renewable energy industry isseed, agricultural biotechnology and genomics industries are rapidly evolving and new competitors with competing technologies and products are regularly entering the market. We believe the primary competitive factors in the energy crop seed industry are yield, performance, scale, price, reliable supply and sustainability. We expect to face competitors on multiple fronts. First, we expect to compete with other providers of seed and vegetative propagation materials in the market for sweet sorghum, high biomass sorghum, switchgrassour crops as well as other developers of biotech traits, genetic technologies and miscanthus. Whilebioinformatics software.

In the seed industry, our principal competitors include major international agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporations, such as Advanta India Limited, The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Pioneer Hi Bred (DuPont), KWS Saat AG and Syngenta AG, all of which have substantially greater resources to dedicate to research and development, production, and marketing than we have and some of which are selling competitive landscapeproducts in these crops is limited at this time, weour markets. We also face direct competition from other seed companies, such as Chromatin, Inc., S&W Seed Company and Winfield Solutions LLC, a subsidiary of Land O’ Lakes, as well as biotechnology companies, and from academic and government research institutions. New competitors may emerge, including through consolidation within the seed industry. We are unable to predict what effect evolution of the industry may have on price, selling strategies, intellectual property or our competitive position.

We anticipate that as our seed products gain market acceptance, otherexisting competitors willmay increase their focus and new competitors may be attracted to this opportunity in forage sorghum and produce their own sorghum seed varieties. Second, we believe that new as yet unannounced crops will be introduced into the renewable energy market and that existing energy crops will attempt to gain even greater market share. Existing crops, such as corn, sugarcane and oil palm trees, currently dominate the biofuels market. As new products enter the market, our products may become obsolete or our competitors’ products may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than our products. Changes in technology and customer preferences may result in short product life cycles. To remain competitive, we will need to develop new products and enhance and improve our existing products in a timely manner. Our failure to maintain our competitive position could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our principal competitors may include major international agrochemical

In the genomics and agricultural biotechnology corporations, such as Advanta India Limited, The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Pioneer Hi Bred (DuPont), KWS Saat AG and Syngenta AG, all of which have substantially greater resources to dedicate to research and development, production, and marketing thanbioinformatics market, we have and some of which are selling or have announced plans to sell competitive products in our markets. We also face direct competition from other seed

companies and biotechnology companies, and from academic and governmentgovernment-funded research institutions. New competitorsinstitutions as well as commercial software developers. In addition, well established companies, such as Illumina, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Google Inc., may emerge, including through consolidation withinexpand the seed or renewable energy industry.scope of their current analytical software and services to include visualization and exploration functions and features similar to Persephone. We are unable to predict what effect evolution of the industrythese industries and potential new entrants may have on price, selling strategies, intellectual property or our competitive position.

In the broader market for renewable energy, we expect to face competition from other potential feedstocks, such as biomass residues from food crops, forestry trimmings and municipal waste materials, other renewable alternatives, such as algae, solar and wind-generated electricity, and other energy crops. There are multiple technologies that process biomass into biofuels and we have yet to determine compatibility of our feedstocks with all of these processes. Our failure to develop new or enhanced products that are compatible with these alternative technologies, or a lack of market acceptance of our products as the common denominator in a broad array of bio-based products that are alternatives to petroleum based products, could have an adverse effect on our business. Significant developments in alternative technologies, such as the inexpensive and large-scale storage of solar or wind-generated energy, may materially and adversely affect our business in ways that we do not currently anticipate.

19

A significant portion of our revenue to date is generated from our collaboration agreements and we must meet our obligations under these agreements in order to be entitled to the revenue streams from these agreements.

Historically, a significant portion of our revenue has been generated from payments to us under collaborative research agreements with third parties and we continue to opportunistically pursue new strategic collaborations. We are obligated under these agreements to perform research activities over a particular period of time. Certain of our agreements may entitle us to milestone payments in the event the specified milestone is met. If we fail to perform our obligations under these agreements or any new collaborative research agreements we may enter into in the future, our revenues may decrease, or our collaborative partners may terminate or fail to renew the agreements. In addition, any of our collaborators may fail to perform their obligations as expected, which may hinder our research and development efforts. We and our collaborators may disagree as to which party had rights to intellectual property developed under the agreements. Disagreements with our collaborators could develop and any conflict with a collaborator may negatively affect our relationship with one or more existing collaborators or our ability to enter into future collaboration agreements.

Our results of operations will be affected by the level of royalty payments that we are required to pay to third parties.

We are a party to license agreements with third party collaborators including Texas A&M and the Noble Foundation, that require us to remit royalty payments to these third parties if we incorporate their licensed intellectual property into our products. While we are currently working on developing numerous products that incorporate aspects of this intellectual property, we have to date only sold small amounts of such products. The amount of royalties that we could owe under these license agreements is a function of our sales and the applicable royalty rates depend on a number of factors, including the portion of our third-party collaborator’s intellectual property that is present in our products.

Because of our historical limited sales volume, of sales, we have had little experience in calculating royalties under these license agreements and it is unclear exactly how much of this licensed intellectual property will be included in any final products we offer for commercial sale. As a result we cannot precisely predict the amount, if any, of royalties we will owe in the future. If, once we commence sales of these products, we determine that the products include more intellectual property of our third party collaborators than we had previously determined, or if our calculations of royalty payments are incorrect, we may owe more royalties, which could negatively affect our results of operations. As our product sales increase, we may, from time-to-time, disagree with our third party collaborators as to the appropriate royalty rate and the resolution of such disputes may be costly and may consume management’s time. Furthermore, we may enter into additional license agreements in the future, which may also include royalty payments.

We are also a party to license agreements pursuant to which we have received licenses on certain intellectual property related to biotechnology products. When we commence sales of our biotechnology products in the future, or grant licenses to third parties to commercialize such products, we will be required to remit royalty payments to the parties from whom we have licensed intellectual property that covers such products.

A significant portion of our revenue to date is generated from government grants and continued availability of government grant funding is uncertain and contingent on compliance with the requirements of the grant.

Historically, a significant portion of our revenue has been generated from payments to us from government entities in the form of government grants whereby we are reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in connection with our research and development activities, subject to our compliance with the specific requirements of the applicable grant, including rigorous documentation requirements. To the extent that we do not comply with these requirements, our expenses incurred may not be reimbursed. Any of our existing grants or new grants that we may obtain in the future may be terminated or modified.

Our ability to obtain grants or incentives from government entities in the future is subject to the availability of funds under applicable government programs and approval of our applications to participate in such programs. The application process for these grants and other incentives is highly competitive. We may not be successful in obtaining any additional grants, loans or other incentives. The recent political focus on reducing spending at the U.S. federal and state levels may reduce the scope and amount of funds dedicated to renewable energy products, if such funds will continue to be available at all. To the extent that we are unsuccessful in being awarded any additional government grants in the future, we would lose a potential source of revenue.

Our government grants may subject us to government audits, which could expose us to penalties.

We may be subject to audits by United States government agencies as part of routine audits of our activities funded by our government grants. As part of an audit, these agencies may review our performance, cost structures and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards and the terms and conditions of the grant. If any of our costs are found to be allocated improperly, the costs may not be reimbursed and any costs already reimbursed for such contract may have to be refunded. Accordingly, an audit could result in a material adjustment to our results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, if an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions. In addition, we devote substantial resources to our systems used to track expenditures funded by our government grants.

The biofuel and biopower industries are highly dependent upon government subsidies and economic incentives, and any changes in such subsidies or incentives could materially and adversely affect the growth of the industry and our ability to sell dedicated energy crops.

The market for renewable energy in the United States is heavily influenced by government subsidies, economic incentives and tax credits and other regulatory initiatives that impact the production, distribution and adoption of renewable energy products. For example, the United States Renewable Fuel Standard program, or RFS, currently calls for 15 billion gallons of the liquid transportation fuels sold in 2012 to come from renewable biofuels, with estimated proposed volumes of renewable fuel for 2013 to rise to 17 billion gallons. The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increases the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. Of this amount, the RFS currently states that 16 billion gallons of renewable biofuels used annually by 2022 must be cellulosic biofuel, such as could be created by our switchgrass product. The RFS has been modified in the past and may be modified again in the future. In the United States, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture may waive certain renewable fuel standards to avert economic harm or in response to inadequate supply. The administrator of the EPA is also required to reduce the mandate for cellulosic biofuel use if projected supply for a given year falls below a minimum threshold for that year. For example, because the supply of cellulosic biofuel was projected to be very limited in 2011, the

EPA determined that the final volume standard for cellulosic biofuel for 2011 was six million gallons and the final volume for cellulosic biofuel for 2012 is nine million gallons, well below the 250 million gallon volume requirement target specified in the Energy Independence and Security Act. Any reduction in, or waiver of, mandated requirements for fuel alternatives may cause demand for renewable biofuels to grow more slowly or decline. Our business strategy in the United States is based, in part, on these standards remaining in place. Waivers of, or reduction in, the RFS or similar mandates, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to successfully grow demand for our cellulosic feedstock products in the United States.

In biopower, the reduction of, or failure to implement, certain government mandates, such as Renewable Electricity Standards in the U.S. or taxes on carbon emissions, as well as incentives, subsidies and tax credits to generate electric power from low-carbon sources, may adversely affect the viability of the field trials we conduct with our collaborators. These collaborators may terminate existing field trials or elect not to progress with planned field trials absent the implementation of such incentives.

In addition, the United States Congress has passed legislation that extends tax credits or other economic incentives for, among other things, the production of certain renewable fuel products. For example, the United States adopted the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit that provides federal tax incentives for renewable energy projects. We cannot provide assurances that these tax credits or other economic incentives will remain in place. For example, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which had provided risk mitigation and production incentives to encourage growers to produce dedicated energy crops, expired in September 2012. Any future reduction in or phasing out or elimination of existing tax credits, subsidies and other incentives in the United States and foreign markets for renewable biofuels, or any inability of us or our prospective customers to access such credits, subsidies and other incentives, may adversely affect demand for, and increase the overall cost of our renewable transportation fuels, which would adversely the prospects for our business.

We believe that government incentives and economic initiatives in Europe and other countries will also affect demand for our dedicated energy crops. For example, in the United Kingdom, which is a potential export market for U.S.-grown biomass, independent power providers are required to obtain a certain portion of their power from renewable resources. Any reduction or termination of government incentives or economic initiatives outside the United States could also have a material adverse effect on our business.

Compliance with applicable government regulations, particularly with respect to biotechnology products, is time-consuming and costly.

There are certain regulatory requirements affecting the field testing and commercialization of our biotechnology products in each of the markets in which we operate. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, must review and deregulate many of our biotechnology products prior to commercial sale. The Biotechnology Regulatory Services, or BRS, within the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, has direct oversight of the field testing and deregulation of our regulated biotechnology products. The deregulation process for these biotechnology products is a costly, multi-year process, with no guarantee of success. The length of the deregulation process varies based on a number of factors, including the extent of the supporting information required, the nature and extent of review by the USDA, including the type and scope of the environmental review conducted, and the number and types of public comments received. For example, after the initial filing of a petition for deregulation, the USDA may ask for additional data, including data on new areas of inquiry that might require us to conduct additional field tests or analyses, which may cause delays in the deregulation process. Deregulation of a product is not a guaranteed outcome. The USDA or other regulators may also impose costly monitoring requirements on the planting of our biotechnology products.

In Brazil, the commercialization of biotechnology products is regulated by the National Technical Commission of Biosafety,Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança, or CTNBio under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The approval process involves data collection and analysis, environmental impact assessments and public hearings on certain products. We anticipate introducing biotechnology products in Brazil in the future. At such time, we will be subject to the approval processes dictated by CTNBio.

We have not yet applied for deregulation for any of our biotech traits. Any delays in obtaining or failure to obtain deregulation or regulatory approval, as the case may be, for any of the biotechnology products in our pipeline could delay or prevent the commercialization of our products. Regulatory authorities can block the sale or import of our products or can impose conditions that delay production and sale of our products, or that make the sale of our products technically or commercially unfeasible.

Before the USDA will review and deregulate our biotechnology products subject to regulation, the USDA requires us to obtain permits to plant and test these products, and there are similar permitting requirements in Brazil. In determining whether to grant a field test permit and what conditions to impose, regulators consider any significant impacts that field tests may have on the environment and on endangered or threatened species. In the United States, the permitting process for the initial field tests typically ranges from two to four months, but this time period can be significantly longer for novel products or circumstances. While to date our permits for our field trial locations have been obtained with minimal delays, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter material delays in the future as we test new biotechnology products. If we are not able to obtain the necessary field test permits or if there are significant delays in the permitting process, the commercialization of our products may be delayed or prevented and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected. A prolonged delay in the regulatory process could adversely affect our ability to generate product revenues.

Ethical, legal, environmental and social concerns about biotechnology products could limit or prevent the use of our products and technologies, which could negatively affect our ability to generate revenue.

Some of our products in development contain biotech traits. The commercial success of our products that contain biotech traits may be adversely affected by claims that biotechnology plant products are unsafe for consumption or use, pose risks of damage to the environment and create legal, social and ethical dilemmas. For example, some countries, primarily in the European Union, have instituted a de facto moratorium on the planting of some genetically engineered seeds. The import of biomass grown from genetically engineered seeds may also be regulated by the European Union. While we are not currently selling seeds containing biotech traits into the European Union, we plan to do so in the future. In addition, Brazil’s biosafety law prohibits the use, sale, registration, patenting and licensing of genetic use restriction technologies, which are a class of genetic engineering technologies that allow companies to introduce seeds whose sterile offspring cannot reproduce, preventing farmers from re-planting seeds from their harvest. While our current sweet sorghum products are not subject to this restriction, we may in the future introduce biotech traits that may be subject to such regulation. If we are not able to overcome these concerns and comply with these regulations, our products may not achieve market acceptance. Any of the risks discussed below could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our development programs or the market acceptance and commercialization of our products that contain biotech traits. Our ability to develop and commercialize one or more of our technologies and products could be limited or prevented by the following factors:

Public attitudes about the safety and environmental hazards of, and ethical concerns over, genetic research and biotechnology products, which could influence public acceptance of our technologies and products;

Public attitudes regarding, and potential changes to laws governing, ownership of genetic material, which could weaken our intellectual property rights with respect to our genetic material and discourage collaborators from supporting, developing or commercializing our products and technologies;

Governmental reaction to negative publicity concerning genetically engineered plants, which could result in greater government regulation of genetic research and derivative products; and

Failure to maintain or secure consumer confidence in, or to maintain or receive governmental approvals for, our products.

We cannot predict whether or when any jurisdiction will change its regulations with respect to biotechnology products. Problems with any product could lead to increased scrutiny or regulation for our products. Limitations on the development of biotechnology products could be imposed that could delay, prevent

or make more costly the development of such products, which would negatively affect our ability to commercialize products using our traits.

Advocacy groups have engaged in publicity campaigns and filed lawsuits in various countries against companies and regulatory authorities, seeking to halt biotechnology approval activities or influence public opinion against genetically engineered products. On occasion, there has been vandalism and destruction of property of companies in the biotechnology industry.

Our non-biotechnology products, the products of third parties or the environment may be negatively affected by the unintended appearance of our transgenes.

The development and commercial success of our non-biotechnology products may be delayed or negatively affected because of adverse public perception or regulatory concerns about the safety of our products and the potential effects of these products on other plants, animals, human health and the environment. The potential for unintended but unavoidable trace amounts, sometimes called “adventitious presence,” of transgenes in conventional seed, or in the grain or products produced from conventional or organic crops, is another factor that could affect general public acceptance of these traits. For example, our current sweet sorghum, high biomass sorghum and switchgrass products have been produced exclusively through conventional breeding and have not been genetically engineered by us. It is possible, however, that trace amounts of our transgenes are nevertheless in our conventional products. In addition, trace amounts of transgenes may unintentionally be found outside our containment area in the products of third parties, which may result in negative publicity and claims of liability brought by such third parties against us. Furthermore, in the event of an unintended dissemination of our genetically engineered materials to the environment, we could be subject to claims by multiple parties, including environmental advocacy groups, as well as governmental actions such as mandated crop destruction, product recalls or additional stewardship practices and environmental cleanup or monitoring.

Ethical, legal and social concerns about land use could limit or prevent the widespread adoption of our products, which could negatively affect our ability to generate revenue.

The commercial success of our products also may be adversely affected by claims that the production of bioenergy displaces land that would otherwise be used for food and feed production, leading to shortages and higher prices for food and feed commodities. Droughts and crop failures that occur from time to time may exacerbate these claims. These claims are based, in part, on the assumption that there is a scarcity of available land for crop production, productivity is uniform across the globe and that productivity will remain flat over time. While these assumptions are not universally accepted, their acceptance by legislatures or advocacy groups could harm our ability to sell our products. The increased use of land for bioenergy production may also lead to claims that the increased planting of other crops in other regions may cause land clearing, such as in the Brazilian rainforest, and subsequent greenhouse gas releases — a theory known as indirect land use change. This theory proposes that such indirect effects, and their related greenhouse gas emissions should be applied to the emissions life cycle of bioenergy feedstocks, including dedicated energy crops. The perception that our products are resulting in higher greenhouse gas emissions could disadvantage our products related to other potential energy sources, or make it more difficult for our products to meet regulatory requirements for reduced emissions.

Development and commercialization, if any, of our products may incur scrutiny under the Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, or the Convention, is an international treaty that was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The treaty provides that if a company uses genetic resources, such as an indigenous plant, from a participating country to develop a product, then such company must obtain the prior informed consent of the participating country and owes fair and equitable compensation to such country. Although the United States is not a participating country, most countries where we currently obtain or may obtain germplasm in the future, have ratified the treaty and are currently participants in the Convention. We

may fall under scrutiny of the Convention with respect to the development or commercialization of any of our products derived from the germplasm originating from any of the countries that are participants in the Convention. There can be no assurances that the government of a participating country will not assert that it is entitled to fair and equitable compensation from us. Such compensation, if demanded, may make commercialization of our products not feasible.

Our business is affected by changes in general economic conditions and a prolonged downturn could affect the demand for our products and our ability to fund our working capital.

Economic conditions in the United States, Brazil and Europe could adversely affect our efforts to achieve profitability. The purchasing decisions of utilities, mill operators, growers, dairies, livestock producers, and other potential customers, and their ability to timely pay for our products, are impacted by their economic health. We may have to extendextended credit to our customers for our seed products or for certain planting and crop management services that we may providehave provided from time to time. For instance, duringtime and may continue to do so in the 2012-2013 sweet sorghum productions season, we may extend credit to participants in certain of our sales incentive and performance based promotional programs in Brazil.future. These credit practices may expose us to credit risk of utilities, mill operators and growers, dairies, livestock producers, and other potential customers, and combined with the seasonality of our sales, make us dependent on our ability to fund our working capital requirements through other means. If the current difficult economic conditions continue or worsen, the economic health of our customers and potential customers deteriorates as a result of general economic trends, our business could further deteriorate.be harmed.

Our activities are currently conducted at a limited number of locations, which makes us susceptible to damage or business disruptions caused by natural disasters.

Our headquarters and certain research and development operations are located at a single facility in Thousand Oaks, California. Our main breeding stations are located near College Station, Texas, and in Brazil near Centralina in the state of Minas Gerais,California, with additional breeding and agronomy trials situated in select locations across the world, including the Americas, Europe and Asia.world. Our primary seed production takes place primarilysites are located in the United StatesStates. We also multiply seeds in other countries in North and Puerto Rico, as well as Bolivia and Brazil.South America. Warehousing for forage sorghum seed storage is located primarily in Texas and the state of São Paulo, Brazil.Texas. We take precautions to safeguard our facilities, including insurance, health and safety protocols, and off-site storage of critical research results and computer data. However, a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, fire, flood, tornado or earthquake, could cause substantial delays in our operations, damage or destroy our equipment, inventory or development projects, and cause us to incur additional expenses. For example, on February 3, 2012, one of our plant breeding and field research stations located near College Station, Texas, was damaged by a tornado. Repairs, which will be covered by insurance, subject to our deductible, were largely completed by September 2012. However, the insurance we maintain against natural disasters may not be adequate to cover our losses in any future case.

20

We rely on the experience and expertise of our senior management team and other key personnel.

We depend on the experience and expertise of our senior management team and other key personnel, many of whom have been with our company for more than a decade. Our senior management team and key personnel bring extensive experience in a variety of agricultural and biotechnology businesses, including the seed industry, agricultural biotechnology and plant genetics.industry. The loss or unavailability of key members of our senior management team or other key personnel could impact the execution of our business strategy and make it more difficult to maintain and expand our important relationships in the bioenergy industry. The replacement of key members of our senior management team or other key personnel likely would involve significant time and costs.

If we are unable to recruit or retain qualified personnel, particularly in Brazil, our development and commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed.

Competition for qualified personnel is intense among agricultural biotechnology and other technology-based businesses, particularly for personnel with the appropriate level of education, experience and training. We may

not be able to recruit and retain such personnel at compensation levels consistent with our existing compensation structure. Appreciation of the Brazilian Real against the U.S. dollar would make it more difficult for us to meet compensation expectations of Brazilian personnel. In addition, in making employment decisions, job candidates often consider the value of equity they may receive in connection with their employment. Therefore, significant volatility in the price of our stock may adversely affect our ability to attract or retain personnel. Competition for qualified personnel in Brazil is particularly intense due to the importance of the agricultural industry in Brazil and the recent increased activity levels of U.S. agricultural or renewable energy companies in Brazil, including Amyris, Inc. and Monsanto Company.

If we lose qualified personnel or are unable to attract, retain and integrate additional highly trained and motivated personnel, particularly for our research and development activities, our ability to advance our product development and continue our commercialization efforts may be delayed or unsuccessful.

Unexpected fluctuations in our quarterly operating results may cause our stock price to fluctuate widely.

A large proportion of our costs are fixed, due

Due in part to our significant research and development and production costs and general and administrative expenses. Thus,expenses, even a small decline in revenue could disproportionately affect our quarterly operating results and could cause such results to differ materially from expectations. If this occurs, we may fail to meet analyst and investor expectations, which could cause our stock price to decline. Other factors that could affect our quarterly operating results or cause them to differ materially from expectations include:

 

demand for and acceptance of our products;

·demand for and acceptance of our products;
·weather conditions or the occurrence of natural disasters;
·changes in government regulations and incentives;
·competitive pressures; and
·unanticipated delays or problems in the introduction of new products.

 

weather conditions or the occurrence of natural disasters;

changes in government regulations and incentives;

competitive pressures resulting in lower selling prices; and

unanticipated delays or problems in the introduction of new products.

We may require additional financing in the future and may not be able to obtain such financing on favorable terms, if at all, which could force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development activities.

We will continue to need capital to fund our research and development projects and to provide working capital to fund other aspects of our business. If our capital resources are insufficient to meet our capital requirements, we will have to raise additional funds. If future financings involve the issuance of equity securities, our existing stockholders would suffer dilution. If we are able to raise additional debt financing, we may be subject to restrictive covenants that limit our operating flexibility. We may not be able to raise sufficient additional funds on terms that are favorable to us, if at all. If we fail to raise sufficient funds and continue to incur losses, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage of strategic opportunities, develop and commercialize products or technologies, or otherwise respond to competitive pressures could be significantly limited. If this happens, we may be forced to delay or terminate research and development programs or the commercialization of products, curtail operations or obtain funds through collaborative and licensing arrangements that may require us to relinquish commercial rights, or grant licenses to our technology on terms that are not favorable to us. If adequate funds are not available, we will not be able to successfully execute on our business strategy or continue our business.

We expect to derive a portion of our revenues from markets outside the United States, including Brazil, which will subject us to additional business risks.

Changes in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and other currencies will result in increases or decreases in our costs and earnings, and also may affect the book value of our assets outside the United States. To date, most of our contracts have been entered into in the United States and accordingly have been denominated in U.S. dollars. Going forward we anticipate that our sales will be denominated in the local currency of the country in which the sale occurs. In addition, most of our operating expenses to date have been denominated in the

currencies of the countries in which our operations are located, primarilywhich have historically been in the United States and Brazil. As a result, while our revenue and operating expenses are mostly hedged on a transactional basis, the translation of our operating results into U.S. dollars may be adversely impacted by strengthening U.S. currency.

In addition, international operations are subject to a number of other risks and uncertainties, including:

 

·changes in political, social or economic conditions;
·tariffs, trade protection measures and trade agreements;
·import or export licensing requirements;
·changes in regulatory requirements;
·reduced protection for intellectual property rights in some countries;
·economic downturns, civil disturbances or political instability;
·difficulties and costs of staffing and managing international operations;
·fluctuations in currency exchange rights;
·land reform movements;
·price controls;
·nationalization; and
·potentially burdensome taxation.

21

 

tariffs, trade protection measures and trade agreements;

import or export licensing requirements;

changes in regulatory requirements;

reduced protection for intellectual property rights in some countries;

economic downturns, civil disturbances or political instability;

difficulties and costs of staffing and managing international operations;

fluctuations in currency exchange rights;

land reform movements;

price controls;

nationalization; and

potentially burdensome taxation.

In the past, the Brazilian economy was characterized by frequent and occasionally extensive intervention by the Brazilian government and unstable economic cycles. The Brazilian government has changed in the past, and may change in the future, monetary, taxation, credit, tariff and other policies to influence the course of Brazil’s economy. For example, the government’s actions to control inflation have at times involved setting wage and price controls, adjusting interest rates, imposing taxes and exchange controls and limiting imports into Brazil. The Brazilian government has also in the past placed significant restrictions on the ability of foreign persons and companies to acquire property in Brazil. We have no control over, and cannot predict, what policies or actions the Brazilian government may take in the future. Any of these actions could adversely affect our international operations and, consequently, our results of operations.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carry forwardscarryforwards to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

As of August 31, 2012,2015, we had approximately $195.5$273.9 million of federal, $131.1$196.8 million of state and $5.3$25.8 million of foreign net operating loss carry-forwardscarryforwards, or collectively, NOLs, available to offset future taxable income, if any, which expire in varying amounts from 2018 through 20322035 for federal tax purposes and from 20142015 through 20322035 for state tax purposes if unused. The carry-forwardcarryforward period for the foreign net operating loss is indefinite. It is possible that we will not generate taxable income in time to use these loss carry-forwardsNOLs before their expiration. In addition, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (as defined below), a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating loss carry forwards, orfederal NOLs to offset future taxable income. We have not completed a Section 382 analysis to determine if an ownership change has occurred.occurred or if one will occur as the result of this offering of units. Until such analysis is completed, we cannot be sure that the full amount of the existing federal NOLs will be available to us, even if we do generate taxable income before their expiration.

We use hazardous materials in our business. Any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming and costly.

Our research and development processes involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including chemical and biological materials. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We cannot eliminate entirely the risk of accidental contamination or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. We may face liability for any injury or contamination that results from our use or the use by third parties of these materials, which depending on the severity of the injury or contamination could be significant. In addition, compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.

We may suffer liabilities relating to soil and/or groundwater contamination at current and former properties and at third-party sites to which we sent hazardous wastes for disposal.

We are exposed to environmental risks associated with the ownership and operation of real property and the disposal of hazardous wastes. Environmental laws can require current owners and operators of real property to remediate soil and groundwater contamination even if such contamination was caused by another party, such as a former owner or operator. These laws can also require companies to clean up real property that they formerly owned or operated if releases of hazardous materials or wastes occurred during the period of their ownership or operation. Moreover, in certain circumstances these laws require companies to clean up third-party sites to which hazardous wastes were sent for disposal, notwithstanding that the original disposal activity accorded with all regulatory requirements. The discovery of previously unknown contamination at our current or former facilities, or at third-party sites to which we sent hazardous wastes for disposal, could require us to conduct or fund expensive cleanup efforts, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results.

We may be sued for product liability and if such lawsuits were determined adversely, we could be subject to substantial damages.

We may be held liable if any product we develop, or any product that uses or incorporates, any of our technologies, causes injury or is found otherwise unsuitable during product testing, production, marketing or sale. For example, the detection of unintended biotechnology material in pre-commercial seed, commercial seed varieties or the crops and products produced may result in the inability to market the crops grown, resulting in potential liability for us as the seed producer or technology provider. In the event this was to occur, we could be subject to claims by multiple parties based not only on the cost of our products but also on their lost profits and business opportunities. In addition, the detection of unintended biotechnology material in our seeds or in the environment could result in governmental actions such as mandated crop destruction, product recalls or environmental cleanup or monitoring. Concerns about seed quality related to biotechnology could also lead to additional regulations being imposed on our business, such as regulations related to testing procedures, mandatory governmental reviews of biotechnology advances, or the integrity of the food supply chain from the farm to the finished product.

We currently have limited product liability insurance coverage and additional insurance may be prohibitively expensive, or may not fully cover potential liabilities. If we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or otherwise or if the amount of any claim against us exceeds the coverage under our policy, we may face significant expenses.

Interruptions or delays in service from our third-party data center hosting facilities could impair the delivery of any cloud-based Persephone services and harm our business.

In addition to custom installations on customer-owned hardware, we may serve future Persephone software customers, in part, from cloud-based third-party data center hosting facilities. Any damage to, or failure of, our systems generally could result in interruptions in our service. Interruptions in our service may reduce our revenue, cause us to issue credits or pay penalties, cause customers to terminate their service and adversely affect our renewal rates and our ability to attract new customers. Our business will also be harmed if our customers and potential customers believe our service is unreliable.

22

Our software products are complex, which makes it difficult to innovate and avoid costs related to correction of program errors.

Despite testing by us, our software programs, like all software programs generally, may contain a number of undetected errors or “bugs” when we first introduce them or as new versions are released. We do not discover some errors until we have installed the product and our customers have used it. Errors may result in the delay or loss of revenues, diversion of software engineering resources, material non-monetary concessions, negative media attention, or increased service or warranty costs as a result of performance or warranty claims that could lead to customer dissatisfaction, resulting in litigation, damage to our reputation, and impaired demand for our products. Correcting bugs may result in increased costs and reduced acceptance of our software products in the marketplace. Further, such errors could subject us to claims from our customers for significant damages, and we cannot assure you that courts would enforce the provisions in our customer agreements that limit our liability for damages.

Some of our products contain open source software which may pose particular risks to our proprietary software and products.

We use open source software in some of our products and expect to use open source software in the future. From time to time, we may face claims from third parties claiming ownership of, or demanding release of, the open source software or derivative works that we developed using such software, which could include our proprietary source code, or otherwise seeking to enforce the terms of the applicable open source license. These claims could result in litigation, could require us to make our software source code freely available, purchase a costly license or cease offering the implicated products or services unless and until we can re-engineer them to avoid infringement. This re-engineering process could require significant additional research and development resources, and we may not be able to complete it successfully. In addition to risks related to license requirements, use of certain open source software can lead to greater risks than use of third-party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide warranties or controls on the origin of software. Any of these risks could be difficult to eliminate or manage, and, if we do not address them effectively, could have a negative effect on our ability to develop and use our products that contain open source software. Additionally, compliance with open source licensing requirements is complex and challenging. Failure to comply with these requirements could have an adverse effect on our business and prospects.

The pricing for our products, including our sorghum products may be negatively affected by factors outside our control.

Our products are in the early stages of commercialization. We have based the pricing of our products on our assessment of the value that our products provide to the customer, rather than on the cost of production. In the future, we may include trait fees in our seed prices, but our potential customers may be unwilling to pay such fees. If our customers attribute a lower value to our products than we do, they may not be willing to pay the premium prices we expect to charge. Pricing levels may also be negatively affected if our products are unsuccessful in producing the yields we expect. In addition, if our competitors are able to develop competitive products and offer them at lower prices, we may be forced to lower our prices.

The customers we are targeting for forage sorghum products are generally large dairies and livestock producers with long operating histories. They will have significant leverage in negotiating commercial relationships with us. As a result, we do not know whether these pricing negotiations will result in adequate margins or accurately reflect our pricing strategies, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

A significant portion of our revenue to date is generated from government grants and continued availability of government grant funding is uncertain and contingent on compliance with the requirements of the grant.

Historically, a significant portion of our revenue has been generated from payments to us from government entities in the form of government grants whereby we are reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in connection with our research and development activities, subject to our compliance with the specific requirements of the applicable grant, including rigorous documentation requirements. To the extent that we do not comply with these requirements, our expenses incurred may not be reimbursed. Any of our existing grants or new grants that we may obtain in the future may be terminated or modified.

Our ability to obtain grants or incentives from government entities in the future is subject to the availability of funds under applicable government programs and approval of our applications to participate in such programs. The application process for these grants and other incentives is highly competitive. We may not be successful in obtaining any additional grants, loans or other incentives. Recent political focus on reducing spending at the U.S. federal and state levels may continue to reduce the scope and amount of funds dedicated to renewable energy products, if such funds will continue to be available at all. To the extent that we are unsuccessful in being awarded any additional government grants in the future, we would lose a potential source of revenue.

23

Our government grants may subject us to government audits, which could expose us to penalties.

We may be subject to audits by government agencies as part of routine audits of our activities funded by our government grants. As part of an audit, these agencies may review our performance, cost structures and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards and the terms and conditions of the grant. If any of our costs are found to be allocated improperly, the costs may not be reimbursed and any costs already reimbursed for such contract may have to be refunded. Accordingly, an audit could result in a material adjustment to our results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, if an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions.

Risks Related to Regulatory Requirements

Compliance with applicable government regulations, particularly with respect to biotechnology products, is time-consuming and costly.

There are certain regulatory requirements affecting the field testing and commercialization of our biotechnology products in each of the markets in which we operate. In the United States, the USDA must review and deregulate many of our biotechnology products prior to commercial sale. The Biotechnology Regulatory Services, or BRS, within the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, has direct oversight of the field testing and deregulation of our regulated biotechnology products. The deregulation process for these biotechnology products is a costly, multi-year process, with no guarantee of success. The length of the deregulation process varies based on a number of factors, including the extent of the supporting information required, the nature and extent of review by the USDA, including the type and scope of the environmental review conducted, and the number and types of public comments received. For example, after the initial filing of a petition for deregulation, the USDA may ask for additional data, including data on new areas of inquiry that might require us to conduct additional field tests or analyses, which may cause delays in the deregulation process. Deregulation of a product is not a guaranteed outcome. The USDA or other regulators may also impose costly monitoring requirements on the planting of our biotechnology products.

In Brazil, the commercialization of biotechnology products is regulated by the National Technical Commission of Biosafety,Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança, or CTNBio under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The approval process involves data collection and analysis, environmental impact assessments and public hearings on certain products. We anticipate introducing biotechnology products in sugarcane in Brazil in the future. At such time, we will be subject to the approval processes dictated by CTNBio.

Any delays in obtaining or failure to obtain deregulation or regulatory approval, as the case may be, for any of the biotechnology products in our pipeline could delay or prevent the commercialization of our products. Regulatory authorities can block the sale or import of our products or can impose conditions that delay production and sale of our products, or that make the sale of our products technically or commercially unfeasible.

Before the USDA will review and deregulate our biotechnology products subject to regulation, the USDA requires us to obtain permits to plant and test these products, and there are similar permitting requirements in other countries. In determining whether to grant a field test permit and what conditions to impose, regulators consider any significant impacts that field tests may have on the environment and on endangered or threatened species. In the United States, the permitting process for the initial field tests typically ranges from two to four months, but this time period can be significantly longer for novel products or circumstances. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter material delays in the future as we test new biotechnology products. Field evaluations of our traits in rice have been affected by regulatory delays in India as well. If we are not able to obtain the necessary field test permits or if there are significant delays in the permitting process, the commercialization of our products may be delayed or prevented and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected. A prolonged delay in the regulatory process could adversely affect our ability to generate product revenues.

24

The timely introduction of our traits in the United States for our sorghum and other crops relies on non-regulated status under certain USDA regulations. We may lose such non-regulated status in the U.S. or we may face other regulations that could limit or block the introduction of our traits developed through biotechnology or other similar technologies in the U.S. or other markets.

In 2014, we received confirmation from the USDA that our high biomass trait in sorghum was not considered a regulated article under 7 CFR §340 of the USDA’s mandate to regulate genetically engineered traits. This determination is likely to make it more cost-effective and timely for us to develop this trait in sorghum. We have since requested confirmation of non-regulated status for additional crops for certain of our biotech traits; however, these regulations and their interpretations are evolving and there is no guarantee that we will obtain non-regulated status in the U.S. for all products for which we apply or that we will retain it for existing products, or that our third-party collaborators in certain other crops will utilize this option. In addition, the USDA could still regulate products under other regulatory sections, such as 7 CFR §360, which relates to weed control, if they determine there is a scientific basis to do so. Outside the U.S., our non-regulated traits will in many cases be regulated by other countries and require a multi-year deregulation process, which may limit or delay expansion our expansion to other markets. Other countries could also limit the use or importation of products directly or indirectly derived from our seeds grown in the U.S., for example, milk from cows that were fed non-regulated sorghum with our traits.

The degree of public understanding and acceptance or perceived public acceptance of our biotechnology products can affect our sales and results of operations by affecting approvals, regulatory requirements and customer purchase decisions.

Although all of our products go through rigorous testing, some opponents of our technology actively raise public concern about the potential for adverse effects of biotechnology products on human or animal health, other plants and the environment. Public concern can affect the timing of, and whether we are able to obtain, government approvals. Even after approvals are granted, or non-regulated status has been achieved, public concern may lead to increased regulation or legislation or litigation against government regulators concerning prior regulatory approvals, which could affect our sales and results of operations, and may adversely affect sales of our products to growers for dairies and livestock producers, due to their concerns about available markets for the sale of crops derived from biotechnology. In addition, opponents of agricultural biotechnology have attacked farmers’ fields and facilities used by agricultural biotechnology companies, and may launch future attacks against farmers’ fields and our field testing sites and research, production, or other facilities, which could affect our sales and our costs.

Ethical, legal, environmental and social concerns about biotechnology products could limit or prevent the use of our products and technologies, which could negatively affect our ability to generate revenue.

Some of our products in development contain biotech traits. The commercial success of our products that contain biotech traits may be adversely affected by claims that biotechnology plant products are unsafe for consumption or use, pose risks of damage to the environment and create legal, social and ethical dilemmas. For example, some countries, primarily in the European Union, have instituted a de facto moratorium on the planting of some genetically engineered seeds. The import of products derived from genetically engineered seeds may also be regulated by the European Union. While our current sorghum products are not subject to this restriction, we may in the future introduce biotech traits that may be subject to such regulation. If we are not able to overcome these concerns and comply with these regulations, our products that contain these traits may not achieve market acceptance and third parties may be unwilling to commercialize our biotech traits. Any of the risks discussed below could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our development programs or the market acceptance and commercialization of our products that contain biotech traits. Our ability to develop and commercialize one or more of our technologies and products could be limited or prevented by the following factors:

·Public attitudes about the safety and environmental hazards of, and ethical concerns over, genetic research and biotechnology products, which could influence public acceptance of our technologies and products;
·Public attitudes regarding, and potential changes to laws governing, ownership of genetic material, which could weaken our intellectual property rights with respect to our genetic material and discourage collaborators from supporting, developing or commercializing our products and technologies;
·Governmental reaction to negative publicity concerning genetically engineered plants, which could result in greater government regulation of genetic research and derivative products; and
·Failure to maintain or secure consumer confidence in, or to maintain or receive governmental approvals for, our products.

We cannot predict whether or when any jurisdiction will change its regulations with respect to biotechnology products. Problems with any product could lead to increased scrutiny or regulation for our products. Limitations on the development of biotechnology products could be imposed that could delay, prevent or make more costly the development of such products, which would negatively affect our ability to commercialize products using our traits.

25

Advocacy groups have engaged in publicity campaigns and filed lawsuits in various countries against companies and regulatory authorities, seeking to halt biotechnology approval activities or influence public opinion against genetically engineered products. On occasion, there has been vandalism and destruction of property of companies in the biotechnology industry.

Our non-biotechnology products, the products of third parties or the environment may be negatively affected by the unintended appearance of our transgenes.

The development and commercial success of our non-biotechnology products may be delayed or negatively affected because of adverse public perception or regulatory concerns about the safety of our products and the potential effects of these products on other plants, animals, human health and the environment. The potential for unintended but unavoidable trace amounts, sometimes called “adventitious presence,” of transgenes in conventional seed, or in the grain or products produced from conventional or organic crops, is another factor that could affect general public acceptance of these traits. For example, our current sorghum and switchgrass products have been produced exclusively through conventional breeding and have not been genetically engineered by us. It is possible, however, that trace amounts of our transgenes are nevertheless in our conventional products. In addition, trace amounts of transgenes may unintentionally be found outside our containment area in the products of third parties, which may result in negative publicity and claims of liability brought by such third parties against us. Furthermore, in the event of an unintended dissemination of our genetically engineered materials to the environment, we could be subject to claims by multiple parties, including environmental advocacy groups, as well as governmental actions such as mandated crop destruction, product recalls or additional stewardship practices and environmental cleanup or monitoring.

Development and commercialization, if any, of our products may incur scrutiny under the Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, or the Convention, is an international treaty that was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The treaty provides that if a company uses genetic resources, such as an indigenous plant, from a participating country to develop a product, then such company must obtain the prior informed consent of the participating country and owes fair and equitable compensation to such country. Although the United States is not a participating country, most countries where we currently obtain or may obtain germplasm in the future, have ratified the treaty and are currently participants in the Convention. We may fall under scrutiny of the Convention with respect to the development or commercialization of any of our products derived from the germplasm originating from any of the countries that are participants in the Convention. There can be no assurances that the government of a participating country will not assert that it is entitled to fair and equitable compensation from us. Such compensation, if demanded, may make commercialization of our products not feasible.

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

Our inability to adequately protect our proprietary technologies and products could harm our competitive position.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain patents and maintain adequate protection of our other intellectual property for our technologies and products in the United States and other countries. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting their proprietary rights in these foreign countries. These problems can be caused by, for example, a lack of rules and methods for defending intellectual property rights. Many countries, including Brazil, do not allow patenting of plants, whether genetically engineered or traditionally bred. Accordingly, our proprietary position for our products in countries such as Brazil relies to a large extent on Plant Variety Protection certificates. This type of protection is more limited than patents in the United States. As a result, Plant Variety Protection certificates may provide only a limited competitive advantage in the marketplace. In many countries, including Brazil, patentability criteria are generally more restrictive and our filings more limited than in the United States, weakening our prospects of obtaining an equal scope of corresponding patent protection. Because Brazil is one of our initial target market,markets for our sugarcane traits, the lack of more robust patent protection for plant varieties in that country could expose us to the risk of misappropriation of our intellectual property. In addition, the legal systems of certain other countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. Proceedings to enforce our patents and other proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop. Even if we enforce our rights aggressively, injunctions, fines and other penalties may be insufficient to deter violations of our intellectual property rights. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property.

The America Invents Act, which was signed into law on September 16, 2011, brings a number of changes to the U.S. patent system and affects the way patents are prosecuted, challenged and litigated. Among the changes that went into effect September 16, 2012, one of the most significant involves the implementation of a reformed post-grant review system. Other changes, which will go into effect March 16, 2013, include the transition from a “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” system which harmonizes the U.S. with most of the world. Together, these changes may increase the costs of prosecution and enforcement of U.S. patents. Lack of precedential interpretation of the new provisions in specific cases by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the courts increases the uncertainty surrounding the effect of these changes. While it is currently unclear what impact these changes will have on the operation of our business, they may favor companies able to dedicate more resources to patent filings and challenges.

26

The patent positions of biotechnology companies, including our patent position, are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. WeIn many cases, we will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary technologies are covered by valid and enforceable patents.patents or Plant Variety Protection certificates. We will apply for patents covering both our technologies and products as we deem appropriate. However, we cannot assure you that any pending or future patent applications held by us will result in an issued patent, or that if patents are issued to us, such patents will provide meaningful protection against competitors or against competitive technologies. Our existing patents and Plant Variety Protection certificates and any future patents or Plant Variety Protection certificates we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from developing competing products. Furthermore, others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or design around our patented technologies. In addition, our patents may be challenged, invalidated or fail to provide us with any competitive advantages.

The value of our intellectual property could diminish due to technological developments or challenges by competitors, making our products less competitive.

Our intellectual property rights are important to the operation of our business and to our early mover advantage in crop biotechnology. We rely on a combination of patents, plant variety protection, plant breeders’ rights, copyrights, trademarks, trade secret laws, confidentiality provisions, and licensing arrangements to establish and protect our intellectual property. However, the importance of technology development and intellectual property protection in the agricultural industry increases the risk that technological advances by others could render our products less competitive. Our business could be negatively affected by any of the following:

 

our issued patents, Plant Variety Protection certificates, plant breeders’ rights and trademark registrations may be successfully challenged by our competitors;

·our issued patents, Plant Variety Protection certificates, plant breeders’ rights and trademark registrations may be successfully challenged by our competitors;
·our pending patent, Plant Variety Protection certificates, plant breeders’ rights and trademark registration applications may not be allowed or may be challenged successfully by our competitors;
·our products may inadvertently use the technology of others and, therefore, require us to obtain intellectual property licenses from other parties in order for us to sell our products;
·we may be unable to obtain intellectual property licenses that are necessary or useful to our business on favorable terms, or at all;
·new technology that is independently developed by others may supersede our technology and make our products less desirable or more costly in the marketplace;
·competitors may design around our patented technologies or may reverse engineer our trade secret technologies;
·the scope of our Plant Variety Protection certificates in many countries is narrow and subject to a breeder’s exemption, which allows breeders to use our varieties in a breeding program; as a result, these certificates may not provide a sustained competitive advantage in the marketplace; and
·we do not have any issued patents in Brazil and we may be unable to obtain meaningful patent protection in Brazil, further, the scope of any patents that might issue in where we intend to do business is uncertain and may not be sufficient to deter competition due to restrictions on plant claims under Brazilian patent laws and our limited filings in Brazil.

 

our pending patent, Plant Variety Protection certificates, plant breeders’ rights and trademark registration applications may not be allowed or may be challenged successfully by our competitors;

our products may inadvertently use the technology of others and, therefore, require us to obtain intellectual property licenses from other parties in order for us to sell our products;

we may be unable to obtain intellectual property licenses that are necessary or useful to our business on favorable terms, or at all;

new technology that is independently developed by others may supersede our technology and make our products less desirable or more costly in the marketplace;

competitors may design around our patented technologies or may reverse engineer our trade secret technologies;

the scope of our plant variety protection certificates in Brazil is narrow and subject to a breeder’s exemption, which allows breeders to use our varieties in a breeding program; as a result, these certificates may not provide a sustained competitive advantage in the marketplace; and

the eventual scope of our patents in Brazil is uncertain due to restrictions on plant claims under Brazilian patent laws and our limited filings in Brazil, and may not be sufficient to deter competition.

While we have exclusive rights to certain proprietary lines of switchgrass, miscanthus, high biomass sorghum and sweet sorghum throughcertain other crops our collaborations with leading institutions, other parties may have access to certain lines of switchgrass, miscanthus, high biomass sorghum or sweet sorghum developed or released by such institutions, proprietary lines of such crops from other sources, and publicly available lines of such crops, from which they may develop products that compete with our products.

Litigation or other proceedings or third party claims of infringement could require us to spend time and money and could severely disrupt our business.

Our commercial success depends on not infringing patents or proprietary rights of third parties, nor breaching any licenses or other agreements that we have entered into with regard to our technologies, products and business. The patent positions of biotechnology and seed companies involve complex legal and factual questions and, therefore, enforceability cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. We cannot be sure that relevant patents have not been issued that could block our ability to obtain patents or to operate as we would like without infringing patents or proprietary rights of other parties.

27

The biotechnology and seed industries have a history of litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Many biotechnology companies have employed intellectual property litigation as a way to gain a competitive advantage. We cannot assure you that we will not be sued by third parties for infringement of patents they may have relating to biotechnological traits or technologies in various crops.

Should any of our competitors have filed patent applications prior to March 16, 2013 or obtain patents based on patent applications filed before March 16, 2013 that claim inventions also claimed by us, we may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention and, thus, the right to a patent for these inventions in the United States. Such a proceeding could result in substantial cost to us even if the outcome is favorable. Even if successful on priority grounds, an interference proceeding may result in loss of claims based on patentability grounds raised in the proceeding. If we become involved in litigation or interference or post-grant review proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to defend our intellectual property rights or as a result of alleged infringement of the rights of others, or oppositions or other intellectual property proceedings outside of the United States, we might have to spend significant amounts of money to resolve such matters. We are aware of a significant number of pending patent applications relating to biotechnological traits or technologies in various crops filed by third parties.

Even if we prevail, litigation, interference or post-grant review proceedings or opposition proceedings could result in significant legal fees and other expenses, could divert our management time and efforts and could severely disrupt our business. Uncertainties resulting from initiation and continuation of any patent or related litigation could harm our ability to compete.

An adverse ruling arising out of any intellectual property dispute could undercut or minimize our intellectual property position. An adverse ruling that our operations violate a third party’s intellectual property rights could also subject us to significant liability for damages, prevent us from using processes or products, or require us to license disputed rights from third parties. Claims of intellectual property infringement against us may require us to enter into costly royalty or license agreements, subject us to substantial damage claims or cause us to stop using such technology absent a license agreement. Although patent and intellectual property disputes in the biotechnology area are often settled through licensing or similar arrangements, costs associated with these arrangements may be substantial and could include ongoing royalties. Furthermore, necessary licenses may not be available to us on satisfactory terms, if at all.

Third parties may infringe on our intellectual property rights, and we may expend significant resources enforcing our rights or be competitively disadvantaged.

If we fail to protect our intellectual property rights from infringement by third parties, our competitive position could suffer, which could make it more difficult to grow our business. We may not be able to detect or prevent infringement of our intellectual property or may lose our competitive position in the market before we do so.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we also rely in part on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information. For example, we consider our genetic transformation methods, markers for marker-assisted breeding and sequence databases as trade secrets.

We have taken security measures to protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. These measures may not provide adequate protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information. We also seek to protect our proprietary information by entering into confidentiality agreements with employees, with potential and actual collaborators and licensees and with consultants and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information or techniques and trade secret laws do not allow us to protect against such independent development. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

28

We have received funding from U.S. government agencies whichthat is subject to federal regulation under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act could negatively affect our intellectual property rights.and have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Some of our research and development activities have been funded by grants from U.S. government agencies. For example, a portion of our research and development used to develop our nitrogen use efficiency trait was funded by a U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E grant. When new technologies are developed with U.S. government funding, the government obtains certain rights under the Bayh-Dole Act in any resulting patents and technical data, generally including, at a minimum, a non-exclusive,nonexclusive, nontransferable license authorizing the government to usepractice or have practiced the invention or technical data for non-commercial purposes. U.S. government funding must be disclosed in any resulting patent applications, and our rights in such inventions will normally be subject to government license rights, periodic progress reporting, foreign manufacturing restrictions and march-in rights.

March-in rights refer to the right of the U.S. government, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant a license, which may possibly be an exclusive license, to technology developed under a government grant to a responsible applicant, or, if we refuse, to grant such a license itself. March-in rights can be triggered if the government determines that we have failed to comply with the applicable rules and regulations related to U.S. government funded innovation, or if we have failed, within a reasonable time, to take effective steps to achieve practical application of a technology or, if action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements for public use specified by federal regulations or to give preference to U.S. industry. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits and the U.S. government may acquire title in any country in which a patent application is not filed within specified time limits. Additionally, under the Bayh-Dole Act, a party which acquires an exclusive license for an invention that was partially funded by a federal research grant is subject to the following government rights: (x) products using the invention which are sold in the United States are to be manufactured substantially in the United States, unless a waiver is obtained; (y) the government may force the granting of a license to a third party who will make and sell the needed product if the licensee does not pursue reasonable commercialization of a needed product using the invention; and (z) the United States government may use the invention for its own needs. Compliance with the requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act is complex and challenging. If we fail to comply with these guidelines or any other requirements under the Bayh-Dole Act, we may lose our exclusive rights to these products, and we may lose potential revenue derived from the sale of these products. We may also enter into collaborations with entities outside the United States that receive government funding or, in the future, we may apply for government funding from other countries. Regulations in these countries may provide for similar march-in rights. Any government’s rights in our intellectual property may lessen its commercial value, which could adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to the Ownership of our Common StockSecurities

The

Market fluctuations due to risks our business faces, as well as general economic, political and market conditions, may negatively impact the market price of our common stock may be volatile which may cause the value of our common stock to decline.Common Stock.

Our stock price has been in the past, and may continue to be subject to wide fluctuations in response to the risk factors listedrisks our business faces including those contained in this reportAnnual Report on Form 10-K and others beyond our control, including:

 

·actual or projected fluctuations in our financial condition and operating results;
·our cash and cash equivalents position;
·actual or projected changes in our growth rate relative to our competitors;
·actual or projected fluctuations in our competitors’ financial condition or operating results;
·actual cost savings realized from our restructuring plan and cost reduction initiatives;
·announcements of technological innovations by us, our collaborators or our competitors;
·announcements by us, our collaborators or competitors of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments;
·the entry into, modification or termination of collaborative arrangements;
·changes in our customer base;
·additions or departures of key management or other key personnel;
·competition from existing products or new products that may emerge;
·issuances of new or updated research reports by securities or industry analysts;
·fluctuations in the share prices of companies perceived by investors to be comparable to us;
·fluctuations in the size of our public float or trading volume;

29

 

our cash and cash equivalents position;

·disputes or other developments related to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters, the countries in which we source our germplasm, and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;
·disputes or other developments relating to genetically engineered products, including claims of adventitious presence or environmental harm;
·changes in existing laws, regulations and policies applicable to our business and products;
·announcements or the expectation of raising additional financing;
·sales of our Common Stock by us, our insiders or other stockholders;
·the status of our listing on the NASDAQ;
·general market conditions in our industry; and
·general economic conditions, affecting the U.S. and other markets in which we operate.

 

actual or projected changes in our growth rate relative to our competitors;

actual or projected fluctuations in our competitors’ financial condition or operating results;

announcements of technological innovations by us, our collaborators or our competitors;

announcements by us, our collaborators or competitors of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments;

the entry into, modification or termination of collaborative arrangements;

changes in our customer base;

additions or departures of key management or other key personnel;

competition from existing products or new products that may emerge;

issuances of new or updated research reports by securities or industry analysts;

fluctuations in the share prices of companies perceived by investors to be comparable to us;

fluctuations in the size of our public float or trading volume;

disputes or other developments related to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters, the countries in which we source our germplasm, and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;

disputes or other developments relating to genetically engineered products, including claims of adventitious presence or environmental harm;

changes in existing laws, regulations and policies applicable to our business and products, including the United States Renewable Fuel Standard program, and the adoption or failure to adopt additional carbon emissions regulations;

announcements or the expectation of raising additional financing;

sales of our common stock by us, our insiders or other stockholders;

general market conditions in our industry; and

general economic conditions, including the impact of the recent financial crisis.

The stock markets in general, and the small-cap biotech market, for renewable energy stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility that have affected and continue to affect the trading prices of equity securities of many companies. These market fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in the operating performance of those companies. These fluctuations, as well as general economic, political and market conditions such as recessions, interest rate changes, international currency fluctuations or regulatory changes may negatively impact the market price of our common stock.Common Stock. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns.

Our Common Stock is thinly traded and there may not be an active, liquid trading market for our Common Stock.

There is no guarantee that an active trading market for our Common Stock will be maintained on NASDAQ, or that the volume of trading will be sufficient to allow for timely trades. Investors may not be able to sell their shares quickly or at the latest market price if trading in our stock is not active or if trading volume is limited. In addition, if trading volume in our Common Stock is limited, trades of relatively small numbers of shares may have a disproportionate effect on the market price of our Common Stock.

If there are substantial sales of our common stock,Common Stock, or the perception that these sales could occur in the future, the trading price of our common stockCommon Stock could decline.

The trading price of our common stockCommon Stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our common stockCommon Stock in the public market. The perception that these sales could occur may also depress the trading price of our common stock.Common Stock. As of November 7, 2012,10, 2015, we had 24,803,9868,830,700 shares of common stockCommon Stock outstanding. Certain stockholders owning a majority of our outstanding sharesstockholders are entitled, under contracts providing for registration rights, to require us to register shares of our common stockCommon Stock owned by them for public sale in the United States. We have filed a registration statement on Form S-1 registering for sale common stock, convertible preferred stock and warrants. In connection with our offerings of Common Stock and warrants on July 30, 2015 and August 26, 2015, we filed a registration statement on Form S-3, on September 22, 2015, to register for resale the shares of our Common Stock issuable upon exercise of such warrants. In addition, certain stockholders, including stockholders owning a majority of our outstanding shares as well as current and former employees, are eligible to resell shares of common stockCommon Stock in the public market under Rule 144, which, in the case of our affiliates, would be subject to volume limitations and certain other restrictions under Rule 144. We have also registered 3,881,155672,644 shares of common stockCommon Stock previously issued or reserved for future issuance under our equity compensation plans and agreements. Subject to the satisfaction of applicable exercise periods and vesting requirements, the shares of common stockCommon Stock issued upon exercise of outstanding options will be available for immediate resale in the United States in the open market.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or our industry, or publish negative reports about our business or our industry, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us, our business, our industry and our competitors. If one or more of the analysts who cover us change their recommendation regarding our stock adversely, change their opinion of the prospects for our company in a negative manner, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

30

We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stockCommon Stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act and, for as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable

to other public companies but not to emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements related to our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We will remain an “emerging growth company” for up to five years from the date of the completion of our IPO, or until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which our total annual gross revenues exceed $1 billion, (2) the date that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our common equity that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day our most recently completed second fiscal quarter or (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three year period. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stockCommon Stock less attractive if we continue to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stockCommon Stock less attractive as a result of any choices that we make to reduce our disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common stockCommon Stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company” can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. Under this provision, an “emerging growth company” can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to delay such adoption of new or revised accounting standards, and as a result, we may not comply with new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for public companies that are not emerging growth companies. As a result of such election, our financial statements may not be comparable to the financial statements of other public companies. If some investors find our common stockCommon Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stockCommon Stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

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

We are currently a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act. Similar to emerging growth companies, smaller reporting companies are able to provide simplified executive compensation disclosures in their filings, are exempt from the provisions of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requiring that an independent registered public accounting firm provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and have certain other decreased disclosure obligations in their SEC filings. We cannot predict whether investors will find our Common Stock less attractive because of our reliance on any of these exemptions. If some investors find our Common Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our Common Stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to comply with the laws and regulations affecting public companies. Failure to implement and maintain the appropriate internal controls over financial reporting could negatively affect our ability to provide accurate and timely financial information.

We recently became a public company.company in February 2012. Although we are an emerging growth company as defined under the JOBS Act, as a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, including costs associated with public company reporting and corporate governance requirements, in order to comply with the rules and regulations imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and the NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market. OurIn addition, management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to comply with these compliance initiatives and our legal and accounting compliance costs will increase.requirements.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, we must perform system and process evaluations and testing of ourreporting. Effective internal controls overare necessary for us to provide reliable financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, as required byreports and detect fraud. In addition, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our testing may reveal deficiencies inAct of 2002 requires us to evaluate and report on our internal controlscontrol over financial reporting, that are deemedand have our chief executive officer and chief financial officer certify as to be material weaknesses. A material weakness is defined as a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal controls over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by the company’s internal controls. We cannot assure that we, or our independent registered public accounting firm, will not identify material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in the future. Our compliance with Section 404 will require that we incur substantial accounting expense and management time on compliance-related issues. Moreover, if we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, or if we identify deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could causereports. The process of implementing internal controls and complying with Section 404 is expensive and time consuming, and requires significant attention from management. We cannot be certain that these measures will ensure that we implement and maintain adequate controls over our stock price to decline.

financial processes and reporting in the future.

For so long as we remain an emerging growth company as defined in the JOBS Act, we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Once we are no longer an emerging growth company or, if prior to such date, we opt to no longer take advantage of the applicable exemption, we will be required to include an opinion from our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. To date, our independent registered public accounting firm has not expressed an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal controls. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could cause our stock price to decline.

31

We have never conducted a reviewidentified three material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of August 31, 2015. If our remedial measures are insufficient to address these material weaknesses, or if additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting are discovered or occur in the future, our ability to provide accurate and timely financial information could be negatively affected, which could reduce the reliability of our financial reporting, harm investor confidence in our Company and affect the market price of our Common Stock.

We perform system and process evaluations and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls for the purpose of providing the reportsover financial reporting, as required by these rules. DuringSection 404 of the courseSarbanes-Oxley Act. Our testing, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses. In connection with the preparation of our audited financial statements for fiscal year 2015, we identified material weaknesses in our control environment, our control activities related to expenses in Brazil, and our control activities related to our revenue recognition, in addition to a significant deficiency in our control activities related to the precision of management’s review of our year end financial statements. A material weakness is defined as a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by the company’s internal controls. A significant deficiency is defined as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those responsible for oversight of the company’s financial reporting. Because of these material weaknesses and testing, we may identify deficiencies and be unablethe significant deficiency management concluded that the Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of August 31, 2015.

We are in the process of taking the necessary steps to remediate them beforethe material weaknesses and the significant deficiency that we must provideidentified and have made enhancements to our control procedures; however, the required reports.material weaknesses and the significant deficiency, will not be remediated until the necessary controls have been implemented and are operating effectively. We cannot assure that there will not be additional material weaknesses and significant deficiencies that we or our independent registered public accounting firm maywill identify. Moreover, if we do not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we havemaintain effective internal controlscontrol over financial reporting or if we or our independent registered public accounting firm identify additional deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could harm our operating results, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information and cause the trading price of our stock price to fall.decline.

Anti-takeover provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and under Delaware law could delay or prevent an acquisition of our company, even if the acquisition may be beneficial to our stockholders.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may delay or prevent an acquisition of our company deemed undesirable by our board of directors. Among other things, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws (i) provide for a board of directors that is divided into three classes, with staggered three-year terms, (ii) provide that all stockholder action must be effected at a duly called meeting of the stockholders and not by a consent in writing, (iii) provide that only a majority of our board of directors, the chairman of the board of directors, our chief executive officer or president (in the absence of a chief executive officer) may call a special meeting of the stockholders, (iv) provide for the ability of our board of directors to issue undesignated preferred stock, (v) require that any amendmentcertain amendments to the amended and restated certificate of incorporation be approved by a 66 2/3% stockholder vote, and (vi) establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board of directors and for proposing matters that can be acted upon at stockholders meetings. These provisions may also frustrate or prevent any attempt by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors who are responsible for appointing the members of our management team. As a Delaware corporation, we are subject to the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits, with some exceptions, stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding stock from merging or combining with us without board of directors or stockholder approval. Although we believe these provisions together provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors, they would apply even if an offer to acquire our company may be considered beneficial by some stockholders and could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares.

Concentration of ownership among our existing officers, directors and principal stockholders may prevent other stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions.

32

Based on the number of shares outstanding as of November 7, 2012, our officers, directors and existing stockholders who hold at least 5% of our stock together beneficially own approximately 64.6% of our outstanding common stock. If these officers, directors and principal stockholders or a group of our principal stockholders act together, they will be able to exert a significant degree of influence over our management and affairs and exercise a significant level of control over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of mergers or other business combination transactions. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company or changes in management and will make the approval of certain transactions difficult or impossible without the support of these stockholders.

We do not expect to declare any dividends in the foreseeable future.

We do not anticipate declaring any cash dividends to holders of our common stockCommon Stock in the foreseeable future. Consequently, investors may need to rely on sales of their common stockCommon Stock after price appreciation, which may

never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investment. Investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.Common Stock.

If we fail to adhere to the listing criteria of the NASDAQ Capital Market, our Common Stock may be delisted, which may adversely affect the liquidity and market price of our Common Stock, our ability to raise additional financing and may subject us to certain penny stock restrictions, which may further adversely affect the liquidity and market price of our Common Stock.

Our Common Stock is currently listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market, which requires that we adhere to specified listing criteria. In April 2014, we were informed by the NASDAQ that we had failed to comply with NASDAQ Listing Rule 5450(a)(1), which required that we maintain a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share. After transferring our Common Stock to the NASDAQ Capital Market, we achieved compliance with the corresponding rule through a reverse stock split in April 2015. In the future, if we were to fail to adhere to the Market’s listing criteria, including maintaining a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share, our Common Stock may be delisted. If our Common Stock were to be delisted, the liquidity of our Common Stock would be adversely affected and the market price of our Common Stock could decrease, as would our ability to raise additional financing through public or private sales of equity securities. In addition, if delisted we would no longer be subject to NASDAQ rules, including rules requiring us to have a certain number of independent directors and to meet other corporate governance standards. Our failure to be listed on NASDAQ or another established securities market would have a material adverse effect on the value of your investment in us. Delisting could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by employees, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities.

If our Common Stock is delisted by NASDAQ or another national exchange, our Common Stock may be eligible for quotation on an over-the-counter quotation system or on the pink sheets. Upon any such delisting, our Common Stock would likely become subject to the regulations of the SEC relating to the market for penny stocks. A penny stock is any equity security not traded on a national securities exchange that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions. The regulations applicable to penny stocks may severely affect the market liquidity for our Common Stock and could limit the ability of shareholders to sell securities in the secondary market. In such a case, an investor may find it more difficult to dispose of or obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our Common Stock, and there can be no assurance that our Common Stock will be eligible for trading or quotation on any alternative exchanges or markets. Under these rules, broker-dealers who recommend such securities to persons other than institutional accredited investors must:

 

·make a special written suitability determination for the purchaser;
·receive the purchaser’s written agreement to the transaction prior to sale;
·provide the purchaser with risk disclosure documents which identify certain risks associated with investing in “penny stocks” and which describe the market for these “penny stocks” as well as a purchaser’s legal remedies; and
·obtain a signed and dated acknowledgment from the purchaser demonstrating that the purchaser has actually received the required risk disclosure document before a transaction in a “penny stock” can be completed.

As a result of these requirements, the market price of our securities may be adversely impacted, and current stockholders may find it more difficult to sell our securities.

33

Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

 

Item 2.Properties

Headquarters

Our headquarters is located in Thousand Oaks, California, where we lease approximately 49,000 square feet of office, laboratory and greenhouse space. The lease expires on March 31, 2014.September 30, 2019. We have one option to extend the lease for an additional term of five years, provided that we give notice to the landlord at leastno more than nine months, nor less than six months prior to the expiration of the initial term of the lease.

College Station Research Center

Our plant breeding and field research center is located in Burleson County near College Station, Texas. Completed in 2009, the site consists of approximately 12,000 square feet of office, laboratory, warehouse and greenhouse space. The research center sits on approximately five acres of leased land, which we hold the option to purchase. Adjacent to our facility, we also lease approximately 200 acres of farmland under a five-year lease expiring in 2013, with two options to extend this lease by five years each.

On February 3, 2012, the facility was damaged by a tornado. No one was on site at the time and the impact was limited to structural damage to the building that houses office space and a small laboratory and work space. Our greenhouse, tractor sheds and some agricultural equipment were also damaged. Repairs, which will be covered by insurance, subject to our deductible, were largely completed by September 2012.

Amarillo Operations

Our primary U.S. seed warehousing, conditioning, packaging and order fulfillment facility is located in Amarillo, Texas. Purchased in 2009, the site consists of approximately 46,000 square feet of office and warehouse space on a 32-acre parcel. We anticipate that we will be able to warehouse and process up to 8 to 10 million pounds of seed annually at this facility.

Brazil

We lease two offices in the Municipality of Piracicaba, São Paulo,Uberlândia and Centralina, Brazil. We have a right of first refusal to purchase the property in the event the lessor decides to sell. The leases for these offices expire in 2015. Our plant breeding facility is located in the Municipality of Centralina, State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The siteplant breeding facility consists of approximately 450 square meters of office and warehouse space on an approximately 3,876-square-meter parcel. The lease of the plant breeding facility expires in August 2014.2017. We have a right of first refusal into acquire the acquisition of the property. In addition, as part of our plant breeding facility, we lease approximately 58 hectares of cropland under a three-year lease expiring in 2014, which we hold an option to purchase.

We believe that our facilities in California, Texas and Brazil including our planned seed production facility in South America, will adequately meet our needs in the near term.

Item 3.Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations. We are not currently a party to any material litigation or other material legal proceedings. We may, however, be involved in material legal proceedings in the future. Such matters are subject to uncertainty and there can be no assurance that such legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

 

Item 4.Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

34

PART II

 

Item 5.Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Our common stock began tradingtrades on the Nasdaq Global MarketNASDAQ under the symbol “CERE” onsince February 22, 2012. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock for each of the quarters in fiscal 20122014 and 2015. All of the share prices are as follows:adjusted to reflect the 1-for-8 reverse stock split of our Common Stock, which took effect on April 8, 2015.

 

   High   Low 

Fiscal 2012

    

Second quarter (February 22, 2012 – February 29, 2012)

  $15.59    $13.50  

Third quarter (March 1, 2012 – May 31, 2012)

   18.70     9.54  

Fourth quarter (June 1, 2012 – August 31, 2012)

   11.42     6.02  
  High  Low 
Fiscal 2014        
First quarter (September 1, 2013 – November 30, 2013) $17.12  $9.28 
Second quarter (December 1, 2013 – February 28, 2014)  14.56   10.24 
Third quarter (March 1, 2014 – May 31, 2014)  11.60   4.00 
Fourth quarter (June 1, 2014 – August 31, 2014)  6.56   4.08 
Fiscal 2015        
First quarter (September 1, 2014 – November 30, 2014) $4.48  $1.76 
Second quarter (December 1, 2015 – February 28, 2015)  3.20   1.44 
Third quarter (March 1, 2015 – May 31, 2015)  4.48   1.63 
Fourth quarter (June 1, 2015 – August 31, 2015)  4.80   0.90 

Holders of Record

On November 7, 2012,10, 2015, there were approximately 181180 stockholders of record of our common stock. Stockholders of record do not include a substantially greater number of “street name” holders or beneficial holders of our common stock whose shares are held of record by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings and do not expect to declare or pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Equity Plan Information

Our equity plan information required by this item is incorporated by reference to the information in Part III, Item 12 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Performance Graph

This performance graph shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or incorporated by reference into any filing of Ceres, Inc. under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.

The following graph compares our total common stock return with the total return for the Nasdaq U.S. Small Cap Index and the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index for the period from February 22, 2012 (the date our common stock commenced trading on the NASDAQ) through August 31, 2012. The data assume an investment of $100 in our common stock at a closing price of $14.80 on February 22, 2012 and in the Nasdaq U.S. Small Cap Index and the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index on February 22, 2012. Such returns are based on historical results and are not intended to suggest future performance. Data assumes reinvestment of dividends.

 

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

None.

Use of Proceeds

On February 27,Since September 1, 2012, we completed our initial public offering. We sold 5,750,000 shares of common stock at a price tohave issued the public of $13.00 per share, which included the underwriters’ exercise in full of their option to purchase 750,000 additional shares. This offer and sale of our common stock in our initial public offeringfollowing securities that were not registered under the Securities Act pursuant toAct:

(1)On July 30, 2015, in a private placement we issued for no additional consideration warrants to purchase 1,200,000 shares of our Common Stock to certain institutional investors in a concurrent SEC-registered offering of Common Stock. The warrants are exercisable beginning on January 30, 2016 at an exercise price equal to $1.62 per share of Common Stock. The warrants expire on January 30, 2021.

35

(2)On July 30, 2015, in a private placement we issued warrants to purchase 24,000 shares of our Common Stock to the representative in compensation for its services as a placement agent in connection with a concurrent SEC-registered offering and a private placement. The warrants are exercisable beginning on July 30, 2016 at an exercise price equal to $1.944 per share of Common Stock. The warrants expire on July 30, 2020.
(3)On August 26, 2015, in a private placement we issued warrants to purchase 1,198,859 shares of our Common Stock to certain institutional investors in a concurrent SEC-registered offering of Common Stock. The warrants were sold at a price of $0.125 per share of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of the warrants. The warrants are exercisable beginning on February 26, 2016 at an exercise price equal to $1.22 per share of Common Stock. The warrants expire on February 26, 2021.
(4)On August 26, 2015, in a private placement we issued warrants to purchase 31,970 shares of our Common Stock to the representative in compensation for its services as a placement agent in connection with a concurrent SEC-registered offering and a private placement. The warrants are exercisable beginning on August 26, 2016 at an exercise price equal to $1.83 per share of Common Stock. The warrants expire on August 26, 2020.

The issuances of warrants described in items (1) through (4) above were deemed exempt from registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-174405), which was declared effective byunder Section 4(a)(2) or Regulation D of the SEC on February 21, 2012.Securities Act. The underwritersrecipients of our initial public offering were Goldman Sachs and Co., Barclays Capital, Piper Jaffray, Raymond James and Simmons and Company International. We raised approximately $65.2 million in net proceeds after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $5.2 million and other offering costs of $4.9 million. No offering costs were paid directly or indirectly to any of our directors or officers (or their associates) or persons owning ten percent or more of any class of our equity securities or to any other affiliates, other than payments in the ordinary coursetransactions exempt under Section 4(a)(2) or Regulation D of businessthe Securities Act represented their intention to officersacquire the securities for salariesinvestment purposes only and not with a view to non-employee directors as compensationor for board or board committee service. There has been no material changesale in connection with any distribution thereof and appropriate legends were affixed to the planned use of proceeds from our initial public offering as describedinstruments issued in our Prospectus dated February 21, 2012 filed with the SEC.such transactions.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

None.

Item 6.Selected Financial Data

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data

SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

In 2009, we changed our fiscal year end from December 31 to August 31. The change was effective for the eight-month period ended August 31, 2009.

The selected consolidated statement of operations data for the fiscal years ended August 31, 2012, 20112015 and 20102014, and the selected consolidated balance sheet data at August 31, 20122015 and 20112014 are derived from our audited Consolidated Financial Statements, appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected consolidated statement of operations data for the eight monthsfiscal years ended August 31, 20092012, 2011 and the fiscal year ended December 31, 20082010 and the selected consolidated balance sheet data as of August 31, 20092013, 2012, and December 31, 20082011 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, which are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of results for future periods. Results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for a full fiscal year.

You should read the following selected consolidated financial data in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our Consolidated Financial Statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

   Year Ended August 31,  Eight Months
Ended
August 31,
  Year Ended
December 31,
 
   2012  2011  2010  2009  2008 
   (In thousands, except per share data) 

Revenues

      

Product sales

  $432   $116   $288   $98   $64  

Collaborative research and government grants

   4,939    6,500    6,326    2,328    3,880  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total revenues

  $5,371    6,616    6,614    2,426    3,944  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Cost and operating expenses(1)

      

Cost of product sales

   2,384    2,492    2,946    2,690    3,777  

Research and development

   19,155    19,014    16,697    12,397    20,309  

Selling, general and administrative

   12,634    10,008    9,207    6,645    8,784  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total cost and operating expenses(1)

   34,173    31,514    28,850    21,732    32,870  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Loss from operations

  $(28,802  (24,898  (22,236  (19,306  (28,926

Interest expense

   (560  (456  (153  (5  —    

Interest income

   39    7    23    243    2,001  

Other income (expense)

   (84  (11,020  (152  161    —    
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Loss before income taxes

  $(29,407  (36,367  (22,518  (18,907  (26,925

Income tax benefit (expense)

   (3  31    (65  211    148  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Net loss

  $(29,410  (36,336  (22,583  (18,696  (26,777
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to common stockholders(2)

  $(2.18 $(18.34 $(11.70 $(9.98 $(14.68

Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss per share attributable to common stockholders(2):

      

Basic and diluted

   13,488,336    1,981,627    1,930,395    1,873,808    1,824,284  
36

  Year Ended August 31, 
  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011 
  (In thousands, except per share data) 
Revenues                    
Product sales $434  $146  $462  $432  $116 

Services

  2,286   2,258   4,781   4,939   6,500 
Total revenues $2,720   2,404   5,243   5,371   6,616 
Cost and operating expenses(1)                    
Cost of product sales  5,267   3,021   6,245   2,384   2,492 
Research and development  9,684   14,156   16,401   19,155   19,014 
Selling, general and administrative  15,946   14,484   15,187   12,634   10,008 
Total cost and operating expenses(1)  30,897   31,661   37,833   34,173   31,514 
Loss from operations $(28,177)  (29,257)  (32,590)  (28,802)  (24,898)
Interest expense  (30)  (68)  (46)  (560)  (456)
Interest income  28   5   126   39   7 
Other income (expense)  24   -   -  (84)  (11,020)
Loss before income taxes $(28,155)  (29,320)  (32,510)  (29,407)  (36,367)
Income tax (expense) benefit  (1)  (1)  (1)  (3)  31
Net loss $(28,156)  (29,321)  (32,511)  (29,410)  (36,336)
Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to common stockholders(2) $(4.57)  (6.48)  (10.48)  (17.44)  (146.72)
Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss per share attributable to common stockholders(2):                    
Basic and diluted  6,166,006   4,525,745   3,099,503   1,686,402   247,703 
                     

 

(1)Our stock-based compensation expense is as follows (in thousands):

 

   Year Ended August 31,   Eight Months
Ended
August 31,

2009
   Year Ended
December 31,

2008
 
   2012   2011   2010     

Research and development

  $293    $1,895    $409    $345    $467  

Selling, general and administrative

   1,464     815     891     737     705  

Cost of product sales

   152     —       —       —       —    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total stock-based compensation expense

  $1,909    $2,710    $1,300    $1,082    $1,172  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
37

  Year ended August 31, 
  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011 
Cost of product sales $145  $174  $(170) $152  $ 
Research and development  640   1,031   1,189   293   1,895 
Selling, general and administrative  1480  1,863   2,291   1,464   815 
                     
Total stock-based compensation expense $2,265  $3,068  $3,310  $1,909  $2,710 

 

(2)

The basic and diluted loss per share are computed by dividing the net loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. For theAs we have incurred a net loss for all periods where we presented losses, all potentially dilutive common shares comprising of stock options, warrants, Convertible Notes and convertible preferred stock have been excluded as they are anti-dilutive.

Our consolidated balance sheet data is as follows (in thousands):

 

                As of 
   As of August 31,  December 31, 
   2012   2011  2010  2009  2008 

Cash and cash equivalents

  $21,069    $21,911   $33,055   $14,960   $12,145  

Working capital

   51,226     16,739    28,325    27,543    41,297  

Total assets

   69,247     36,797    46,648    41,094    57,718  

Common and preferred stock warrant liabilities

   —       17,726    8,911    2,944    13  

Convertible Notes

   —       13,630    —      —      —    

Total long-term liabilities

   344     33,518    13,310    3,197    290  

Convertible preferred stock

   —       197,502    197,502    183,079    183,079  

Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)

  $62,561    $(204,318 $(170,829 $(149,577 $(128,905

  As of August 31, 
  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011 
Cash and cash equivalents $8,095  $3,423  $8,881  $21,069  $21,911 
Working capital $4,544   24,607   28,439   51,226   16,739 
Total assets $11,122   32,424   37,178   69,247   36,797 
Common and preferred stock warrant liabilities $1,631   -   -   -   17,726 
Convertible Notes $-   -   -   -   13,630 
Total long-term liabilities $1,687   93   175   344   33,518 
Convertible preferred stock $-   -   -   -   197,502 
Total stockholders’ equity (deficit) $4,213  $27,609  $33,006  $62,561  $(204,318)

Item 7.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with our consolidated financial statementsConsolidated Financial Statements and the other financial information appearing elsewhere in this report.Annual Report on Form 10-K. This Item 7 contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Please see “Forward-Looking Statements” for a discussion of the uncertainties, risks and assumptions associated with these statements. The results of operations for the periods reflected herein are not necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for future periods, and our actual results may differ materially from those discussed in our forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including but not limited to those listed under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and those included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Overview

We are an agricultural biotechnology company sellingthat develops and markets seeds and traits to produce dedicated energy crops – renewable bioenergy feedstocks that can enable the large-scale replacement of petroleumfor feed, forages, sugar and other fossil fuels.markets. We use a combination of advanced plant breeding, biotechnology and biotechnologybioinformatics to develop seed products that we believeand biotechnology traits to address many of the current limitations of first-generation bioenergy feedstocks, such as corn and sugarcane,future challenges facing agriculture. These technology platforms, which can increase crop productivity, improve quality, reduce crop inputs and improve cultivation on marginal land.land, have broad application across multiple end markets, including food, feed, fiber and fuel.

In 2014, we began realigning our business to focus on food and forage opportunities and biotechnology traits for sugarcane and other crops. Previously, we prioritized our working capital in Brazil, where, since 2010 we focused on the large-scale evaluation and adoption of sorghum for bioenergy production. We believe that these changes represent an important step in the transformation of our business as we refocus on our strengths in agricultural technology and redirect our existing seed products and trait pipelines toward food and feed markets being fueled by global prosperity growth.

38

Our first large-scalecurrent commercial seed products are proprietary sweethave demonstrated a number of favorable attributes for forage feed, including high yields and lower water requirements, as well as competitive production costs relative to corn and certain hay crops. In addition our product development pipeline contains numerous traits and seed products that have demonstrated further yield improvements as well as enhanced energy content and nutrition. Following commercial field evaluations in 2014, we launched our U.S. forage sorghum hybrids that can be used asbusiness in 2015 via multiple distribution arrangements. Distributors provide us with local market information, agronomy support and access to their customer-base.

In addition to our forage sorghum opportunity, in certain crops, including corn, rice and sugar beet, we have out-licensed a “drop-in” feedstock to extend the operating season of Brazilian sugarcane-to-ethanol mills, the operating days of which are currently limited due to the inherent limitations of sugarcane physiology and growth patterns. Our dedicated energy crops can also be used for the production of second-generation biofuels and bio-based chemicals, including cellulosic ethanol, butanol, jet fuel, diesel-like molecules and gasoline-like molecules, from non-food biomass. Finally, baseload utility-scale electric power can also be generated from the biomass feedstocks grown from our seeds.

The seed industry has historically required very little capital to produce, condition and package seeds, and seeds have typically been priced based on a share of the value they create and thus have generated high gross margins. As a producer of proprietary seeds, we believe we are in one of the most attractive segments of the bioenergy value chain — upstream from the capital-intensive refining and conversion of biomass. Therefore, we believe our success is tied to adoptionportion of our products rather than the relative profitability of downstream participants. Our upstream position in the value chain also allows ustraits and gene technology to be largely independent of the success of any particular conversion technology or end use.

We develop low input dedicated energy crops capable of producing high yields per acre using innovative plant breedingexisting market participants and trait biotechnology. By developingcontinue to pursue opportunities to out-license these types of crops, we enable the scalable, sustainable and economic production of bioenergy. Our proprietary collection of energy crop parent lines, known as germplasm, in combination with our pipeline of biotechnology traits allows us to develop bioenergy feedstocks to meet the needs of ethanol mills, biorefineries and growers of energy crops, all while using less water and less fertilizer than row crops like corn or soybean, even if grown on marginal land.technologies, among other go-to-market strategies. We believe that the strength of our technology has been validated by our receipt of multiple competitive grants and collaborations, including a United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, grant and one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s first Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E, grants in 2009, as well as a $137 million multi-year collaborationcollaborations with Monsanto Company signed in 2002.leading companies. We also have significant intellectual property rights to our technology platforms, traits and seed products.

We operate in one segment, and accordingly, our results of operations are presented on a consolidated basis. To date the majority of our revenue and expense has been denominated in U.S. dollars and Brazilian Real. In fiscal year 2015 there was a benefit to our operating expenses related to the impact of expenses incurred in Brazilian Real as a result of the strengthening dollar which was offset by increased costs incurred in Brazil.

We generate our revenues from government grants,product sales, research and development collaboration agreements, government grants and from product sales.software and services. We began selling products in 2008 and, while our product sales have been minimal to date, we expect product sales to eventually become the primary source of our revenues. We expect future product revenues to include a combination of seed sales and technologytrait fees, similar to current business models used for food crops incorporating biotech traits. As we continue to develop traits for our products, we expect that a significant portion of our product revenues will be generated from the sale of seeds that include our traits. We believe our

largest immediate market opportunity is selling sweet sorghum into the Brazilian biofuel market. Our longer term strategies involve capitalizing on the development of the emerging cellulosic biofuel and biopower markets in the United States and Europe.

We market and sell our sweet sorghum seeds in Brazil and our switchgrass, high biomass sorghum and sweet sorghum seeds in the United States under our brand, Blade Energy Crops, or Blade.

In the 2010-2011 growing season, in collaboration with several mills, we completed a commercial-scale trial on approximately 250 hectares of our sweet sorghum, which was planted and harvested using existing planting and harvesting equipment, fermented into ethanol without retrofitting or altering the existing mill and the remaining biomass combusted for electricity production, using existing boilers in the last growing season. During the following season, we completed our first sales of sweet sorghum, which amounted to greater than 3,000 hectares to more than a dozen mills, including multi-mill conglomerates, which are responsible for approximately 20% of the sugarcane crushed in Brazil. Proof of concept was again confirmed, and at a greater scale, although yields were less than optimal due to severe drought conditions that affected agricultural crops in the region, including sugarcane and sweet sorghum. We believe these experiences demonstrate the “drop-in” nature of our sweet sorghum products, and along with higher yielding products in our pipeline, seed-based propagation, shorter growing cycles and lower water and fertilizer requirements of sweet sorghum relative to sugarcane, will serve as the basis for expanded adoption of this product line as a feedstock for ethanol and power production in Brazil and other markets. For the upcoming 2012-2013 season, we have introduced six new hybrids that have significantly outperformed our first generation commercial products in multiple field evaluations. Based on our trial results to date and pipeline of products under development, we believe the adoption of our sweet sorghum hybrids could extend a mill’s operations by approximately 60 days. Seed sales and deliveries are ongoing and are expected to be completed by mid-December. While we have increased the number of mills planting our hybrids over the previous season, based on current sales trends, we believe that we will sell or provide trial seed to plant thousands of hectares, which is lower than we originally anticipated. This is due in part to the effects of the drought last season and the focus among our customer base on the field performance of our new hybrids, which can be determined at relatively small scale. We believe that the industrial processing of our products has been validated during the past two seasons.

For the 2012-2013 sweet sorghum growing season in Brazil, we have offered our customers the opportunity to participate in various sales incentive and performance based promotional programs. We believe that these programs will facilitate the adoption of our products in Brazil by demonstrating and encouraging best crop management practices. We are also using the programs to encourage new customers, which may not have experience with sweet sorghum production, to adopt our products sooner and at larger scale.

Certain of these sales incentive programs require the customer to purchase our seed and adhere to our agronomic protocols. Depending on the size of the customer’s purchase and its ultimate crop yield in biomass or ethanol, we could incur costs representing a portion of some customers’ production costs or anticipated yield. We will also offer qualifying participants purchase discounts during the next three growing seasons. In certain cases, for strategically located customers, we will participate directly in, and may incur certain unreimbursed costs for seed, crop production and agronomy services during this season. Certain of our revenues from seed sales and services provided will be deferred until completion of the growing season, which we currently expect to occur in the fiscal third quarter.

We have invested significantly in research, development and technology and applied our proprietary technology platforms to energy crops. To develop high performing seeds and traits, we have integrated a suite of advanced research and development methods, which include conventional breeding, marker-assisted breeding, genomics and biotechnology, along with large, proprietary collections of germplasm (the collections of genetic resources covering the diversity of a crop, the attributes of which are inherited from generation to generation). We have utilized our existing germplasm assets along with our research and development methods to create improved seeds and traits. As a result, we believe that we have one of the leading pipelines of proprietary crop traits, based on the number and nature of our traits as well as the two-species approach we employ to validate and successfully select gene-trait combinations.

Our other operating expenses are related to selling, general and administrative expenses incurred to establish and build our market presence and business infrastructure as well as seed production costs. For the periods prior to the commencement of sales of our seeds in 2008, we expensed our seed production costs as research and development. Since 2008, inventory costs have beenare computed on a first-in, first-out basis and valued at the lower of cost or market with any excess cost recognized during the period within cost of product sales. PriorWhen inventory costs exceed expected market value due to fiscal year 2012, weobsolescence or lack of demand, inventory write-downs are recorded a full valuation reserve against all seed inventory duefor the early commercializationdifference between the cost and the market value in the period based on our evaluation of such inventory. The recoverability of our seed productsinventory is dependent on increased customer adoption and no establishedacceptance.

We have invested significantly in research, development and technology and applied our proprietary technology platforms to energy crops and expect to continue to invest in research and development focusing on forage sorghum, as well as traits with significant market for these products. Aspotential in other crops, like corn, rice and sugarcane. For the fiscal years ended August 31, 2015 and 2014, we invested $9.7 million and $14.2 million, respectively, in research and development, with the main emphasis on breeding and traits. Our other operating expenses are related to selling, general and administrative expenses incurred to establish and build our market presence and business infrastructure.

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. We expect to incur further losses in the operations of our business and have been dependent on funding our operations through the issuance and sale of equity securities. Our accumulated deficit as of August 31, 2012, inventory consisted2015 was $332.1 million. Our cash and cash equivalents of work-in-process$8.1 million as of August 31, 2015 is not sufficient to enable us to remain in business beyond January 2016 without raising further capital or significantly curtailing our operations. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern. Therefore, you should not rely on our consolidated financial statements as an indication of the amount of proceeds that would be available to satisfy claims of creditors, and finished goods relatedpotentially be available for distribution to sweet sorghum seeds. A full valuation reserve has been recorded on all other seed products as no established market exists. Our sales and marketing expenses have not been significant to date but we expect such expenses to increase as we pursue, enter and expand our market opportunities.stockholders, in the event of liquidation.

Historically, we have funded our operations with payments from collaborators and government grants and the proceeds from issuances of common stock, convertible preferred stock, warrants, convertible notes and debt financing, payments from collaborators and government grants.financing. We have experienced significant losses as we invested heavily in research and development and marketing, and those costs have exceeded revenues. We will continue to need capital to fund our research and development projects, to commercialize our products and to provide working capital to fund other aspects of our business. The Company is evaluating opportunities to secure additional financing, including the issuance of equity or debt, sale or divesture of business units, and additional revenues earnedfrom grants or collaborations. However there are no assurances that such opportunities will be available or available on terms that are acceptable to the Company. If we fail to raise sufficient funds and continue to incur losses, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage of strategic opportunities, develop and commercialize products or technologies, or otherwise respond to competitive pressures will be significantly limited. If this happens, we may be forced to obtain funds through collaboration agreementscollaborative and government grantslicensing arrangements that may require us to relinquish commercial rights, grant licenses to our technology and were incurred priorsell assets on terms that are not favorable to generating significant revenues through product sales. us or delay or terminate research and development programs or the commercialization of products or significantly curtail or cease our operations.

39

On June 19, 2015, we announced the continued realignment of our business to focus on food and forage opportunities and biotechnology traits for sugarcane and other crops. As part of the realignment, we undertook a restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations. The restructuring of our Brazilian seed operations, includes, among other actions, a workforce reduction that initially impacted 14 positions in Brazil primarily related to administration, operations and manufacturing as well as 2 support positions in the United States. We estimated that we would incur charges of approximately $0.6 million over the five-month period ending in October 2015 with respect to the initial workforce reductions in Brazil and the U.S., including $0.1 million in continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are eliminated, and $0.5 million of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures.

As of August 31, 2012,19, 2015, we had initiated a further workforce reduction that impacted an accumulated deficitadditional 19 positions in Brazil. We estimated that we would incur additional charges of $242.1 million. We incurred net losses of $29.4approximately $0.8 million $36.3 million and $22.6over the four-month period ending on December 31, 2015 with respect to the additional workforce reductions in Brazil, including $0.1 million in the years ended August 31, 2012, 2011,continuation of salary and 2010, respectively.benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are eliminated, and $0.7 million of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures. We expect to incur additional losses relatedsave up to the continued development and expansionapproximately $8.0 to $10.0 million in cash in fiscal 2016 as a result of restructuring our operations as described above, which is higher than we originally estimated. The restructuring of our business including research andBrazilian seed operations is expected to be substantially completed by February 1, 2016. After full implementation of the restructuring plan, our Brazilian operations will be focused on sugarcane trait development seed production and operations, and sales and marketing.activities for the Brazilian sugarcane market. There iscan be no assurance that profitablewe will achieve the cost savings we expect in fiscal 2016 after fully implementing the realignment plan.

In July 2014, our Brazilian subsidiary was selected for a competitive grant and a multi-year credit facility to fund a product development project for sorghum and sugarcane for up to approximately 85 million reais, or $22.1 million, under the government’s PAISS Agricola program. The project consists of a non-repayable grant of up to approximately 10 million reais, or $2.6 million, and a government-subsidized credit facility for up to approximately 67.5 million reais, or $17.55 million. The Company is expected to fund up to approximately 7.5 million reais, or $1.95 million, of the project. While we have received approval for the grant and approval in principle for the credit facility, in light of the restructuring of our Brazilian operations first announced on June 19, 2015, we have approached the Brazilian government to narrow the focus and significantly reduce the size of the project, and it is uncertain at this time if we will be achieved,draw from the grant or if achieved, can be sustained on a continued basis.the credit facility.

Initial

Public OfferingOfferings

On February 27, 2012,March 10, 2014, we closed our initialcompleted a registered public offering or the IPO, of 5,750,0002,875,000 shares of common stockour Common Stock (including 750,000375,000 shares purchased by the underwritersunderwriter upon the exercise in full of their right to purchase up to an additional 750,000 shares)375,000 shares to cover over-allotments) at ana price to the public of $8.00 per share. We received approximately $20.8 million of proceeds from the offering, price of $13.00 per share, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $65.2 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

Upon the closing We issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of the IPO, our outstanding shares of convertible preferred stock were automatically converted into 15,353,22160,000 shares of common stock to certain affiliated designees of the underwriter as part of the underwriter’s compensation related to the March 10, 2014 registered public offering. The warrants are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on March 4, 2015 and our outstanding convertible subordinated notes, or the Convertible Notes, were automatically converted into 1,098,575expire on March 4, 2019. The exercise price is $12 per share of common stock.

On July 30, 2015, we completed a registered public offering of an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares of common stock. Additionally, ourCommon Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company, at an offering price of $1.296 per share for estimated net proceeds of approximately $1.0 million, after deducting the placement agent fee and related offering expenses. In a concurrent private placement, we issued warrants exercisable for one share of Common Stock for each share purchased in the offering for an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.62 per share. The warrants are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on January 30, 2016 and expire on January 30, 2021. We also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 24,000 shares of our common stockCommon Stock at an exercise price of $1.944 per share to the placement agent as part of the placement agent’s compensation. The warrants issued to the placement agent are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in connectionwhole or in part, beginning on July 30, 2016 and expire on July 30, 2020.

40

On August 26, 2015, we completed a registered public offering of an aggregate of 1,598,478 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company, at an offering price of $1.22 per share for estimated net proceeds, together with the issuanceconcurrent private placement, of our Series F Preferredapproximately $1.7 million, after deducting the placement agent fee and related offering expenses. In a concurrent private placement, we issued warrants exercisable for 0.75 shares of Common Stock offering, or the Series F Warrants, and Series G Preferred Stock offering, or the Series G Warrants, were marked-to-market upon the IPO closing and we will no longer record any changesfor each share purchased in the fair valueAugust 26, 2015 offering for an aggregate of these1,198,859 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.22 per share. The warrants as they are now equity classified. Ourexercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on February 26, 2016 and expire on February 26, 2021. We also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 31,970 shares of convertible preferred stockour Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.83 per share to the placement agent as part of the placement agent’s compensation. The warrants issued to the placement agent are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in connection with certain financing arrangements converted to warrants to purchase shares of common stock upon the IPO closing,whole or in part, beginning on August 26, 2016 and are also now equity classified. As such, we will no longer record any changes in fair value for these warrants.expire on August 26, 2020.

Key Components of Our Results of Operations

Revenues

To date, our revenues have related to our product sales, collaborative research and government grants.

 

 

Product Sales.  Product sales are primarily composed of sales of seeds. Going forward, we may include trait fees in our seed prices.and biomass sales. We began selling products in 2008.

 

 

Collaborative Research.  Collaborative research revenues generally consist of payments for research and development activities for specific projects. These arrangements may include a combination of

non-refundable technology license fees, research and development fees, and/or fees for the achievement of contractually defined milestone events and royalties.

 

 

Government Grants.  Government grant revenues consist of payments from government entities. The terms of these grants generally provide us with reimbursement for research and development services and certain types of capital expenditures over a contractually defined period.

Software Licensing and Development. Software licensing and development revenues generally consist of services related to software arrangements that involve (1) significant production, modification or customization and (2) post contract customer support (“PCS”).

Cost of Product Sales

Cost of product sales consists principally of the cost of labor, raw materials and third-party services related to growing, harvesting, packaging and shipping our seeds.seeds, and direct and indirect costs related to our biomass sales. These costs are comprised of the direct costs of our seed production employees, as well as the temporary seasonal labor costs during planting and harvesting times. Third-party services include contract labor, grower payments, crop management services and other professional services related to the cost of product sales. Cost of product sales also consists of input costs such as chemicals and seed production costs. Costs associated with collaboration, research and government grants are not included in cost of product sales but instead are included as research and development expenses. Although historically not significant, future royalty expenses associated with collaboration and license agreements with third parties will be included in cost of product sales. The amount of royalties we owe under these agreements is a function of our sales, and the applicable royalty rates depend on a number of factors, including the portion of our third-party collaborator’s intellectual property that is present in our products. We believe that as we develop our agronomic production operations, we will be able to achieve lower cost of product sales. To date, we have relied principally on third parties for the production of our sweet sorghum seed for use in Brazil. We believe that as we increase seed production volumes, we will be able to achieve better economies of scale from these third parties. In addition, we intend to produce more ofparties as well as our own seeds in Brazil, which will allow us to further decrease our costs. For our switchgrass and high biomass sorghum products, we are currently producing seeds at our own facility in Texas and believe that we will be able to decrease our costs over time by taking advantage of greater economies of scale.seed production.

Research and Development

Research and development expenses principally consist of personnel costs related to our research and development staff in support of plant breeding, agronomy, technology development and protection, and exploratory research. Research and development expenses also include costs incurred for laboratory supplies, reimbursable costs associated with government grants and our collaborative agreements, third-party contract payments, consultants and facility and related overhead costs. We expect to increase our investments in research and development by hiring additional research and development staff. As such, we expect that our research and development expenses will increase in absolute dollars. As a percentage of revenue, we expect our research and development expenses to increase in the near-term and eventually stabilize. Also included in research and development expenses are expenses in connection with warrants granted to The Texas A&M University System and The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. The warrants vest based on the achievement of certain research and commercialization milestones or the passage of time. The warrants are accounted for at fair value at each quarter end until the vesting targets are met using the Black Scholes option pricing model. As a publicly traded company, the volatility of our stock price could cause an increase in the warrant fair value and resulting expense charges to research and development.

41

We do not track our research and development expenditures by project. Our ongoing research and development activities are dedicated to expandingimproving our integrated platforms which consist ofproduct offerings, with a combination of genetic assets, specifically germplasmmain emphasis on breeding, bioinformatics and traits, and competencies in genomics and biotechnology.traits. Our research and development expenses consist principally of personnel and related costs and at November 7, 2012,10, 2015, we had 6224 full-time employees primarily engaged in our research and development activities. Our employees’ work time is spread across multiple research and development methods continuously focused on our technology platforms and to a much lesser extent areas for which we have received government grant awards and collaboration funding. We do

not intend to provide forward-looking estimates of costs and time relating to our research and development activities due to the many uncertainties associated with genomics, conventional and marker-assisted breeding, agronomy and other genomics-based technologies. As we obtain data from our efforts, we may elect to reprioritize, delay or discontinue activities in order to focus our resources on more promising research and development methods. As a result of the naturerestructuring of our activitiesBrazil operations during July and these uncertainties,August 2015, we are unable to determine with any significant degree of certainty the duration and completion costs ofexpect our research and development activities. Additionally, when, andexpenses to what extent, we will generate future cash flows from products resulting frombe significantly lower during our research and development activities is dependent on market opportunities, the most immediate of which is the Brazilian biofuel market.next fiscal year ended August 31, 2016.

Selling, General and Administrative

Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs related to our executive, sales, legal, finance and human resources staff and professional fees including legal and accounting. Selling costs relate to business development and our sales and marketing programs to build brand awareness. We improve our brand awareness through programs including publication of crop management guides, speaking roles at industry events, trade show displays and local-level grower meetings. Costs related to these activities, including travel, are included in selling expenses. While we expect our selling expenses to increase in the near term, weWe believe that our focus on a relatively small numberuse of customers, particularly in Brazil, where we are primarily marketingdistributors for our forage sorghum products to mill operators, should allow us to operate with relatively modest overall selling expenses. We expect selling, general and administrative expenses to increase in absolute dollars in order to drive product sales and to supportfor the requirementsnear term. As a result of being a public company. Such increases may include increased insurance premiums, investor relations expenses, legal and accounting fees associated with the expansionrestructuring of our businessBrazil operations during July and corporate governance, financial reporting expenses, and other regulatory compliance obligations. We expect to hire additional personnel, particularly in the area of general and administrative activities to support the growth of our business. As a percentage of revenue,August 2015, we expect our selling, general and administrative expenses to increase in the near-term but to eventually decline.be significantly lower during our next fiscal year ended August 31, 2016.

Interest Expense

We recognize interest expense on our debt obligations. We expect interest expense to fluctuate in the future with changes in our debt levels.

Interest Income

Interest income consists primarily of interest earned on investments and cash balances. Our interest income will vary each reporting period depending on our average investment and cash balances during the period and market interest rates. We expect interest income to fluctuate in the future with changes in average investment and cash balances and market interest rates.

Other Income (Expense)

Prior to the closing of the IPO, our other

Other income (expense) consistedconsists primarily of the changechanges in the fair value of our convertible preferred warrants, certain of our common stock warrants and the Convertible Notes. Our preferred stock warrants and certain of our common stock warrants were classified as liabilities. Upon the closing of the IPO, our preferred stock warrants converted to equity classified common stock warrants, and the impact to our results of operations from our preferred stock, Convertible Notes and certain of our common stock warrant liabilities was eliminated.

warrants.

Provision for Income Tax Benefits

Since our inception, we have been subject to income taxes principally in the United States and Brazil, where we established a legal presence in 2010. We anticipate that as we expand our operations outside the United States, we will become subject to taxation based on the foreign statutory rates and our effective tax rate could fluctuate accordingly.

Income taxes are computed using the asset and liability method, under which deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to affect taxable income. Valuation allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized.

As of August 31, 20122015 and 2011,2014, based on the available information, it is more likely than not that our deferred tax assets will not be realized, and accordingly we have takenrecorded a full valuation allowance against all of our deferred tax assets. As of August 31, 2012,2015, we had approximately $195.5$273.9 million of federal, $131.1$196.8 million of state and $5.3$25.8 million of foreign operating loss carry-forwards available to offset future taxable income, if any, which expire in varying amounts from 2018 through 20322035 for federal tax purposes and from 20142015 through 20322035 for state tax purposes if unused. The carry-forward period for the foreign net operating loss is indefinite. Federal and state laws impose substantial restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss and tax credit carry-forwards in the event of an “ownership change”, as defined in Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Internal Revenue Code. We have not completed a Section 382 analysis to determine if a change in ownership has occurred. Until an analysis is completed, there can be no assurance that the existing net operating loss carry-forwards or credits are not subject to significant limitation.

42

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and related disclosures. We base our estimates and assumptions on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. The results of our analysis form the basis for making assumptions about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Our actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Our financial statements have been prepared under the assumption that we will continue as a going concern. As discussed in the report of our independent registered public accounting firm, dated November 23, 2015, included herein, we have incurred recurring losses and we expect that the current level of cash and cash equivalents will only be sufficient to fund operations through January 2016 which raises substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern.

We believe the following critical accounting policies involve significant areas of management’s judgments and estimates in the preparation of our financial statements.

Revenue Recognition

Revenues are recognized when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) transfer of product or technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. To date, our primary source of revenues has been derived from research collaborations and government grants, software and services, and to a lesser extent, product sales.

Product Sales

Product sales are derived from seed and biomass sales, of seeds and trait fees. Going forward, we may include trait fees in our seed prices. Product sales are recognized, net of discounts and allowances, once passage of title and risk of loss have occurred and contractually specified acceptance criteria have been met, provided all other revenue recognition criteria have also been met.

Collaborative Research and Government Grants

From time to time, we have entered into research and development collaboration agreements with third parties, including a large agriculture supplier, a consumer goods conglomerate and several biofuel producers. In addition, we have received grants from government agencies such as the Department of EnergyDOE and the United States Department of Agriculture.USDA. The research and development collaboration agreements typically provide us with multiple revenue streams, which may include upfront, non-refundable fees for licensing certain of our technologies, fees for research and development activities, and contingent milestone payments upon achievement of contractual criteria.

 

 

Technology License Fees.  For collaboration agreements in which we have continuing involvement, license fees are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the arrangement. Licensing fees are non-refundable and not subject to future performance.

 

 

Government Grants.  We receive payments from government entities in the form of government grants. Government grants generally provide us with cost reimbursement for certain types of expenditures in return for research and development activities over a contractually defined period, as well as an allocated portion of our overhead expenses. Revenues from government grants are recognized in the period during which the related costs are incurred, provided that substantially all conditions under which the government grants were provided have been met and we only have perfunctory obligations outstanding.

 

 

Research and Development Fees.  Generally, fees for research and development activities are recognized as the services are performed over the performance period, as specified in the respective agreements. Certain of our collaboration agreements require us to deliver research data by specific dates and that the collective program plan will result in reaching specific crop characteristics by certain dates. For such arrangements, we recognize revenues either on a straight-line basis over the term of the arrangement or based on the approximate percentage of completion of servicescompleted contract method under the agreement, but the revenue recognized cannot exceed the payments that have accrued to us to date under the agreement. The research and development period is estimated at the inception of each agreement and is periodically evaluated.

 

 

Milestone Payments.  Fees that are contingent upon achievement of substantive performance milestones at inception of the agreement are recognized based on the achievement of the milestone, as defined in the respective agreements.

We recognize deferred revenue to the extent that cash received under the collaboration agreement is in excess of the revenues recognized related to the agreement since the work under the agreement has not yet been performed at the time of cash receipt.

43

In April 2002, we entered into a multi-year discovery and development collaboration with Monsanto Company, focused on applying genomics technologies to identify genes that provide improvements in corn, soybean and certain row crops. Pursuant to this agreement, Monsanto licensed rights to a portion of our trait discovery pipeline in certain other row crops in exchange for license payments over several years. Monsanto also funded a research program with us. Substantially all of our revenues through December 31, 2007 were earned through this agreement. The research and collaboration portion of the agreement expired in April 2007. However, the license portion of the agreement entitles us to royalties for any products that Monsanto commercializes using our technology licensed under the agreement. In 2010, we and Monsanto agreed to amend the agreement. The amendment included an additional license fee pertaining to an expansion of the license grant. In connection with the collaboration agreement, Monsanto also obtained an equity interest in us in the form of preferred stock which, at the time of the IPO, represented less than 5% of our common stock.

In December 2007, we entered into a development and license agreement with Campbell Soup Company, or Campbell. The agreement provided that we would receive $7.5 million in payments from Campbell over a five-year period provided milestones were met. In addition, the agreement provided that we would be entitled to receive a royalty based on the gross sales of crop varieties created under the agreement. In December 2011, the

development and license agreement was amended to extend the $7.5 million in payments from Campbell over a six-year period. We recognized revenue of $0.9 million, $1.7 million and $1.9 million under this agreement in the years ended August 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. On November 19, 2012, the development and license agreement was terminated and cancelled following Campbell’s sale of its vegetable seed assets to a third party. In connection with the termination, Campbell will pay us the amount of $0.55 million of the remaining $0.63 million due under the agreement, which would otherwise have become payable by Campbell in 2013, in full and complete satisfaction of all remaining financial obligations under the development and license agreement.

We have earned research funding revenues from several agreements with the DOE, the USDA, USAID and several leading biofuel producers whereby we performed research activities and received revenues that partially reimbursed our expenses incurred. Under such grants and agreements, we retained a proprietary interest in the products and technology we developed. These expense reimbursements primarily consisted of direct expense sharing arrangements. We recorded revenue related to these grants of approximately $2.4 million, $3.1$1.0 million and $2.8$1.4 million in the years ended August 31, 2012, 20112015 and 2010,2014, respectively. The cumulative remaining amount to be claimed for all grants outstanding as of August 31, 2012 is approximately $2.2 million.

On December 16, 2008, we entered into a software license

Software and collaboration agreement with Syngenta pursuant to which we provided software, software development and customer support for certain research application-based software. The agreement was structured into three phases and under the agreement, we received $1.5 million in payments over an approximate 4.5 year period. The software delivered is comprised of multiple elements, which include software, installation, training, customization of software, and software support. On April 16, 2012, the agreement was amended to reflect Syngenta’s acceptance of all software and software support services provided under the original agreement and to allow for the continuation of certain software support services during a post development support period beginning April 16, 2012 and extending until all services are terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement. We recognized revenues equal to the amount of expense recognized as services were rendered until April 15, 2012, when the software support became the only undelivered element. Beginning April 16, 2012, the unrecognized revenue under the agreement is being recognized ratably over the remaining software support period. We recognized revenue totaling $0.8 million, $0.2 million and $0.3 million under this agreement inServices

During the years ended August 31, 2012, 20112015 and 2010, respectively.2014, we provided services related to software arrangements that involve (1) significant production, modification or customization and (2) PCS. The customer has the option, annually, to extend the arrangement or elect to receive only maintenance. We do not have vendor specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) related to these components. In addition, there are substantive acceptance provisions related to the production, modification or customization. We apply the completed contract method to these arrangements. However, only costs related to the production, modification or customization are deferred. Revenue is recognized upon acceptance of the production, modification or customization as that is later than the expiration of the annual PCS period. Revenue related to these arrangements was $0.7 million and $0.3 million in 2015 and 2014.

We also had an arrangement that included a license, installation services and PCS. As we do not have VSOE for the elements, we have deferred revenue until PCS is the only undelivered element and will recognize revenue over the remaining PCS period. There was no revenue related to this arrangement during 2015 and 2014.

Billings in Excess of Costs

We recognize billings in excess of costs to the extent that cash received under the software and service arrangements are in excess of the revenues recognized related to the arrangements since the work under the arrangements have not yet been performed, or the work has not been fully completed at the balance sheet date, which is classified as other current liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2012, ARPA-E, Campbell Soup Company,2015, USAID, Syngenta, Exelus, Florida Crystals and SyngentaBayer represented 24.7%33.5%, 17.4%13.1%, 16.8%12.2%, 11.9% and 14.0%10.4% of our revenues, respectively. For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011, Campbell, Amyris, Inc.2014, USAID, ARPA-E, Exelus, and Syngenta represented 41.9%, ARPA-E17.5%, 16.5% and USAID represented 25.4%, 20.9%, 20.5% and 16.6%11.6% of our revenues, respectively.

Convertible Notes and Warrant Modification

In August 2011, we completed the sale of $11.4 million aggregate principal amount of the Convertible Notes to nine existing investors in the Company in a private placement. The Convertible Notes were convertible, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein, into shares of our common stock upon the consummation of a qualified initial public offering of our common stock at a price per share equal to 20% discount from the public offering price, or $10.40. Purchasers of the Convertible Notes included holders of more than 5% of our outstanding capital stock and affiliates of certain of our directors. Additionally, so long as any investors who held warrants to purchase shares of our common stock issued in connection with certain of our preferred stock financings purchased at least their respective full pro rata portion of the Convertible Notes being offered, we agreed to amend the termination provisions of such investors existing warrants such that the warrants no longer expired upon our initial public offering. In January 2012, we amended the Convertible Notes such that the notes would have automatically converted into shares of convertible preferred stock had the initial public offering not consummated by June 30, 2012.

In connection with the offering of the Convertible Notes, warrants to purchase 539,972 shares of common stock issued in connection with our Series F Preferred Stock offering, or the Modified F warrants and all of the warrants issued in connection with our Series G Preferred Stock offering were amended such that they would no longer expire upon the completion of a qualified initial public offering at a price per share greater than or equal to $19.50 per share (subject to certain adjustments) and resulting in aggregate gross proceeds to us and any selling security holders of $40.0 million or more. Warrants to purchase 229,257 shares of common stock issued in connection with the Series F Preferred Stock offering, or the Non-Modified F warrants were not amended and remain outstanding.

We calculated the fair value of the Modified F warrants and the Series G Warrants immediately prior to and subsequent to the modification and determined that the cumulative incremental increase in the fair value of these liability classified warrants associated with this modification to be $9.6 million. Accordingly, we recorded the change in value to other income (expense) in August 2011.

Until such time as the conversion features were triggered, we accounted for the Convertible Notes and various embedded derivatives in accordance with ASC 825-10, the Fair Value Option for Financial Liabilities, whereby we initially and subsequently measured this financial instrument in its entirety at fair value, with the changes in fair value recorded each quarterly reporting period in other income (expense).

We obtained the assistance of a third-party valuation firm in estimating that the fair market value of the Convertible Notes as of August 31, 2011 was $13.6 million. We estimated the fair value of the Convertible Notes upon the closing of the IPO to be $14.3 million. Accordingly, the change in fair value was recorded in other income (expense).

Upon closing of the IPO, the Convertible Notes were revalued and converted into 1,098,575 shares of common stock.

Stock-Based Compensation

We recognize compensation expense related to stock-based compensation, including the awarding of employee and non-employee stock options, based on the grant date estimated fair value. We amortize the fair value of the employee stock options on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of the award, which is generally the vesting period. Options granted to non-employees are re-measured as the services are performed and the options vest, and any resulting change in value is recognized as expense during the period the related services are rendered. We account for restricted stock grants issued based on the fair market value of our common stock.Common Stock. We estimate the fair value of stock-based compensation awards using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which requires judgments to be made, including estimating: (i) the expected life of an award; (ii) stock price volatility; and (iii) prior to the IPO, estimating the fair value of our common stock.Common Stock.

The Black-Scholes option-pricing model calculates the estimated fair value of stock options using the following inputs: (i) expected life; (ii) expected volatility; (iii) risk-free interest rate; (iv) expected dividend yield rate; (v) exercise price; and (vi) closing price of our common stockCommon Stock on the date of grant. Due to our limited history of grant activity, we calculate our expected term utilizing the “simplified method” permitted by the SEC, which is the average of the total contractual term of the option and its vesting period. We calculate our expected volatility rate from the historical volatilities of selected comparable public companies within our industry, due to a lack of historical information regarding the volatility of our stock price. We will continue to analyze the historical stock price volatility assumption as more historical data for our common stockCommon Stock becomes available. The risk-free interest rate is based on the USU.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for zero coupon USU.S. Treasury notes with maturities similar to the option’s expected term. No dividends are expectedWe do not expect to be paid.pay dividends. Forfeitures have been estimated based upon our historical and expected forfeiture experience.

44

The estimated fair value of a stock option using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model is impacted significantly by changes in a company’s stock price. For example, all other assumptions being equal, the estimated fair value of a stock option will increase as the closing price of a company’s stock increases, and vice versa. Prior to the closing of the IPO, we were a private company and, as such, we were required to estimate the fair value of our common stock. In the absence of a public trading market, we determined a reasonable estimate of the then-current fair value of our common stockCommon Stock for purposes of granting stock-based compensation based on multiple criteria. We estimated the fair value of our common stockCommon Stock utilizing methodologies, approaches and assumptions consistent with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid, “Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation”, ”, or the AICPA Practice Aid. After the closing

Fair Value of the IPO, the fair value of our common stock is no longer an estimate as it is based upon the closing price of our stock on the NASDAQ Global Market on the date of grant.

Common and Preferred Stock Warrants Financing

Liability Classified Warrants to Purchase Common Stock

In connection with our Series F Preferred Stock offering in September 2007, we

We issued warrants to purchase 769,229 shares ofour common stock at an exercise pricein connection with issuances of $19.50 per share. Theour common stock. We account for these warrants as liabilities as the warrants are immediately exercisable. These warrants were reported as a liability at fair value as of each balance sheet date priornot considered indexed to the IPO. Upon the closing of the IPO, these warrants no longer met the requirements for liability classification. As such, these warrants were valued as of the closing date of the IPO with changes being recorded to the statement of operations and were reclassified to additional paid-in capital.

Upon the closing of the IPO, the Company estimated the fair value of the Non-Modified F Warrants and the Modified F warrants to be $6.3 million based on a risk free rate of 0.40%, expected volatility of 89%, expected term of 3.5 years and 0% dividend yield. The fair value of the Non-Modified F warrants at August 31, 2011 was estimated to be $1.2 million based on a risk free rate of 0.41%, expected volatility of 86%, expected term of 1.9 years and 0% dividend yield. The estimated fair value of the Modified F warrants at August 31, 2011 was $5.5 million based on a risk free rate of 0.96%, expected volatility of 98%, expected term of 4.0 years and 0% dividend yield.

In connection with our Series G Preferred Stock offering in June 2010, the Company issued warrants to purchase 1,025,640 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $19.50 per share. The warrants are immediately exercisable. These warrants were reported as a liability at fair value as of each balance sheet date prior to the IPO. Upon the closing of the IPO, the common stock warrants no longer met the requirements for liability classification. The warrants were valued as of the closing date of the IPO with changes being recorded to the statement of operations and were reclassified to additional paid-in capital.

Upon the closing of the IPO, the Company estimatedstock. We estimate the fair value of these warrants to be $10.6 million based on a risk free rate of 1.64%, expected volatility of 73%, expected term of 8.3 years and 0% dividend yield. The fair value of the warrants at August 31, 2011 was estimated to be $10.8 million based on a risk free rate of 2.23%, expected volatility of 66%, expected term of 8.8 years and 0% dividend yield.

Liability Classified Warrants to Purchase Convertible Preferred Stock

Prior to the IPO, we issued warrants to purchase shares of our convertible preferred stock, or the Preferred

Stock Warrants, in connection with certain financing arrangements. We accounted for these warrants as liabilities

because the underlying shares of convertible preferred stock were redeemable in the case of a deemed

liquidation. We estimated the fair value of our Preferred Stock Warrants using an option-pricingoption pricing model, which

incorporated incorporates several estimates and assumptions that wereare subject to significant management judgment. Changes

in fair value at each period end wereperiod-end are recorded in other income (expense) in our consolidated statement of

operations.

Upon operation until the closingearlier of the IPO, the Preferred Stock Warrants no longer met the requirements for liability

classification. The warrants were valued asexercise or expiration of the closing date with changes being recorded to the statement ofwarrants.

operations and were reclassified to additional paid-in capital.

Upon closing of the IPO, the Company estimated the fair value of these warrants to be $0.2 million based on a risk free rate of 1.35%, expected volatility of 81%, expected term of 7.96 - 8.01 years and 0% dividend yield. The estimated fair value of the warrants at August 31, 2011 was $0.3 million based on a risk free rate of 1.90%, expected volatility of 66%, expected term of 8.5 years and 0% dividend yield.

Seed Inventory

At August 31, 2012, inventory consisted of work-in-process and finished good costs related to sweet sorghum seeds. Inventory costs are computed on a first-in, first-out basis and valued at the lower of cost or market with any excess cost recognized during the period within cost of product sales. A full valuation reserve has been recorded on all other seed products as no established market exists.

At August 31, 2011, a full valuation reserve was recorded against all seed inventory due to the early commercialization of the Company’s seed products and no established market for the these products.

Income Taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are

recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying

amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. We record a valuation allowance when it is more likely than not that some of our net deferred tax assets will not be realized. In determining the need for valuation allowances, we consider our projected future taxable income and the availability of tax planning strategies. We have recorded a full valuation allowance to reduce our net deferred tax assets to zero except to the extent of federal credits refundable in 2009 and 2010 because we have determined that it is more likely than not that our net deferred tax assets will not be realized. If in the future we determine that we will be able to realize any of our net deferred tax assets, we will make an adjustment to the allowance, which would increase our income in the period that the determination is made.

We operate in various tax jurisdictions and are subject to audit by various tax authorities. We recognize the effect of income tax positions only if those positions are more likely than not of being sustained. Recognized income tax positions are measured at the largest amount that is greater than 50% likely of being realized. Changes in recognition or measurement are reflected in the period in which the change in judgment occurs.

Assets Held for Sale

We reclassify long-lived assets to Assets Held for Sale when all required criteria for such reclassification are met. The assets are recorded at the lower of the carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. Assets held for sale must meet the following conditions: (1) management, having authority to approve the action, commits to a plan to sell the asset, (2) the asset is available for immediate sale in its present condition, (3) an active program to locate a buyer and other actions required to complete the plan to sell the asset have been initiated, (4) the sale of the asset is probable, and transfer of the asset is expected to qualify for recognition as a completed sale, within one year, (5) the asset is being actively marketed for sale at a price that is reasonable in relation to its current fair value, and (6) actions required to complete the plan indicate that it is unlikely that significant changes to the plan will be made or that the plan will be withdrawn.

In connection with an agreement we entered into on March 31, 2014 to sell our facility and certain equipment located in College Station, Texas, a determination was made that the assets met the criteria to be classified as held for sale and the fair value for the related assets was in excess of their carrying amount. Accordingly, during 2014, we recorded a charge of $0.5 million to research and development expense for the difference between the net carrying amount of these assets of $1.2 million and the net cash proceeds of $0.7 million. On June 2, 2014, we completed the sale of this facility and equipment for net cash proceeds of approximately $0.7 million.

45

In connection with the announcement we made on June 19, 2015, to restructure our Brazilian seed operations, a determination was made that the fixed assets in Brazil met the criteria to be classified as held for sale and the carrying amount of those assets was in excess of their fair value. Accordingly, we recorded a charge of $0.4 million to cost of product sales, research and development and general and administrative expense for the difference between the net carrying value of these assets of $0.9 million and estimated net cash proceeds of $0.5 million. Fair value of the assets held for sale was determined using an appraisal for certain assets and resale information available for certain assets.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived assets, such as property and equipment, are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Our long-lived assets comprise a single asset group for evaluation purposes. We evaluate whether an impairment indicator occurs primarily based on progress achieved against our business plans. To the extent that an impairment indicator has occurred, recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated undiscounted future cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized in the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the fair value of the asset. For all periods presented herein, no impairment indicators have occurred and therefore no impairment charges have been recognized.

On February 3, 2012 our plant breeding and field research station located near College Station, Texas was damaged by a tornado. The impact was limited to structural damage to the building that houses office space, a small laboratory used to evaluate biomass samples and workspace, the small tractor sheds, and damage to some agricultural equipment.

At August 31, 2012, our impairment in assets related to the damage at the Texas facility was $1.0 million, and we had received insurance proceeds of $1.0 million for repair costs. The remainder of the repairs, will also be covered by insurance, subject to our deductible, were largely completed by September 2012.

Results of Operations

The following table sets forth our consolidated results of operations for the periods shown (in thousands):

 

 Year Ended August 31, 
  Year Ended August 31,  2015  2014 
Revenues:        
Product sales $434  $146 
Services  2,286   2,258 
Total revenues  2,720   2,404 
  2012 2011 2010         

Revenues

    

Product sales

  $432   $116   $288  

Collaborative research and government grants

   4,939    6,500    6,326  
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Total revenue

   5,371    6,616    6,614  
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Cost and operating expenses

    
Cost and operating expenses:        

Cost of product sales

   2,384    2,492    2,946    5,267   3,021 

Research and development

   19,155    19,014    16,697    9,684   14,156 

Selling, general and administrative

   12,634    10,008    9,207    15,946   14,484 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Total cost and operating expenses

   34,173    31,514    28,850    30,897   31,661 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Loss from operations

   (28,802  (24,898  (22,236  (28,177)  (29,257)

Interest expense

   (560  (456  (153  (30)  (68)

Interest income

   39    7    23    28   5 

Other income (expense)

   (84  (11,020  (152
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Other income  24   - 

Loss before income taxes

   (29,407  (36,367  (22,518  (28,155)  (29,320)

Income tax benefit (expense)

   (3  31    (65
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Income tax expense  (1)  (1)

Net loss

  $(29,410 $(36,336 $(22,583 $(28,156) $(29,321)
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

46

Comparison of Years Ended August 31, 20122015 and 20112014

Revenues

 

   Year Ended
August  31,
     
   2012   2011   Change 
   (In thousands) 

Product sales

  $432    $116    $316  

Collaborative research and government grants

   4,939     6,500     (1,561
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenue

  $5,371    $6,616    $(1,245
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
  Year Ended    
  August 31,    
  2015  2014  Change 
  (In thousands) 
Product sales $434  $146  $288 
Services  2,286   2,258   28
Total revenues $2,720  $2,404  $316 

Our total revenues decreasedincreased by $1.2$0.3 million to $5.4$2.7 million for the year ended August 31, 20122015 compared to the year ended August 31, 2011. The decrease was primarily driven2014. Product sales increased by a decrease in collaborative research and government grants of approximately $1.5 million as a result of decreased activity under our various grants and collaborations, offset by an increase in product sales of approximately $0.3 million primarily as a resultdue to increased biomass sales which resulted from the expansion of initiatingour sales incentive and promotional programs for the 2014-2015 sorghum growing season in Brazil. Services revenue remained relatively unchanged at $2.3 million. Within Services, software revenue increased by $0.4 million, which was offset by decreased revenue recognized under our collaborative research programs of sweet sorghum seeds in Brazil during the year ended August 31, 2012.

$0.4 million.

Cost and Operating Expenses

 

 Year Ended    
  Year Ended
August 31,
      August 31,    
  2012   2011   Change  2015  2014  Change 
  (In thousands)  (In thousands) 

Cost of product sales

  $2,384    $2,492    $(108 $5,267  $3,021  $2,246 

Research and development

   19,155     19,014     141    9,684   14,156  $(4,472)

Selling, general and administrative

   12,634     10,008     2,626    15,946   14,484  $1,462 
  

 

   

 

   

 

 

Total cost and operating expenses

  $34,173    $31,514    $2,659   $30,897  $31,661  $(764)
  

 

   

 

   

 

 

Cost of Product Sales

Our cost of product sales decreasedincreased by $0.1$2.2 million to $2.4$5.3 million for the year ended August 31, 20122015 compared to the same period in the prior year.year ended August 31, 2014. The decreaseincrease was primarily driven by a $0.2due to increased expenses of $1.9 million decreaseresulting from increases in grower contractscrop management services performed under our sales incentive and associated agricultural supplies as we reduced our seed production and related costs of seed productionpromotional programs for certain products targeting the U.S. biomass-to-bioenergy market, which was offset by increased costs2014-2015 growing season in Brazil, and due to $0.3 million of $0.1 millionincreased expenses related to obsolete seed inventory. As a result of the restructuring of our sweet sorghum seed sales.Brazil operations, we do not expect to incur costs for crop management services in our next fiscal year ended August 21, 2016.

Research and Development Expenses

Our research and development expense increasedexpenses decreased by $0.1$4.5 million to $19.2$9.7 million for the year ended August 31, 20122015 compared to the year ended August 31, 2011. This increase is partially attributable to increased2014. In the U.S., research and development expense in Brazil of $1.7expenses decreased by $4.2 million relatingprimarily due to additionalreduced personnel and costs associated with our Brazil sorghum breeding and agronomy operations. The remaining increase is attributable to an increase in personnel and other related overhead expense in the United Statesexpenses of $0.6 million. These cost increases were offset by$3.1 million, reduced expenses related to our warrants issued in connection with our collaborations of $1.8 million and reduced costs in consulting, licensing and external research and development and licensing expenses of $0.4$0.3 million, and reduced laboratory and agricultural supply costs of $0.8 million. In Brazil, research and development expenses decreased by $0.3 million as a result of decreased personnel and related expenses.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Our selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $2.6$1.5 million to $12.6$15.9 million for the year ended August 31, 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year. The increase is attributable to an increase in personnel and other related administrative expense of $1.4 million in the United States, legal and accounting fees of $0.8 million, and an increase of $0.4 million in personnel and related administrative expense related to our activities in Brazil.

Interest Expense, Interest Income and Other Income (Expense)

   Year Ended
August  31,
    
   2012  2011  Change 
   (In thousands) 

Interest expense

  $(560 $(456 $(104

Interest income

   39    7    32  

Other income (expense)

   (84  (11,020  10,936  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $(605 $(11,469 $10,864  
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Interest Expense

Interest expense increased by $0.1 million in the year ended August 31, 20122015 compared to the year ended August 31, 2011. The increase was partially2014. In Brazil expenses increased by $1.7 million primarilyas a result of higher debt balances duringincreased expenditures related to building our market presence and business infrastructure, and supporting the business activities related to our sales incentive and promotional programs. In theU.S., expenses decreased by $0.2 million primarily due to reduced personnel and related expense of $1.0 million which was mostly offset by increased legal and professional and patent expenses of $0.8 million.

47

Interest Expense, Interest Income and Other (Expense) Income

  Year Ended    
  August 31,    
  2015  2014  Change 
  (In thousands) 
Interest expense $(30) $(68) $38 
Interest income  28   5   23 
Other income  24   -   24 
Total $22  $(63) $85 

Interest Expense

Interest expense decreased $38,000 for the year ended August 31, 2012 and additional interest charges recorded in May 2012 for2015 compared to the loan discountprior year. The decrease is related to the repayment of all

our Brazil operations.

debt owed under our Loan Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank in connection with our termination of the Loan Agreement.

Interest Income

Interest income increased by $32,000 in$23,000 for the year ended August 31, 20122015 compared to the prior year. The increase was primarily due to higher averagerates of return from our invested cash invested balances.balances in Brazil.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) decreasedincreased by $10.9 million in the year ended August 31, 2012 compared$24,000 due to the year ended August 31, 2011. Other income (expense) was higher for the year ended August 31, 2011 which primarily related to the charge of $9.6 million related to the modification of liability classified warrants and the charge of $2.2 million upon issuance of our Convertible Notes. The remaining change was the result of fair value changes associated with our warrants which, upon completion of the IPO, are no longer marked-to-market, and as a result of the changes in the price of our stock for the comparable periods.

Comparison of Year Ended August 31, 2011 and 2010

Revenues

   August 31,
Year  Ended
     
   2011   2010   Change 
   (In thousands) 

Product sales

  $116    $288    $(172

Collaborative research and government grants

   6,500     6,326     174  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total revenue

  $6,616    $6,614    $2  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Our total revenues were $6.6 million in the year ended August 31, 2011 and 2010. In 2011, revenue for collaborative research and government grants increased by $0.2 million which was offset by a $0.2 million decrease in product sales. Product sales in the years ended August 31, 2011 and 2010 reflect seed sales in the U.S. and were primarily related to our relationships with our collaborators. The decline in product sales in the year ended August 31, 2011 was primarily a result of fluctuations in the amount of seed testing performed by our U.S. collaborators.

Cost and Operating Expenses

   Year Ended
August 31,
     
   2011   2010   Change 
   (In thousands) 

Cost of product sales

  $2,492    $2,946    $(454

Research and development

   19,014     16,697     2,317  

Selling, general and administrative

   10,008     9,207     801  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total cost and operating expenses

  $31,514    $28,850    $2,664  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cost of Product Sales

Our cost of product sales decreased by $0.5 million to $2.5 million in the year ended August 31, 2011 compared to the year ended August 31, 2010. Cost of grower contracts and associated agricultural supplies decreased by $0.5 million as we reduced our production and related costs of production for our switchgrass product during 2011.

Research and Development Expenses

Our research and development expense increased by $2.3 million for the year ended August 31, 2011 compared to the year ended August 31, 2010. Of the $2.3 million increase, $1.5 million was related to the mark tofair market valuation of our warrants and stock option expense which resulted from an increase in value of our common stock forwarrants issued in connection with the comparative periods and a $0.4 million increase in personnel expense. The remaining increase is attributable to an increase in our licensing fees by $0.1 million and an increase in our consulting and travel expense by $0.3 million.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Our selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $0.8 million to $10.0 million in the year ended August 31, 2011 compared to the prior year. This increase is attributable to an increase in legal and accounting fees of $0.8 million resulting from increased expense for our audits, interim reviews and other accounting, administrative and legal related expenses.

Interest Expense, Interest Income and Other Income (Expense)

   August 31,
Year Ended
    
   2011  2010  Change 
   (In thousands) 

Interest expense

  $(456 $(153 $(303

Interest income

   7    23    (16

Other income (expense)

   (11,020  (152  (10,868
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $(11,469 $(282 $(11,187
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Interest expense, interest income and other income (expense) increased by $11.2 million in the year ended August 31, 2011 compared to the prior year. The increase was primarily the result of a charge of $9.6 million related to the modification of liability classified warrants and a charge of $2.2 million upon issuance of the Convertible Notes, and higher interest expense of $0.3 million partially offset by the fair value changes associated with our warrant valuations and Convertible Notes.

Interest Expense

Interest expense increased by $0.3 million in the year ended August 31, 2011 compared to the prior year. The increase was primarily related to borrowings in FebruaryJuly and August 2010 under our Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank.2015 financings.

Interest Income

Interest income decreased by $16,000 in the year ended August 31, 2011 compared to the prior year. The decrease was primarily the result of lower average cash invested balances.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) increased by $10.9 million to $11.0 million for the year ended August 31, 2011 compared to $0.1 million for the year ended August 31, 2010. The increase is the result of a charge of $9.6 million related to the modification of liability classified warrants and a charge of $2.2 million upon issuance of the Convertible Notes. The remaining change was the result of the fair value changes associated with our warrant valuations and Convertible Notes.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. We expect to incur further losses in the operations of our inception, webusiness and have fundedbeen dependent on funding our operations through the issuance and sale of preferred stock, warrants, Convertible Notes, collaborative research and government grant revenues, and borrowings under financing arrangements. Asequity securities. Our accumulated deficit as of August 31, 2012, our2015 was $332.1 million. Our cash and cash equivalents totaled $21.1 million.of $8.1 million as of August 31, 2015 is not sufficient to enable us to remain in business beyond January 2016 without raising further capital or significantly curtailing our operations. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern. Therefore, you should not rely on our consolidated financial statements as an indication of the amount of proceeds that would be available to satisfy claims of creditors, and potentially be available for distribution to stockholders, in the event of liquidation.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant net losses, and, as of August 31, 2012,2015, we had an accumulated deficit of $242.1$332.1 million. We expect to incur additional losses related to the continued development and expansion of our business including research and development, seed production and operations, and sales and marketing. There is also no assurance that we will achieve profitable operations, will be achieved, or if achieved, that we can be sustainedsustain them on a continued basis.

Historically, we have funded our operations with payments from collaborators and government grants and the proceeds from issuances of Common Stock, convertible preferred stock, warrants, convertible notes and debt financing. We have experienced significant losses as we invested heavily in research and development and marketing, and those costs have exceeded revenues. We will continue to need capital to fund our research and development projects, to commercialize our products and to provide working capital to fund other aspects of our business. The Company is evaluating opportunities to secure additional financing, including the issuance of equity or debt, sale or divesture of business units, and additional revenues from grants or collaborations. However there are no assurances that such opportunities will be available or available on terms that are acceptable to the Company. If we fail to raise sufficient funds and continue to incur losses, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage of strategic opportunities, develop and commercialize products or technologies, or otherwise respond to competitive pressures will be significantly limited. If this happens, we may be forced to obtain funds through collaborative and licensing arrangements that may require us to relinquish commercial rights, grant licenses to our technology and sell assets on terms that are not favorable to us or delay or terminate research and development programs or the commercialization of products or significantly curtail or cease our operations.

On February 27, 2012,July 30, 2015, we completed our IPOa registered public offering of 5,750,000an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company, at an offering price of $1.296 per share for estimated net proceeds of approximately $1.0 million, after deducting the placement agent fee and related offering expenses. In a concurrent private placement, we agreed to issue warrants exercisable for one share of Common Stock for each share purchased in the July 30, 2015 offering for an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.62 per share. The warrants are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on January 30, 2016 and expire on January 30, 2021. We also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 24,000 shares of our common stockCommon Stock at an exercise price of $1.944 per share to the placement agent as part of the placement agent’s compensation. The warrants issued to the placement agent are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on July 30, 2016 and expire on July 30, 2020.

48

On August 26, 2015, we completed a registered public offering of an aggregate of 1,598,478 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company, at an offering price of $1.22 per share for estimated net proceeds, together with the concurrent private placement, of approximately $1.7 million, after deducting the placement agent fee and related offering expenses. In a concurrent private placement, we agreed to issue warrants exercisable for 0.75 shares of Common Stock for each share purchased in the August 26, 2015 offering for an aggregate of 1,198,859 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.22 per share. The warrants are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on February 26, 2016 and expire on February 26, 2021. We also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 31,970 shares of our Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.83 per share to the placement agent as part of the placement agent’s compensation. The warrants issued to the placement agent are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on August 26, 2016 and expire on August 26, 2020.

On March 10, 2014, we completed a registered public offering of 2,875,000 shares of our Common Stock (including 750,000375,000 shares purchased by the underwritersunderwriter upon the exercise in full of their right to purchase up to an additional 750,000 shares)375,000 shares to cover over-allotments) at a price to the public of $13.00$8.00 per share. We receivedshare, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $65.2$20.8 million, of proceeds from the offering, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. We also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 60,000 shares of our Common Stock to certain affiliated designees of the underwriter as part of the underwriter’s compensation. The warrants are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on March 4, 2015 and expire on March 4, 2019. The exercise price is $12.00 per share of Common Stock.

We believe

On October 11, 2013, we commenced the implementation of a plan (Plan) intended to further align expenditures with our near-term commercial opportunity in Brazil, shift Northern Hemisphere sorghum breeding activities from College Station, Texas to a more appropriate location, de-emphasize research and development for U.S. cellulosic feedstocks, reduce costs and conserve cash. The actions taken under the Plan, which included, among others, a workforce reduction that our existingimpacted 16 positions in the U.S, were completed at August 31, 2014. During 2014, we incurred total charges of approximately $1.6 million with respect to the U.S. workforce reductions, including $0.9 million of one-time severance expenses, $0.4 million for continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work was completed and $0.3 million of other costs. Of the $1.6 million of cash payments made during 2014, $1.0 million, $0.5 million and cash equivalents and marketable securities will provide adequate resources$0.1 million was recorded to fund our operations, including research and development expenses, planned capital expenditurescost of sales and working capital requirements for at least the next 12 months. In order to fund our operations beyond that time, we may need to raise additional funds through the issuance of equity, equity-related or debt securities or through obtaining credit from government or financial institutions. We cannot be certain that additional funds will be available to us on favorable terms when required, or at all.general and administrative expenses, respectively.

Capital Expenditures

For the years ended August 31, 2012, 20112015 and 20102014, we used $1.3 million, $0.5$0.4 million and $2.1$1.0 million, respectively, in cash to fund capital expenditures. We currently anticipate making aggregate capital expenditures of between $1.0$0.1 million and $2.0$0.5 million for the year ended August 31, 2013.2016.

The following table sets forth a summary of our cash flows for the periods indicated (in thousands):

 

  Year Ended August 31,  Year Ended August 31, 
  2012 2011 2010  2015  2014 

Net cash used in operating activities

  $(25,312 $(20,007 $(18,846 $(23,217) $(22,563)

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

   (36,543  (436  10,372    24,069   (3,589)

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   61,275    9,326    26,569    2,725   20,592 

Cash Flows from Operating Activities

For all periods presented, we have incurred net losses and net cash used in operating activities. The net cash used in operating activities primarily resulted from significant research and development expenses and seed production costs to develop and produce our seeds and traits. Such expenses and costs have exceeded our revenues, which have primarily been generated from collaborative research and government grants and, to a much lesser extent, product sales.

Net cash outflows of $25.3$23.2 million from operating activities during the year ended August 31, 20122015 primarily resulted from our net loss of $29.4$28.2 million, which was partially offset by non-cash charges of $4.1$3.6 million and changes in operating assets of $1.4 million. Non-cash charges primarily included $2.1 million in depreciation expense, $1.9$2.3 million in stock-based compensation expense, and $0.1$0.7 million in the fair value of warrantsdepreciation expense, and Convertible Notes. Net$0.5 million in asset impairment. The net change in our operating assets and liabilities was flat and consists$1.4 million, primarily consisting of a $2.8 million decrease in deferred offering costs, a $0.5 million decrease in accounts receivable, a $0.1 million decrease in other assets, which was offset by a $1.8

decreasean increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses a $0.3of $0.9 million, decrease in deferred revenue and deferred rent, a $0.8 millionan increase in inventory and a $0.4 million increasebillings in prepaid expenses.excess of cost of $0.5 million.

49

Net cash outflows of $20.0$22.6 million from operating activities during the year ended August 31, 20112014 primarily resulted from our net loss of $36.3$29.3 million, and an increase of $2.8 million in deferred costs associated with our initial public offering. These were partially offset by an increase of $3.2 million in our accounts payable and $0.2 million in deferred revenue. These uses of cash werewhich was partially offset by non-cash items, including $11.0charges of $5.4 million associated with the modification and changes in fair valueoperating assets of warrants$1.4 million. Non-cash charges primarily included $1.5 million in depreciation expense, $0.3 million in amortization of discounts on marketable securities and debt, $2.7$3.1 million of stock basedin stock-based compensation expenseexpense. The net change in our operating assets and $2.1liabilities was $1.3 million, of depreciation expense.

Net cash outflows of $18.8 million from operating activities during the year ended August 31, 2010 primarily resulted from our net lossconsisting of $22.6 million, an increase in accounts receivables of $0.7 million and a decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $0.3 million. These uses$0.4 million, an increase in billings in excess of cash were partially offset by non-cash items, including $2.4cost of $0.4 million in depreciation expense and $1.3 million in stock-based compensation expense, and a $0.4 million increasedecrease in deferred revenue.accounts receivable of $0.6 million.

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

Our investing activities consisted primarily of net investment purchases, maturities of investments and capital expenditures.

Net cash provided by investing activities was $24.1 million during the year ended August 31, 2015, which resulted from the maturity of marketable securities of $25.1 million and proceeds from sale of property and equipment of $0.1 million, which was partially offset by the purchases of marketable securities of $0.7 million and purchases of property and equipment of $0.4 million.

Net cash used in investing activities was $36.5$3.6 million during the year ended August 31, 2012,2014, which includedresulted from the $39.2 million purchase of marketable securities of $33.1 million and $1.3 million paid forthe purchase of property and equipment purchases, partiallyof $1.0 million, which was mostly offset by $3.0the maturity of marketable securities of $29.7 million resultingand proceeds from the releasesale of restricted cashthe property and $1.0 million provided by insurance proceeds related to the tornado damage to our plant breeding and field research station located near College Station, Texas.equipment of $0.8 million.

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Net cash used by investinginflows of $2.7 million from finance activities of $0.4 million during the year ended August 31, 20112015 was attributabledue to purchases$2.8 million net proceeds from the issuance of propertycommon stock and equipment totaling $0.5 million,warrants in connection with our July and August 2015 financings, which was partially offset by proceeds from the sale$0.1 million of assets of $0.1 million.payments on capital leases.

Net cash provided by investinginflows of $20.6 million from finance activities of $10.4 million during the year ended August 31, 2010 primarily resulted from $15.4 million in maturities of investments, partially offset by a $2.9 million increase in restricted cash and investments and $2.1 million in purchases of property and equipment.

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities of $61.3 million during the year ended August 31, 20122014 was due to $20.8 million net IPO proceeds from the issuance of $65.2, borrowings under our Loan Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank of $2.5 million, andcommon stock option exercises of $0.5 million, offset by net principal debt repayments of approximately $6.9 million, including all amounts due and owing under our Loan Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank in connection with our termination of the Loan Agreement.

Net cash provided by financing activities of $9.3 million during the year ended August 31, 2011follow-on equity offering, which was primarily a result of the issuance of $11.4 million in Convertible Notes, partially offset by $2.2$0.2 million in principal repayments under our Loan Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank.

of payments on capital leases.

Contractual Obligations

The following is a summary of our contractual obligations as of August 31, 2012:2015:

 

      Year Ended August 31,   Year Ended
August 31,
2017 and

Beyond
     For Years Ended August 31, 

Contractual Obligations

  Total   2013   2014   2015   2016    Total  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020 and thereafter 
  (In thousands)  (In thousands)    

Operating Lease Obligations

  $1,266    $694    $441    $25    $15    $91   $2,527  $621   606  $618  631  $51 

Interest Payments Relating to Long-Term Debt

   5     2     2     1     —       —    

Research Collaboration Agreements

   10,704     2,524     2,178     2,617     2,772     613   $652   602   50   -   -   - 

Long-Term Debt

   390     134     213     43     —       —    
  

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 

Total

  $12,365    $3,354    $2,834    $2,686    $2,787    $704   $3,179  $1,223  $656  $618  631  $51 
  

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined under SEC rules, such as relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, which are often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, established for the purpose of facilitating financing transactions that are not required to be reflected on our consolidated balance sheets.

Seasonality

50

The sale of seeds isSeasonality

Product sales are dependent upon planting and growing seasons, which vary from year to year, and are expected to result in both highly seasonal patterns and substantial fluctuations in quarterly sales and profitability. Our product sales for the years ended August 31, 20122015 and 20112014 were minimal and, accordingly, we have not yet experienced the full nature or extent to which our business may be seasonal. We expect that the sale of our seeds in Brazil will typically be higher in our first and second fiscal quarters, due to the timing of the planting decisions made by our customers. As we increase our sales in our current markets, and as we expand into new markets in different geographies, it is possible we may experience different seasonality patterns in our business. Weather conditions and natural disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail, floods, tornadoes, freezing conditions, drought or fire, also affect decisions by our customers about the types and amounts of seeds to plant and the timing of harvesting and planting such seeds. Disruptions that cause delays by our customers in harvesting or planting can result in the movement of orders to a future quarter, which would negatively affect the quarter and cause fluctuations in our operating results.

Inflation

We believe that inflation has not had a material impact on our results of operations for the years ended August 31, 2012, 20112015 and 2010.2014. There can be no assurance that future inflation will not have an adverse impact on our operating results and financial condition.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

The information contained in Note (2)(1) to the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements under the heading recent accounting pronouncements“Recent Accounting Pronouncements” is hereby incorporated by reference in this Part I, Item 3.7.

Item 7A.    Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

We are exposed to the effect of interest rate changes, foreign currency fluctuations and changes in commodity prices. We are also exposed to changes in the general economic conditions in the countries where we conduct business, which currently is substantially all in the United States and Brazil.

Interest Rate Risk

As of August 31, 2012,2015, our exposure to risk for changes in interest rates primarily related to our cash equivalents and marketable securities. We have investments in money market funds, commercial paper and corporate bonds, which all have relatively short term maturities. Accordingly, our interest income fluctuates with short term market conditions. All marketable securities are classified as available for sale and are highly liquid. Due to the relatively short-term nature of our investments, we do not believe that there would be a significant negative impact to our consolidated financial position or results of operations as a result of interest rate fluctuations in the financial markets. While we believe our cash equivalents do not contain excessive risk, we cannot provide absolute assurance that in the future our investments will not be subject to adverse changes in market value. In addition, we maintain significant amounts of cash and cash equivalents at one or more financial institutions that are in excess of federally insured limits. We cannot assure you that we will not experience losses on these deposits.

Prior to completion of the IPO, our exposure to risk for changes in interest rates had primarily related to our equipment loans with Silicon Valley Bank, which were variable-rate debt obligations. At August 31, 2012,2015, we had paid off all amounts due and owing under the equipment loans and have limited interest rate risk related to our indebtedness.

Foreign Currency Risk

We have foreign currency risks related to our operating expenses denominated in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar. Changes in exchange rates between the U.S. Dollar and other currencies will result in increases or decreases in our costs and earnings, and also may affect the book value of our assets outside the United States. To date, most of our contracts have been entered into in the United States and accordingly have been denominated in U.S. Dollars. Going forward we anticipate that our sales will be denominated in the local currency of the country in which the sale occurs. In addition, our operating expenses to date have been denominated in the currencies of the countries in which our operations are located, primarily the United States and Brazil.

51

Through August 31, 2012,2015, the fluctuations in the Brazil Real for our operations in Brazil had no adverse impact on our results of operations as the U.S. Dollar has been strengthening against the Brazil Real. AsIf our international operations in Brazil were to grow, our results of operations and cash flows willwould become increasingly subject to fluctuations due to changes in the foreign currency exchange rates. In periods when the U.S. dollar declines in value as compared to the Brazil Real, our foreign-currency based expenses increase when translated into U.S. dollars. To date, we have not hedged the risks associated with foreign currency exchange exposure. As the risks associated with fluctuations in the Brazil Real become greater, we will continue to reassess our approach to managing this risk.

Commodity Risk

Our exposure to market risk for changes in commodity prices currently is minimal. As our commercial operations grow, our exposure will relate mostly to the demand side as our customers are highly exposed to fluctuations in prices of sugar and crude oil and somewhat exposed to fluctuations in agricultural commodities, especially soybean. For example, if the price of sugar, which is produced from sugarcane and which cannot be produced from sweet sorghum today, rises significantly relative to the price of ethanol, it may become more profitable for ethanol mill operators to grow sugarcane even in adverse conditions, such as through the expansion of sugarcane fields to marginal land or the extension of the sugarcane harvesting season. During sustained periods of significantly higher sugar prices, demand for our seeds may decrease, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results. We are also indirectly exposed to fluctuations in soft commodities prices like soybean when we negotiate production contracts with seed producers. We currently do not use derivative financial instruments to hedge any price volatility of agricultural commodities.

Item 8.Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

The consolidated financial statements and supplementary data required by Item 8 are contained in Item 7 and Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are incorporated herein by reference.

 

Item 9.Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A.Item 9A.    Controls and Procedures

(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act, that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act 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 financial disclosures.

We conducted an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rules 13a-15(b) and 15d-15(b) under the Exchange Act. Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of August 31, 2012.2015.

(b) Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

This Annual Report does not include a report of management’s assessment regarding

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, or an attestation reportas such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our independent registered public accounting firm due to a transition period established by rulesmanagement, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of the SECeffectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of August 31, 2015 based on the guidelines established inInternal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Our internal control over financial reporting includes policies and procedures that provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for newly public companies.external reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

52

A material weakness is a control deficiency or a combination of control deficiencies that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those responsible for oversight of the Company’s financial reporting. In connection with the Company’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, the Company identified the following material weaknesses that existed as of August 31, 2015:

Control Environment -We determined that our ability to evaluate the appropriate accounting for significant, unusual transactions and controls pertaining to risk assessment over these transactions did not operate effectively, resulting in a material weakness. Significant unusual transactions during the year ended August 31, 2015 included (a) the evaluation of the impact of the actions taken by the Company in Brazil, including the classification of assets held for sale; and (b) the issuance of liability classified warrants. This material weakness contributed to the other material weaknesses described below and an environment where there was more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the interim and annual consolidated financial statements could occur and not be prevented or detected. This material weakness had previously been identified as a significant deficiency as of August 31, 2014, but was not effectively remediated during the year ended August 31, 2015.
Control Activities – Expenses in Brazil.The design and operating effectiveness of our controls were inadequate to ensure that operating expenses in Brazil were reviewed and approved for accuracy and completeness and that we identified, accumulated and documented appropriate information necessary to support such expenses.
Control Activities - Revenue Recognition.The design and operating effectiveness of our controls were inadequate to ensure that the reported amount and timing of revenue recognition was accurate.

The Company also identified a significant deficiency, which was that the design of our controls over the accuracy of the year end financial statements was not at a sufficient level of precision.

Errors identified and corrected in our financial statements and the aforementioned material weaknesses and significant deficiency identified by management resulted in a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

As a result, management concluded that the Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of August 31, 2015.

The Company reviewed the results of management’s assessment with the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

Because we are an "emerging growth company" as defined in the JOBS Act, we are not currently required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements related to internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Management's Remediation Activities

During the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015, our Brazil operations were significantly reduced, including a significant reduction in headcount. Effective September 1, 2015 the Company engaged Grant Thornton to oversee all in-house accounting and financial reporting activities related to our Brazil subsidiary. We believe engaging Grant Thornton to oversee all in-house accounting and financial reporting activities related to our Brazil subsidiary and controls and the significant reduction in our activities in Brazil will remediate the material weakness related to our expenses in Brazil.  

With the oversight of senior management and our audit committee, we plan to retain an outside third-party to assist in the review, documentation and recommendation of appropriate accounting treatment for significant unusual transactions and revenue recognition and implement quarterly management controls review over such items going forward.

53

(c) Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

No

Other than the changes described above under “Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting,” there were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as definedidentified in connection with the evaluation required by paragraph (d) of Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act)13a-15 or 15d-15 that occurred during the quarterly period ended August 31, 2012our last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART III

Item 10.    Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT

Executive Officers and Directors

The following table sets forth information regarding our executive officers, directors and key employees as of November 7, 2012.10, 2015.

 

Name

 Age 

Position

Board of Directors:

  

Walter De Logi, Ph.D.Cheryl Morley(1)(2)(3)

 61 ChairmanChair of the Board

Pascal Brandys(1)

Brandys(1)
 5356 Director

Raymond Debbane(3)

Richard Flavell, Ph.D. (2)
 5772 Director

Richard Flavell,Robert Goldberg, Ph.D.

(3)
 6971 Director

Robert Goldberg, Ph.D.

Aflalo Guimaraes(2)(3)
 6846 Director

Richard Hamilton, Ph.D.

 5053 Director, President and Chief Executive Officer

Thomas Kiley(1)Kiley(1)(3)

 6972 Director

Steven Koonin, Ph. D.

  60 Director

Cheryl Morley(1)(2)

58Director

David B. Krieger(3)

39Director

Edmund Olivier(2)

74Director

Douglas Suttles

52Director

Other Executive Officers and Key Employees:

Paul Kuc

  50 
Paul Kuc  53 Chief Financial Officer

Wilfriede van Assche

 5760 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

J. Jefferson Gwyn,Roger Pennell, Ph.D.

 53Vice President of Breeding and Genomics

Michael Stephenson

70Vice President of Operations

Roger Pennell, Ph.D.

5356 Vice President of Trait Development

 

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

Our executive officers are elected by, and serve at the discretion of, our boardBoard of directors.Directors. There are no family relationships among any of our directors and executive officers.

54

Board of Directors

Walter De Logi, Ph.D., Chairman

Cheryl Morley, Chair of the Board

Dr. De Logi is one of the founders of Ceres and served as our President and Chief Executive Officer from the founding of the Company in 1996 until September 2002. Dr. De Logi

Ms. Morley has served on our boardBoard of directorsDirectors since our inceptionAugust 2011 and as ChairmanChair of the Board since September 2014. She was Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy with Monsanto Company from 2003 to 2009, president of the Animal Agricultural Group from 1997 to 2003 and held a number of other leadership positions at Monsanto and its subsidiaries from 1983 to 1997. Ms. Morley has served as a board member of Fleming Pharmaceuticals since March 2010 and the Missouri Botanical Gardens since June 2006. Ms. Morley has served as a board member and finance committee member for Mercy Health System since June 2012. From March 2009 to October 2010, she served as a board member for Mercy Health Plans. Ms. Morley was chair of the board and a member of the audit and compensation committees of the Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise from September 2003 to October 2010. She was presiding director, chair of the nominating and governance committee and a member of the audit committee for Indevus Pharmaceuticals from June 2002 to present. From 1986 to 1996, he was the Chief Executive Officer of Plant Genetic Systems, an eminent first-generation plant biotechnology company that was sold to Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH, now part of Bayer AG, in 1996. HeMarch 2009. She holds an M.B.A. from Harvard University and a Ph.D.B.S. degree from the California InstituteUniversity of Technology. Dr. De Logi was originally nominated to serve on our board of directors pursuant to the terms ofArizona and is a voting agreement. Dr. De LogiCertified Public Accountant. Ms. Morley brings extensive experience in finance, service on numerous boards and an understanding of the plant biotechnologyseed business to the boardour Board of directors.

Directors.

Pascal Brandys, Director

Mr. Brandys has served on our boardBoard of directors sinceDirectors from December 1997.1997 until March 2014. He rejoined the Board in September 2014. Mr. Brandys is the President and managing member of Biobank Technology Ventures, LLC, an early-stage life sciences investment company which he co-founded in 2001. He was previously a co-founder of the genomics company, Genset S.A., and also served as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from 1989 to 2000. Mr. Brandys is currently a director of several private companies and previously served as a director of Ilog S.A. and Innogenetics N.V. He holds an M.S. in Economic Systems from Stanford University and is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique of Paris. Mr. Brandys brings extensive business experience in the genomics field and experience as an executive and an investment professional to our boardBoard of directors.Directors.

Raymond Debbane, Director

Mr. Debbane has served on our board of directors since March 1998. Mr. Debbane has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of The Invus Group, LLC, a New York based multi-billion dollar investment firm which is the exclusive investment advisor of Artal Luxembourg S.A., a shareholder of Ceres, since 1985. Prior to forming The Invus Group in 1985, Mr. Debbane was a manager and consultant for The Boston Consulting Group in Paris, France from 1979 to 1985. He is currently a director of Artal Group S.A. and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as well as a number of private companies in which Artal or Invus, L.P. is an investor. Mr. Debbane is also the Chairman of the board of directors of Weight Watchers International. He holds an M.B.A. from Stanford Graduate School of Business, an M.S. in Food Science and Technology from the University of California, Davis and a B.S. in Agricultural Sciences and Agricultural Engineering from American University of Beirut. Mr. Debbane was originally nominated to serve on our board of directors by Artal Luxembourg S.A. pursuant to the terms of a voting agreement. Mr. Debbane brings extensive business and finance experience to our board of directors, as well as experience as a director of a number of companies.

Richard Flavell, Ph.D., FRS, CBE, Director

Dr. Flavell has served on our boardBoard of directorsDirectors since June 2009. Dr. Flavell joined Ceres in 1998 and served as Chief Scientific Officer from 1998 until October 2012, when he became our Chief Scientific Advisor on a consultancy basis. Since 2001, Dr. Flavell has been an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles. From 1987 to 1998, Dr. Flavell was the Director of the John Innes Centre in Norwich, England, a premier plant and microbial research institute. He has published over 200 scientific articles, lectured widely and contributed significantly to the development of modern biotechnology in agriculture. Dr. Flavell is an expert in cereal plant genomics, having produced the first molecular maps of plant chromosomes to reveal the constituent sequences. In 1999, Dr. Flavell was named a Commander of the British Empire for his contributions to plant and microbial sciences. Dr. Flavell received his Ph.D. from the University of East Anglia and has been a Fellow of European Molecular Biology Organization since 1990 and of The Royal Society of London since 1998. Dr. Flavell brings extensive experience and knowledge of plant biotechnology to our boardBoard of directors.Directors.

Robert Goldberg, Ph.D., Director

Dr. Goldberg is a Distinguished Professor of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles and a founder of Ceres. He has been a Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles since 1976, teaching genetic engineering and studying the genes that are required for seed formation. Dr. Goldberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has consulted extensively in the agriculture and biotechnology industries. Dr. Goldberg has served as a director of Ceres since 1996. Dr. Goldberg received his Bachelor’s Degree in botany from Ohio University, his Ph.D. in plant genetics from the University of Arizona, and was a Postdoctoral Fellow in developmental biology at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Goldberg brings extensive experience in the agriculture and biotechnology industries to our boardBoard of directors.

Directors.

55

Aflalo Guimaraes, Director

Mr. Guimaraes has served on our Board since December 2014. He is a Managing Director of the Invus Group. He joined Invus in 1998. Prior to joining Invus, Mr. Guimaraes was at Marakon Associates where as a manager he led strategic consulting engagements for large multinational companies in a wide range of industries including financial services, retail and consumer products. Previously he worked at the Federal Reserve Bank. Mr. Guimaraes holds an MBA from the University of Pennsylvania's The Wharton School and a BA in Economics and Political Science from Yale University. He also serves on the boards and audit committees of a number of private companies. Mr. Guimaraes brings extensive financial and business expertise to our Board of Directors.

Richard Hamilton, Ph.D., President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

Dr. Hamilton joined Ceres in 1998. He served as our Chief Financial Officer until September 2002, at which time he was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer. He has served on our boardBoard of directorsDirectors since 2002. In addition to his leadership role at Ceres, Dr. Hamilton sits on the Keck Graduate Institute Advisory Council and he was a founding member of the Council for Sustainable Biomass Production. He has served on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee and has been active in the Biotechnology Industry Organization where he has served as Vice Chairman of the organization, chaired its Food and Agriculture Governing Board and served in other leadership roles. From 1992 to 1997, Dr. Hamilton was a principal at Oxford Bioscience Partners, one of the leading investors in the genomics field and a founder of Ceres. From 1990 to 1991, he was a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Fellow at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Hamilton holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology from Vanderbilt University. Dr. Hamilton brings extensive management experience and biotechnology and renewable energy industry expertise to our boardBoard of directors.Directors.

Thomas Kiley, Director

Mr. Kiley has served as a director of Ceres since May 2003. He became the first general counsel of Genentech in February 1980 and later served as its vice president for corporate development until 1988. Previously, Mr. Kiley practiced intellectual property litigation as a partner of Lyon & Lyon from June 1969 until January 1980. Mr. Kiley hasserved as a director of Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a publicly traded pharmaceutical company from February 2004 to October 2014 upon completion of a merger with Paratek. He also serves as a director of several privately-held development stage companies. From July 1996 to May 2013, Mr. Kiley served as a director of Geron, Inc., a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company since July 1996 and Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a publicly traded pharmaceutical company since February 2004, and several privately-held development stage companies.company. He received his B.S. in chemical engineering from The Pennsylvania State University and his J.D. from The George Washington University School of Law. He is a member of the State Bar of California. Mr. Kiley brings extensive experience as an intellectual property attorney and director of other public companies to our boardBoard of directors.Directors.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D.

Dr. Koonin has served on our board of directors since August 2012. He has been the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress since its creation by New York University in April 2012. Prior to his current role, Dr. Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy from May 2009, following his confirmation by the U.S. Senate, until November 2011. Prior to joining the government, Dr. Koonin spent five years, from March 2004 to May 2009, as Chief Scientist for BP, p.l.c. From September 1975 to July 2006, Dr. Koonin was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech and was the institute’s Provost from February 1995 to January 2004. His memberships include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has been a member of the JASON advisory group from July 1988 to May 2009, and from November 2011 to present, and served as the group’s chair from 1998 to 2004. He also has served as an independent governor of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Security LLCs since July 2012. Koonin holds a BS in Physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from MIT and has been an adjunct staff member at the Institute for Defense Analyses since 1999. Mr. Koonin brings extensive experience in science, energy and government to our board of directors.

David B. Krieger, Director

Mr. Krieger has served as a director of Ceres since February 2011. Mr. Krieger has been a managing director at Warburg Pincus LLC since 2006, which through its affiliates is a shareholder of Ceres, and has been with Warburg Pincus since 2000. Prior to joining Warburg Pincus, he worked at McKinsey & Company in Atlanta and Europe from September 1995 to May 1998. He is currently a board member of Black Swan Energy Ltd., Canbriam Energy Inc., Endurance Energy Ltd., Kosmos Energy Ltd., MEG Energy Corp., Osum Oil Sands Corp., Velvet Energy Ltd. and West Valley Energy Corp. He received a B.S. in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, an M.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Mr. Krieger was originally nominated to serve on our board of directors by Warburg Pincus pursuant to the terms of a voting agreement and brings extensive experience in business and finance and the energy industry to our board of directors.

Cheryl P. Morley, Director

Ms. Morley has served on our board of directors since August 2011. She was Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy with Monsanto Company from 2003 to 2009, president of the Animal Agricultural Group from 1997 to 2003 and held a number of other leadership positions at Monsanto and its subsidiaries from 1983 to 1997. She also led the marketing and business development efforts for Monsanto’s NutraSweet product. Ms. Morley has served as a board member of Fleming Pharmaceuticals since March 2010 and the Missouri Botanical Gardens since June 2006. Ms. Morley has served as a board member and finance committee member for Mercy Health System since June 2012. In addition, since January 2010 she has served as chairman of the strategic advisory board to Joule Biotechnologies, Inc., and since November 2010 as a member of the business development advisory board of Pronutria, Inc. (formerly Essentient, Inc.) From March 2009 to October 2010, she served as a board member for Mercy Health Plans. Ms. Morley was chairman of the board and a member of the audit and compensation committees of the Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise from September 2003 to October 2010. She was presiding director, chairman of the nominating and governance committee and a member of the audit committee for Indevus Pharmaceuticals from June 2002 to March 2009. She holds a B.S. degree from the University of Arizona and is a Certified Public Accountant. Ms. Morley brings extensive experience in finance, service on numerous boards and an understanding of the seed business to our board of directors.

Edmund Olivier, Director

Mr. Olivier has served on our board of directors since our inception in 1996. Mr. Olivier is a founding general partner of Oxford Bioscience Partners, one of the founders of Ceres. Mr. Olivier has been with Oxford Bioscience Partners since 1995. He has overseen investments in numerous life science companies in the United States, Europe, India and Japan. He has also served on the board of directors of a number of Oxford Bioscience’s portfolio companies. Mr. Olivier received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Rice University. He is a Life Fellow and member of the International Council of the Salk Institute and a Regent of Harris Manchester College, Oxford University. Mr. Olivier was originally nominated to serve on our board of directors by entities affiliated with Oxford Bioscience Partners pursuant to the terms of a voting agreement and brings extensive experience in business and finance, as well as an understanding of the life sciences industry, to our board of directors.

Douglas Suttles, Director

Mr. Suttles has served on our board of directors since December 2011, following an extensive career at global oil and gas company BP, p.l.c., or BP, and its subsidiaries. From January 2009 to March 2011, he served as chief operating officer at BP Exploration & Production, Inc., where his responsibilities included overseeing BP’s global energy and production activities, technology groups and learning & development organization. From November 2006 to December 2008, Mr. Suttles was president of BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., where he oversaw all BP activities in Alaska. From June 2005 to November 2006, he held similar responsibilities in Russia as president of BP Sakhalin. Earlier in his career at BP, Mr. Suttles held executive and managerial positions in BP’s various functional areas and geographic business units. Prior to joining BP, he completed various production engineering assignments with Exxon Mobil Corp. from 1983 to 1988. He has also served as a board member of the University of Texas Engineering Advisory Board since 2007 and has been an active board director of NEOS, a privately held company, since September 2011. His prior board roles include Alaska Oil & Gas Association, The Nature Conservancy, the Anchorage Museum and The Foraker Group, each from 2007 to 2008. He holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas, Austin. Mr. Suttles brings considerable international experience in energy development and production to our board of directors.

Executive Officers

Paul Kuc, Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Kuc joined Ceres in 2008 as Chief Financial Officer, following a 12-year career with Monsanto Company, where he held various regional and global finance positions, including posts in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States, with his last position, beginning April 2007, as Lead Worldwide Manufacturing Finance at Seminis, Inc., which was purchased by Monsanto in 2005. At Monsanto, among other responsibilities, he developed and implemented international costing and financial systems for the seed and agricultural biotechnology company. Mr. Kuc began his career, from June 1994 to June 1996, at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company. He holds a Master’s of Science degree in Economics from the University of Lodz, Poland and an M.B.A. from the Ivey Business School, University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Wilfriede van Assche, Senior Vice President & General Counsel and Secretary

Ms. van Assche joined Ceres in 2000. She has more than 2025 years of legal experience in the plant biotechnology and seed industry. From 1996 until 2000, Ms. van Assche was the General Counsel of the plant biotechnology and seed divisions of Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH and following the merger of Hoechst and Rhone Poulenc, of the same divisions of Aventis, a leading life sciences company that is now part of Bayer AG. Previously, she was the General Counsel of Plant Genetic Systems N.V. from 1988 until its acquisition by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH in 1996. She began her career with the law firm De Bandt van Hecke (now Linklaters) in Belgium from 1979 until 1982, and was counsel in the legal department of GTE Atea (now Siemens), a telecommunications company, from 1982 until 1988. Ms. van Assche holds a law degree from the University of Leuven and a postgraduate degree from the College of Europe. She is a member of the State Bar of California.

56

J. Jefferson Gwyn, Ph.D., Vice President of Breeding and Genomics

Dr. Gwyn joined Ceres in 2008 as Director of Breeding and was promoted in August 2009 to Vice President of Breeding and Genomics. He oversees crop improvement in switchgrass, sorghum and other energy crops. He also manages our field research center near College Station, Texas. Prior to joining Ceres, Dr. Gwyn was head of soybean trait development at Syngenta Seeds, Inc. from July 2007 to August 2008 and station manager from September 2005 to July 2007. Earlier in his career, Dr. Gwyn established and managed cotton breeding and trait programs stations in the United States and Brazil for Bayer Cotton Seed International as Director of Breeding from March 1998 to July 2005. He was also a project director and program manager in corn trait breeding for DeKalb Genetics from March 1996 to February 1998. Dr. Gwyn began his career as a cotton breeder and plant geneticist with Chembred, Inc. (American Cyanamid) from May 1989 to October 1995. He holds a Ph.D. in genetics from Texas A&M University and a Master’s Degree in genetics and plant breeding from Iowa State University. He completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Arkansas.

Michael Stephenson, Vice President of Operations

Mr. Stephenson joined Ceres in 2008. Prior to joining Ceres, Mr. Stephenson was a general manager for one of the brands of AgReliant Genetics, the fifth largest corn seed company in the United States, from 2000 to 2008. In addition to his commercial experience, Mr. Stephenson has chaired the American Seed Trade Association’s corn and sorghum division, and served as President of the Soybean Research Foundation and Regional Vice President of American Seed Trade Association. Mr. Stephenson holds a B.S. in Business Administration from the University of Kansas.

Roger Pennell, Ph.D., Vice President of Trait Development

Dr. Pennell joined Ceres in 1998 and held various research management positions, including Director, Trait Development from 2006 until 2009 when he assumed his current role as Vice President of Trait Development. Dr. Pennell has been an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles since 2001 and a frequent reviewer for the scientific press.

Dr. Pennell holds a Ph.D. from University College London. He performed post-doctoral research at the John Innes Institute and Wageningen Agricultural University, and in 1990 was the recipient of a prestigious Royal Society University Research Fellowship, which he used at University College London and, from 1995, at the Salk Institute. During this time, Dr. Pennell studied cellular and molecular aspects of plant growth, development and disease resistance, and has published more than 40 scientific papers on these subjects.

Board of Directors

Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors currently consists of twelveseven members. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws permit our boardBoard of directorsDirectors to establish by resolution the authorized number of directors.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws provide for a classified boardBoard of directorsDirectors consisting of three classes, with staggered three-year terms as follows:

 

·Class I directors, whose initialcurrent term will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2013;2016;

·Class II directors, whose initialcurrent term will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2014;2017; and

·Class III directors, whose initialcurrent term will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2015.2018.

At each annual meeting of stockholders, upon expiration of the term of a class of directors, directors in that class will be elected for three-year terms at the annual meeting of stockholders held in the year in which that term expires. Each director’s term continues until the election and qualification of his or her successor, or his or her earlier death, resignation or removal. Any increase or decrease in the number of directors will be distributed among the three classes so that, as nearly as possible, each class will consist of one-third of the total number of directors.

The Class I directors consist of Mr. Debbane, Dr. Goldberg, Mr. KileyGuimaraes and Dr. Koonin;Mr. Kiley; the Class II directors consist of Mr. Brandys, Dr. Flavell and Dr. Hamilton and Mr. Olivier;Hamilton; and the Class III directors consist of Dr. De Logi, Mr. Krieger,Brandys and Ms. Morley and Mr. Suttles.Morley.

The classification of our boardBoard of directorsDirectors may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in our control or management.

Risk Oversight

The boardBoard of directorsDirectors is responsible for general oversight of company risk and risk management, and reviews management’s strategies for adequately mitigating and managing the identified risks. Although our boardBoard of directorsDirectors administers this risk management oversight function, our Audit Committee supports our boardBoard of directorsDirectors in discharging its oversight duties and addressing risks. Our Compensation Committee oversees management of risks relating to our compensation plans and programs. Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors expects company management to consider risk and risk management in its business decisions, to develop and monitor risk management strategies and processes for day-to-day activities and to implement risk management strategies adopted by the committees and the boardBoard of directors.Directors.

57

Director Independence

Our common stockCommon Stock is listed on the NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market. Under the rules of the NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market, independent directors must comprise a majority of a listed company’s board of directors. In addition, the rules of the NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market require that, subject to specified exceptions, each member of a listed company’s audit, compensation and nominating and governance committees be independent. Audit committee members must also satisfy the independence criteria set forth in Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. Under the rules of the NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market, a director will only qualify as an “independent director” if, in the opinion of that company’s board

Board of directors,Directors, that person does not have a relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director.

In order to be considered to be independent for purposes of Rule 10A-3, a member of an audit committee of a listed company may not, other than in his or her capacity as a member of the audit committee, the board of directors, or any other board committee: (1) accept, directly or indirectly, any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fee from the listed company or any of its subsidiaries; or (2) be an affiliated person of the listed company or any of its subsidiaries.

Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has reviewed its composition, the composition of its committees and the independence of each director. Based upon information requested from and provided by each director concerning his or her background, employment and affiliations, including family relationships, our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has determined that none of Messrs. De Logi, Brandys, Debbane, Goldberg, Kiley, Koonin, Krieger, OlivierGuimaraes, Flavell and SuttlesKiley and Ms. Morley, representing tensix of our twelveseven directors, has a relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director and that each of these directors is “independent” as that term is defined under the rules of the NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market.

Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors also determined that Messrs. Brandys, and Kiley and Ms. Morley, who comprise our Audit Committee, and Messrs. De Logi and OlivierMr. Guimaraes and Ms. Morley, who comprise our Compensation Committee, satisfy the independence standards for those committees established by applicable SEC rules and the rules of The NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market. In making this determination, our boardBoard of directorsDirectors considered the relationships that each non-employee director has with our company and all other facts and circumstances our boardBoard of directorsDirectors deemed relevant in determining their independence, including the beneficial ownership of our capital stock held by each non-employee director.

Committees of the Board of Directors

Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has established an Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Each committee has the composition and responsibilities described below.

Audit Committee

Our Audit Committee is comprised of Ms. Morley and Messrs. Brandys and Kiley and Ms. Morley,Brandys, who is the chair of the Audit Committee. The composition of our Audit Committee meets the requirements for independence under the current NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market and SEC rules and regulations. Each member of our Audit Committee possesses financial sophistication as defined under the rules of the Nasdaq GlobalNASDAQ Stock Market. Ms. Morley isand Mr. Brandys are our “Audit Committee financial expert”experts” as that term is defined in Item 407(d)(5)(ii) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act. Being an “Audit Committee financial expert” does not impose on Ms. Morley or Mr. Brandys any duties, obligations or liabilities that are greater than are generally imposed on herthem as a member of our Audit Committee and our boardBoard of directors.Directors. Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has adopted a charter for our Audit Committee, which provides, among other things, that our Audit Committee will:

 

oversee our accounting and financial reporting processes and audits of our financial statements;

·oversee our accounting and financial reporting processes and audits of our financial statements;
·be directly responsible for the appointment, retention, compensation and oversight of the work of the independent registered public accounting firm;
·have the sole authority to preapprove any non-audit services to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm and to review with the lead audit partner whether any of the audit team members receive any discretionary compensation from the audit firm with respect to non-audit services performed by the independent registered public accounting firm;
·actively engage in dialogue with the independent registered public accounting firm with respect to any disclosed relationships or services that may impact the objectivity and independence of the independent registered public accounting firm;

have the sole authority to preapprove any non-audit services to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm and to review with the lead audit partner whether any of the audit team members receive any discretionary compensation from the audit firm with respect to non-audit services performed by the independent registered public accounting firm;

actively engage in dialogue with the independent registered public accounting firm with respect to any disclosed relationships or services that may impact the objectivity and independence of the independent

registered public accounting firm and recommend that the boardBoard of directorsDirectors take, appropriate action to oversee the independence of the independent auditor; and

·discuss the adequacy of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting with the independent registered public accounting firm and management and review and discuss any changes implemented by management to address control deficiencies or to make controls more effective.

 

58

discuss the adequacy of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting with the independent registered public accounting firm and management and review and discuss any changes implemented by management to address control deficiencies or to make controls more effective.

Compensation Committee

Our Compensation Committee is comprised of Mr. Flavell, Mr. Guimaraes and Ms. Morley, and Messrs. De Logi and Olivier, who is the chair of the Compensation Committee. Mr. Flavell joined the Compensation Committee on October 11, 2015. The composition of our Compensation Committee will meetmeets the requirements for independence under the current NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market and SEC rules and regulations. The purpose of our Compensation Committee is to set compensation policy, administer compensation plans and recommend compensation for executive officers to the boardBoard of directors.Directors. Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has adopted a charter for our Compensation Committee, under which our Compensation Committee will discharge the responsibilities of our boardBoard of directorsDirectors relating to compensation of our executive officers, and will, among other things:

 

establish the Company’s general compensation philosophy;

·establish the Company’s general compensation philosophy;
·review and recommend that our Board of Directors approve the compensation of our executive officers;
·review and recommend that our Board of Directors approve the compensation of our directors;
·review and approve, or recommend that the Board of Directors approve, payouts under annual bonus and other performance-based compensation programs;
·review and recommend that our Board of Directors approve new or existing long-term or equity-based compensation plans or arrangements and administer those plans or arrangements;
·assist in developing succession and continuity plans for the CEO and other executive officers;
·review and consult with the Board of Directors on our compensation and benefit plans to determine whether they create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company; and
·review, discuss with management, and approve the compensation, discussion and analysis when required in our public filings.

 

review and recommend that our board of directors approve the compensation of our executive officers;

review and recommend that our board of directors approve the compensation of our directors;

review and approve, or recommend that the board of directors approve, payouts under annual bonus and other performance-based compensation programs;

review and recommend that our board of directors approve new or existing long-term or equity-based compensation plans or arrangements and administer those plans or arrangements;

assist in developing succession and continuity plans for the CEO and other executive officers;

review and consult with the board of directors on our compensation and benefit plans to determine whether they create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company; and

review, discuss with management, and approve the compensation, discussion and analysis when required in our public filings.

In March 2012, our Compensation Committee retained Compensia, Inc., or Compensia, a compensation advisory firm, to serve as an independent advisor to the Compensation Committee on equity and executive compensation matters. Compensia assisted our Compensation Committee to identify a peer group of public companies, to conduct an executive compensation market assessment.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has established a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is comprised of Messrs. De Logi, Debbane, KriegerGoldberg, Guimaraes and Kiley, who is the chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The composition of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meets the requirements for independence under the current NasdaqNASDAQ Stock Market and SEC rules and regulations. Our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has adopted a charter for our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, under which our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will, among other things:

 

identify and recommend director nominees;

·identify and recommend director nominees;
·recommend directors to serve on our various committees; and
·implement our corporate governance guidelines.

 

recommend directors to serve on our various committees; and

implement our corporate governance guidelines.

The charters of our Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees, and any amendments that may be adopted from time to time, are posted on our website atwww.ceres.net.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

During fiscal 2012, prior to the closing of our initial public offering on February 27, 2012,2015, our Compensation Committee consisted of Mr. Guimaraes and Ms. Morley, who is the chair of our Compensation Committee. Mr. Flavell joined the Compensation Committee on October 11, 2015. Mr. Daniel Glat was compriseda member of Messrs. Brandys, De Logi, Goldberg and Olivier.the Compensation Committee until his resignation as a director in July 2015. None of them has at any time during the last fiscal year been one of our officers or employees, nor have any of our executive officers served as a member of the boardBoard of directors,Directors, or as a member of the compensation or similar committee, of an entity that has one or more executive officers who served on our boardBoard of directorsDirectors or Compensation Committee during fiscal 2012.2015.

Since the closing of our initial public offering on February 27, 2012, the Compensation Committee has consisted of Ms. Morley and Messrs. De Logi and Olivier, who is the chair of the Compensation Committee. None of them has at any time during the last fiscal year been one of our officers or employees, nor have any of our executive officers served as a member of the board of directors, or as a member of the compensation or similar committee, of an entity that has one or more executive officers who served on our board of directors or Compensation Committee during fiscal 2012.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Our board of directors has adopted a code of business conduct and ethics. The code of business conduct and ethics applies to all of our employees, officers and directors, including those officers responsible for financial reporting. The full text of our code of business conduct and ethics is posted on our website atwww.ceres.net. We intend to disclose future amendments to our code of business conduct and ethics, or waivers of these provisions, on our website and also in our periodic filings with the SEC.

Limitation of Liability and Indemnification of Officers and Directors

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws limit the liability of our directors, officers, employees and other agents to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law permits indemnification of officers, directors and other agents under certain circumstances and subject to certain limitations. Delaware law also permits a corporation to not hold its directors personally liable for monetary damages for breach of their fiduciary duties as directors, except for liability for:

 

·breach of their duty of loyalty to us or our stockholders;
·acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law;

59

 

acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law;

·unlawful payments of dividends or unlawful stock repurchases or redemptions as provided in Section 174 of the Delaware General Corporation Law; and
·any transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit.

 

unlawful payments of dividends or unlawful stock repurchases or redemptions as provided in Section 174 of the Delaware General Corporation Law; and

any transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit.

These limitations of liability do not apply to liabilities arising under the federal or state securities laws and do not affect the availability of equitable remedies such as injunctive relief or rescission. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation also permits us to secure insurance on behalf of any officer, director, employee or other agent for any liability arising out of his or her actions in this capacity. We have obtained directors’ and officers’ liability insurance to cover certain liabilities described above. We have entered into separate indemnity agreements with each of our directors and executive officers that require us to indemnify such persons against any and all expenses (including attorneys’ fees), witness fees, judgments, fines, settlements and other amounts incurred (including expenses of a derivative action) in connection with any action, suit or proceeding or alternative dispute resolution mechanism, inquiry hearing or investigation, whether threatened,

pending or completed, to which any such person may be made a party by reason of the fact that such person is or was a director, an officer or an employee of us or any of our affiliated enterprises, provided that such person must follow the procedures for determining entitlement to indemnification set out in the indemnity agreements. The indemnity agreements also set forth other procedures that will apply in the event of a claim for indemnification thereunder. We believe that these provisions and agreements are necessary to attract and retain qualified persons as executive officers and directors of our company.

At present, there is no pending litigation or proceeding involving any of our directors or executive officers as to which indemnification is required or permitted, and we are not aware of any threatened litigation or proceeding that may result in a claim for indemnification.

The limitation of liability and indemnification provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws may discourage stockholders from bringing a lawsuit against directors for breach of their fiduciary duties. They may also reduce the likelihood of derivative litigation against directors and officers, even though an action, if successful, might provide a benefit to us and our stockholders. Our results of operations and financial conditions may be negatively affected to the extent we pay the costs of settlement and damage awards against directors and officers pursuant to these indemnification provisions.

Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act may be permitted to directors, executive officers or persons controlling us, we have been informed that, in the opinion of the SEC, such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is therefore unenforceable.

Director Compensation

The following table sets forth information concerning the compensation of our directors during the year ended August 31, 2012:2015:

 

Name (1)(2)  Fees earned or
paid in cash ($)
   Option
awards($)(3)
   All other
compensation($)
   Total($) 

Walter De Logi, Ph.D.

   35,500     45,906     —       81,406  

Pascal Brandys

   18,750     45,906     —       64,656  

Raymond Debbane

   16,750     45,906     —       62,656  

Robert Goldberg, Ph.D.

   15,000     45,906     —       60,906  

Thomas Kiley

   21,750     45,906     —       67,656  

Steven Koonin, Ph. D.

   —       52,964     —       52,964  

Cheryl Morley

   26,250     45,906     —       72,156  

David B. Krieger

   16,750     45,906     —       62,656  

Edmund Olivier

   22,500     45,906     —       68,406  

Douglas Suttles

   15,000     45,906     —       60,906  
Name (1) 

Fees earned or

paid in cash
($)

  

Option

awards
($) (2)

  

All other

compensation
($)

  Total
($)
 
Pascal Brandys (3)  32,375   5,766      38,141 
Raymond Debbane (4)  17,831          17,831 
Richard Flavell, Ph.D.  30,000   1,363   45,340(5)  76,703 
Daniel Glat (6)  29,637   1,363      31,000 
Robert Goldberg, Ph.D.  32,625   1,363      33,988 
Aflalo Guimaraes (7)  19,288   3,361      22,648 
Thomas Kiley  43,500   1,363      44,863 
Steven Koonin, Ph. D. (8)  42,339   1,363      43,702 
Cheryl Morley  76,875   1,363      78,238 

 

(1)Dr. Hamilton, our President and Chief Executive Officer, is not included in this table as he is an employee of the Company and does not receive additional compensation for his service as a director. All of the compensation paid to Dr. Hamilton for the services he provides to us is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table.

(2)Dr. Flavell is not included in this table as he was an executive officer during fiscal year 2012, other than a named executive officer, who did not receive any additional compensation for services provided as a director.60

(3)(2)The amounts in the “Option Awards” column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of stock options granted during fiscal 2012,2015, computed in accordance with ASC Topic 718. The assumptions used by us in determining the grant date fair value of option awards and our general approach to our valuation methodology are set forth in the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Stock-based Compensation” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These amounts do not correspond to the actual value that may be recognized by the named executive officers.non-employee directors.

(3)Mr. Brandys had chosen not to stand for re-election to the Board of Directors at the 2014 Annual Shareholder Meeting and left the Board of Directors in March 2014. On September 12, 2014, Mr. Brandys was elected to serve as a Class III director for a term beginning September 12, 2014 and expiring at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders in 2015, to fill the vacancy on the Board.

(4)Mr. Debbane resigned from the Board of Directors in December 2014.

(5)Represents payments for consulting services performed under Dr. Flavell’s exclusive consultancy agreement described under “Narrative to Director Compensation Table” below.

(6)Mr. Glat resigned from the Board of Directors in July 2015.

(7)Mr. Guimaraes joined the Board of Directors in December 2014.

(8)Mr. Koonin resigned from the Board of Directors in July 2015.

Narrative to director compensation table.Director Compensation Table.

Based on the recommendation of Compensia and our Compensation Committee, our boardBoard of directorsDirectors has adopted a compensation policy that is applicable to all of our non-employee directors. Under this policy,our Amended and Restated Non-employee Director Compensation Program, each non-employee director will receive an annual cash retainer payable on a quarterly basis, and an annual stock option grant. In addition, upon initial appointment to the boardBoard of directors,Directors, each non-employee director will receive an initial stock option grant. In addition, committee members who serve on one or more of the Audit, Compensation or Nominating and Governance Committee members and committee chairpersonsof the Board of Directors will receive, for each committee he or she serves on, either an additional annual cash committee retainers, and ifretainer or, in the case of a committee chair, a committee chair retainer paid in lieu of the committee retainer. If we elect a lead/non-executive chairmanchair of the boardBoard of directors,Directors, he or she will also receive an additional annual cash lead director retainer. All annual cash retainers are payable on a quarterly basis. The retainer and stock option amounts that we provide are as follows:

 

an annual retainer of $30,000, payable on a quarterly basis;

·an annual retainer of $30,000, payable on a quarterly basis;
·an initial stock option grant to purchase 1,458 shares, to vest annually over three years;
·an annual stock option grant to purchase 729 shares, to vest 100% on January 31 of the year following the date of grant;
·an annual retainer for committee members as follows: $7,500 for members of the audit and compensation committees, and $3,500 for members of the nominating and governance committee;
·an annual retainer for committee chairs as follows: $15,000 for the chairs of the audit and compensation committees, and $6,000 for the chair of the nominating and governance committee;
·an additional annual retainer of $30,000 for any non-employee director appointed as lead/non-executive chairman of the board of directors; and
·reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket business expenses.

 

an initial stock option grant to purchase 11,666 shares, to vest annually over three years;

an annual stock option grant to purchase 5,833 shares, to vest 100% after one year;

an annual retainer for committee members as follows: $7,500 for members of the audit and compensation committees, and $3,500 for members of the nominating and governance committee;

an annual retainer for committee chairs as follows: $15,000 for the chairs of the audit and compensation committees, and $6,000 for the chair of the nominating and governance committee;

an annual retainer of $30,000 for any non-employee director appointed as lead/non-executive chairman of the board of directors; and

and reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket business expenses.

In connection with hisDr. Flavell’s retirement from the position of Chief Scientific Officer onin October 11, 2012, Dr. Flavellwe entered into an exclusive consultancy agreement with us.him. Pursuant to the consultancy agreement, Dr. Flavell will earn $2,000 per day for 20 to 25 days of service per year, and he agrees not to provide services to any other party in the field of commercial, for profit bioenergy crop activities. The consultancy agreement hashad an initial term of one year, effective October 11, 2012, with an automatic renewaland automatically renews for an undetermined amount of time, subject to termination by either party by giving six months’ notice. In June 2013, Dr. Flavell was granted an option to purchase 625 shares of our Common Stock under the Amended and Restated Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2011 Plan, in connection with his consulting services.

61

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our executive officers and directors, and persons who beneficially own more than ten percent of a registered class of our equity securities, to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership of these securities with the SEC. Executive officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners are required by applicable regulations to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. Based solely upon a review of the forms furnished to us during or with respect to our most recent fiscal year, all of our directors and executive officers subject to the reporting requirements and each beneficial owner of more than ten percent of our Common Stock satisfied all applicable filing requirements under Section 16(a), except as follows: On July 11, 2012, Robert Carlson, Jr. filed a Form 4 reflecting three transactions that were not reported on a timely basis. The three late transactions were purchases of shares of Common Stock by Mr. Carlson, Jr. that occurred on May 24, 2012, May 31, 2012 and June 1, 2012..

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Our Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which applies to all directors, officers and employees of Ceres, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. The full text of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available on our website,www.ceres.net , in the “Investor Relations”“Investors” section.

Item 11.Executive Compensation

Item 11.    Executive Compensation

Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth information regarding compensation earned by our named executive officers for the years ended August 31, 20122015, 2014 and 2011.2013.

 

Name and Principal Position

 Year Salary ($) Bonus
($)(1)
 Option
Awards
($)(2)
 All Other
Compensation
($)
 Total ($)  Year  Salary
($)
  Bonus
($) (1)
  

Stock

Awards
($) (2)

 

Option

Awards
($) (2)

  All Other
Compensation
($)
  Total
($)
 

Richard Hamilton

                                  

President and Chief Executive Officer

  2012    443,877    198,000    1,470,663    15,147(3)   2,127,687    2015   478,923      13,250   18,872   10,900(3)  521,945 
  2011    386,538    94,000    802,000    13,219    1,295,757    2014   466,000   168,925   103,333   163,334   10,100   911,692 
  2013   466,000      262,824      10,934   739,758 

Paul Kuc

                                  

Chief Financial Officer

  2012    309,077    129,000    514,726    6,428(4)   959,231    2015   332,231      4,770   6,040   6,778(4)  349,819 
  2011    268,500    74,000    160,400    5,418    508,318    2014   323,000   96,900   82,667   130,666   6,263   639,496 

Michael Stephenson

      

Vice President of Operations

  2012    288,881    90,000    330,900    11,275(5)   721,056  
  2011    254,577    64,000    160,400    8,630    487,607    2013   323,000      182,172      6,582   511,754 
Wilfriede van Assche                            
Senior Vice President and General Counsel  2015   308,308      3,710   4,908   10,349(5)  327,275 
  2014   300,000   90,000   16,533   26,134   10,100   442,767 
  2013   300,000            10,295   310,295 

 

(1)For fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012, bonusesBonuses for our named executive officers have beenwere determined on a discretionary basis by our Compensation Committee and our boardBoard of directors.Directors. In general, the amount of each named executive officer’s target bonus iswas not determined by applying any specific formula, but iswas determined based upon the following: (i) the achievement of company milestones; (ii) the achievement of individual milestones; and (iii) other factors deemed relevant by our Compensation Committee and our boardBoard of directors. Accordingly, we are disclosing bonus amounts inDirectors. In fiscal 2015, the “Bonus” column.Compensation Committee did not grant any discretionary bonuses.

(2)The amounts in the “Stock Awards” and “Option Awards” column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of stock options and restricted stock awards granted during fiscal 20112013, fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2012,2015 as applicable, computed in accordance with ASC Topic 718. The assumptions used by us in determining the grant date fair value of option awards and our general approach to our valuation methodology are set forth in the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Stock-based Compensation” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.10-k. These amounts do not correspond to the actual value that may be recognized by the named executive officers.

62

(3)This amount includes a company matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of $9,566,$10,600 and company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of $330 and reimbursement of $4,451 for personal legal expenses and $800 for associated taxes.$300.

(4)This amount includes a company matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of $6,098$6,478 and company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of $330.$300.

(5)This amount includes a company matching contribution to our 401(k) plan in the amount of $10,962$10,049 and company-paid life insurance premiums in the amount of $313.$300.

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 20122015 Year-End

The following table itemizes outstanding optionsequity awards held by the named executive officers as of August 31, 2012.2015.

 

      Option Awards  Option Awards Stock Awards 

Name

  Option
Grant Date
   Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options(#)
Exercisable (1)*
 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised

Options(#)
Unexercisable
 Total
Number of

Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned
Options (#)
 Option
Exercise
Price ($)(2)
   Option
Expiration
Date
  Option
Grant Date
 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options(#)
Exercisable
(1) *
  Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options(#)
Unexercisable
  

Option

Exercise

Price
($)(2)

 

Option

Expiration
Date

 

Number
of

Shares

or Units

of Stock

(#) That
Have

Not

Vested**

 

Stock Award

Grant Date

 

Market

Value

of

Shares

or Units

of Stock

($) That

Have

Not

Vested

(3)

 

Richard Hamilton

   12/19/2002     400,000(3)   —      400,000(6)   1.95     12/18/2012   12/19/2002  49,999(4)     15.60  12/18/2015          
 1/16/2006  8,541(5)     31.20  1/15/2016          
 12/21/2007  23,415(6)     54.00  12/20/2017          
 6/23/2011  8,332(7) (8)     134.16  6/22/2021          
   1/16/2006     68,333    —      68,333(7)   3.90     1/15/2016   2/27/2012   11,180(9) (10)     5,485(9) (10)    104.00  2/26/2022          
   12/21/2007     187,333    —      187,333(8)   6.75     12/20/2017                    1,942  10/10/2012  2,292 
   6/23/2011     66,666(4)   —      66,666(9)   16.77     6/22/2021   9/25/2013   20,832(11) (12)       9.92  9/24/2023          
   2/27/2012     —      133,333(5)   133,333(10)   13.00     2/26/2022   9/12/2014      6,249(13) (14)    4.24  9/11/2024  2,344  9/12/2014  2,766 

Paul Kuc

   9/3/2008     110,000    —      110,000(11)   6.75     9/2/2018   9/3/2008  13,749(15)     54.00  9/2/2018          
   6/8/2010     33,333    —      33,333(12)   6.75     6/7/2020   6/8/2010  4,165(16)     54.00  6/7/2020          
   6/23/2011     13,333(4)   —      13,333(9)   16.77     6/22/2021   6/23/2011   1,666(7) (8)       134.16  6/22/2021          
   2/27/2012     —      46,666(5)   46,666(10)   13.00     2/26/2022   2/27/2012   3,665(9) (10)     2,167(9) (10)    104.00  2/26/2022          

Michael Stephenson

   6/4/2008     100,000    —      100,000(13)   6.75     6/3/2018  
   6/8/2010     33,333    —      33,333(12)   6.75     6/7/2020                    1,346  10/10/2012  1,588 
   6/23/2011     13,333(4)   —      13,333(9)   16.77     6/22/2021   9/25/2013   16,665(11) (12)       9.92  9/24/2023          
   2/27/2012     —      30,000(5)   30,000(10)   13.00     2/26/2022   9/12/2014       2,000(13) (14)    4.24  9/11/2024  844  9/12/2014  996 
Wilfriede van Assche 1/16/2006  4,270(5)     31.20  1/15/2016          
 6/8/2010  1,041(16)     54.00  6/7/2020          
 1/20/2011  2,082(17)     58.56  1/19/2021          
 6/23/2011   1,666(7) (8)       134.16  6/22/2021          
 2/27/2012   2,275(9) (10)     1,474(9) (10)    104.00  2/26/2022          
 9/25/2013   3,333(11) (12)       9.92  9/24/2023          
 9/12/2014      1,625(13) (14)    4.24  9/11/2024  657  9/12/2014  775 

63

 

*All stock options issued under our 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, or the 2010 Plan, and our 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, or the 2000 Plan, may be exercised prior to vesting, subject to repurchase rights that expire over the vesting periods indicated in the footnotes below.

**Unvested shares of restricted stock are generally forfeited if the named executive officer’s employment terminates, except to the extent otherwise provided in an employment agreement or award agreement. The stock awards held by our named executive officers awards may be accelerated upon a change in control of our company, and/or a termination of employment following a change in control, as further described below in “Executive Compensation — Potential Severance Payments upon Termination and upon Termination Following a Change in Control”.

(1)Unless otherwise specified, options granted before 2011 vest as to 25% of the original number of shares on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the remainder of the shares vest ratably each month thereafter until the fourth anniversary of the vesting commencement date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, awards may be accelerated upon a change in control of our company, and/or a termination of employment following a change in control, as further described below in “Executive Compensation —  Potential Severance Payments upon Termination and upon Termination Following a Change in Control”. Unvested options granted under the 2010 Plan and the 2000 Plan are subject to early exercise, in which case, until they vest, the shares acquired pursuant to such exercise will be restricted and subject to repurchase by the Company at the exercise price upon the participantparticipant’s termination of employment.

(2)The option exercise price for options granted prior to our initial public offering represents the fair market value of our common stockCommon Stock as of the date of grant, as determined by our boardBoard of directors.Directors. The option exercise price for all options granted on February 27, 2012 have an exercise price equal to the initial public offering price per share of our initial public offering. For a discussion of our methodology for determining the fair market value of our common stock,Common Stock, see the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.10-k.
(3)AllThe market value of stock awards reported is computed by multiplying the number of shares of Restricted Stock granted by $1.18, which was the closing market price of one share of our Common Stock on August 31, 2015. The restricted stock awards granted in fiscal 2013 vest in three equal annual installments beginning October 10, 2013. The restricted stock awards granted in fiscal year 2015 vest in four equal annual installments on July 19, 2015, July 19, 2016, July 19, 2017, and July 19, 2018.

64

(4)The vesting commencement date of this grant is September 23, 2002. The options granted on December 19, 2002underlying this grant were originally scheduled to expire on December 18, 2012. On August 15, 2012, we held a Special Meeting of Stockholders, at which the stockholders of the Company approved an amendment to the 2000 Plan to extend the term of such options to thirteen years from their date of grant (subject to the consent of the affected optionholders)option holders). Mr. Hamilton consented to the extension of these options to purchase 400,00049,999 shares of common stockCommon Stock on September 10, 2012.
(4)(5)The vesting commencement date of this grant is January 16, 2006.
(6)The vesting commencement date of this grant is December 21, 2007.
(7)All options granted on June 23, 2011, are subject to a five-year vesting schedule with a two-year cliff, with 40% of the options vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date and the remainder vesting ratably each month thereafter until the fifth anniversary of the grant date.

(5)(8)The vesting commencement date of this grant is June 23, 2011.
(9)All options granted on February 27, 2012 are subject to a five-year vesting schedule with a two-year cliff, with 40% of the options vestingbesting on the second anniversary of the grant date and the remainder vesting ratably each month thereafter until the fifth anniversary of the grant date.
(6)The vesting commencement date of this grant is September 23, 2002.
(7)The vesting commencement date of this grant is January 16, 2006.
(8)The vesting commencement date of this grant is December 21, 2007.
(9)The vesting commencement date of this grant is June 23, 2011.
(10)The vesting commencement date of this grant is February 27, 2012.
(11)All options granted on September 25, 2013, are subject to a two-year vesting schedule, with 50% of the options vesting on July 19, 2014 and the remaining 50% of the options vesting on July 19, 2015.
(12)The vesting commencement date of this grant is September 25, 2013.
(13)All options granted on September 12, 2014, vest as to 25% of the original number of shares on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the remainder of the shares vest ratably each month thereafter until the fourth anniversary of the vesting commencement date.
(14)The vesting commencement date of this grant is September 12, 2014.
(15)The vesting commencement date of this grant is September 3, 2008.
(12)(16)The vesting commencement date of this grant is June 8, 2010.
(17)The vesting commencement date of this grant is January 20, 2011.

Potential Payments Uponupon Termination and Uponupon Termination in Connection with a Change in Control

We entered into employment agreements with each of our named executive officers that became effective on September 1, 2011, and which are described in more detail under “Executive Employment Agreements” below. Under these employment agreements, our named executive officers are entitled to certain severance payments and benefits in the event of their termination of employment under certain circumstances, including (i) termination without cause, (ii) resignation for good reason, (iii) termination without cause or resignation for good reason in connection with a change in control of the Company or (iv) termination due to death or disability. In addition, under our 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, or 2010 Plan and our 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, or 2000 Plan, our named executive officers are entitled to accelerated vesting of outstanding equity awards in the event of their involuntary termination of employment within 12 months after a change in control or other corporate transaction. Under our 2011 Equity Incentive plan, or 2011 Plan, our named executive officers are entitled to accelerated vesting of outstanding equity awards in the event of a qualifying termination of employment, as defined in the 2011 Plan, within six months prior to or 12 months after a change in control or other corporate transaction.

The following table summarizes the potential severance payments and benefits payable to each of our named executive officers under each of the following circumstances: (i) termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason in the absence of a change in control; (ii) termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason in connection with a change in control; and (iii) termination of employment due to death or disability. This table assumes that: the named executive officers’ employment was terminated on August 31, 2012, and, where relevant, that a change in control of the Company occurred on August 31, 2012.

   Termination Without Cause
or Resignation for Good
Reason in the Absence of a
Change in Control
   Termination Without Cause
or Resignation for Good
Reason in Connection with a
Change in Control
   Termination Due to Death
or Disability
 

Name

  Lump Sum
Severance
Payment ($)(1)
   Value of
Accelerated
Options or
Restricted
Shares ($)
   Lump Sum
Severance
Payment ($)(2)
   Value of
Accelerated
Options or
Restricted
Shares ($)(3)
   Lump Sum
Severance
Payment ($)
   Value of
Accelerated
Options or
Restricted
Shares ($)
 

Richard Hamilton

   466,000     —       932,000     —       466,000     —    

Paul Kuc

   323,000     —       646,000     1,406     323,000     —    

Michael Stephenson

   300,000     —       600,000     1,222     300,000     —    

(1)This column assumes that the named executive officer is terminated without “cause” or resigns for “good reason” more than six months prior to or more than twelve months following a “change in control” (as each term is defined in the executive’s employment agreement and described below).
(2)This column assumes that the named executive officer is terminated without “cause” or resigns for “good reason” within six months prior to or within twelve months following a “change in control” (as each term is defined in the executive’s employment agreement and described below).
(3)

This column assumes that the named executive officer suffers (i) an “involuntary termination” (as defined in the 2010 Plan) within twelve months after an acquisition of the Company, merger or other similar

“corporate transaction” (as each term is defined in the 2010 Plan and the 2000 Plan) or (ii) a “qualifying termination” (as defined in the 2011 Plan) within six months prior to or 12 months after an acquisition of the Company, merger or other similar “corporate transaction”. The amounts represent, in respect of each unvested stock option outstanding as of August 31, 2012, the number of shares underlying such stock option, multiplied by the excess of the fair market value of our common stock calculated using $6.83 per share, the closing price of Ceres common stock on August 31, 2012.

Executive Employment Agreements

We entered into executive employment agreements with each of our named executive officers effective as of September 1, 2011. The terms of each of these agreements are substantially similar, except with respect to each named executive officer’s initial base salary, which is described below.

Each of the executive employment agreements has an initial term of one year, starting on September 1, 2011, with an automatic renewal for additional one-year periods, unless either party gives 90 days’ notice of nonrenewal. The employment agreements provide for an initial annual base salary (to be reviewed by the Compensation Committee annually), a performance bonus and long-term incentive award opportunity as determined by the Compensation Committee, and participation in the Company’s savings, retirement and other welfare benefit plans that the Company may have in place from time to time.

Under the executive employment agreements, if the Company terminates the named executive officer’s employment or does not renew the term of the employment agreement for reasons other than for “cause” or if the named executive officer resigns his or her employment for “good reason”, then he will be entitled to (i) a lump sum severance payment equal to one years’ base salary; (ii) to the extent the termination occurs on or after the midpoint of the Company’s fiscal year, a pro-rated annual bonus and (iii) any other compensation and benefits accrued on or prior to the termination date. The named executive officer (or his or her estate, if applicable) will also receive the foregoing amounts if his or her employment is terminated due to death or disability.

65

If the named executive officer’s employment is terminated or not renewed by the Company for reasons other than for “cause” or if he resigns from his or her employment for “good reason”, in each case within six months prior to, or within twelve months after, a “change in control”, then he is entitled to a lump sum severance payment equal to two times his or her base salary and any other accrued compensation and benefits. If the named executive officer’s employment is terminated or the term of the employment agreement is not renewed for “cause” or if the named executive officer resigns from his or her employment or does not renew the term for any reason other than “good reason”, then he will be entitled only to compensation and benefits that have accrued on or prior to the termination date.

The named executive officers are obligated to comply with a confidentiality, proprietary information and inventions assignment agreement previously entered into with the Company and non-disparagement covenants under the executive employment agreements. In addition, payments under the agreements will be subject to any clawback or recoupment policies as required under applicable law.

Under the executive employment agreements, the following definitions apply:

 

·

“Cause” is defined as (i) a material breach of the employment agreement or any other written agreement with the Company to the extent the breach is not cured within 30 days; (ii) the named executive officer’s conviction or plea ofnolo contendereto a felony or another crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude or which could reflect negatively on or otherwise impair or impede the Company’s operations; (iii) the named executive officer’s engaging in misconduct, negligence, dishonesty, violence or threat of violence that is injurious to the Company; (iv) a material breach of a written policy of the Company or the rules of any governmental or regulatory body applicable to the Company that could result in an adverse effect on the Company or could reflect negatively on or impair

the operations of the Company or (v) any other willful misconduct that is materially injurious to the financial condition or business reputation of the Company.

·“Good reason” is defined as any of the following: (i) an adverse change in the named executive officer’s position with the Company that materially reduces his or her level of authority, duties or responsibility; (ii) a reduction of base salary by more than five percent (except a reduction of 15% or less if the reduction is similarly applied to all executives); (iii) a relocation of place of employment by more than 50 miles without the executive’s consent or (iv) a substantial change in the nature or orientation of the Company’s core business such that the Company is no longer substantially engaged in the agricultural biotechnology business.
·A “change in control” means the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) any person or group becomes the beneficial owner of greater than 50% of the Company’s total voting power; (ii) the sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets; or (iii) the consummation of a merger or consolidation of the Company, after which the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately prior to the event no longer represent 50% or more of the voting power represented by the voting securities of the Company or surviving entity immediately after the event.

 

“Good reason” is defined as anyAs of the following: (i) an adverse change inend of August 31, 2015, the named executive officer’s position with the Company that materially reduces his or her level of authority, duties or responsibility; (ii) a reduction of base salary by more than five percent (except a reduction of 15% or less if the reduction is similarly applied to all executives); (iii) a relocation of place of employment by more than 50 miles without the executive’s consent or (iv) a substantial change in the nature or orientation of the Company’s core business such that the Company is no longer substantially engaged in the agricultural biotechnology business.

A “change in control” means the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) any person or group becomes the beneficial owner of greater than 50% of the Company’s total voting power; (ii) the sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets; or (iii) the consummation of a merger or consolidation of the Company, after which the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately prior to the event no longer represent 50% or more of the voting power represented by the voting securities of the Company or surviving entity immediately after the event.

The initial base salaries set forth in each of our named executive officers’ employment agreementsofficers were such named executive officers’ rate of annual base salary on September 1, 2011. Upon the effective date of our initial public offering, we provided a salary increase for our named executive officers, as follows:

 

Name

 Post-Offering
Salary ($)
 

Richard Hamilton

  466,000480,000 

Paul Kuc

  323,000333,000 

Michael Stephenson

Wilfriede van Assche
  300,000309,000 

 

66

Item 12.Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The following table sets forth information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock, as of November 7, 2012,10, 2015, by:

 

each person, or group of affiliated persons, who is known by us to beneficially own more than 5% of our voting securities;

each person, or group of affiliated persons, who is known by us to beneficially own more than 5% of our voting securities;
each of our directors;
each of our named executive officers; and
all of our directors and executive officers as a group.

 

each of our directors;

each of our named executive officers; and

all of our directors and executive officers as a group.

Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules of the SEC and generally includes any shares over which the individual or entity has sole or shared voting power or investment power. The information does not necessarily indicate beneficial ownership for any other purpose. Except as indicated in the footnotes to this table and pursuant to applicable community property laws, to our knowledge the persons named in the table below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock beneficially owned.

Percentage ownership of our common stock in the table is based on 24,803,9868,830,700 shares of our common stock outstanding on November 7, 2012.10, 2015. The number of shares beneficially owned by each person or group as of November 7, 201210, 2015 includes shares of common stock that such person or group had the right to acquire on or within 60 days after November 7, 2012,10, 2015, upon the exercise of options and warrants. References to options and warrants in the footnotes of the table below include only options and warrants outstanding as of November 7, 201210, 2015 that were exercisable on or within 60 days after November 7, 2012.10, 2015. For the purposes of calculating each person’s or group’s

percentage ownership, stock options and warrants exercisable within 60 days after November 7, 201210, 2015 are included for that person or group but not the stock options or warrants of any other person or group.

Information in the table is derived from SEC filings made by such persons on Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G and/or under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and other information received by us. Except as otherwise set forth below, the address of the beneficial owner is c/o Ceres, Inc., 1535 Rancho Conejo Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

  

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner

  Number (#)   Percentage (%) 

5% Stockholders

    

Artal Luxembourg S.A. (1)

   4,548,682     17.98

Ambergate Trust (2)

   2,965,232     11.74  

Warburg Pincus Private Equity (3)

   2,922,345     11.57  

Oxford Bioscience entities (4)

   1,845,190     7.44  

Gimv entities (5)

   1,569,072     6.29  

Oppenheimer Growth entities (6)

   1,476,953     5.92  

Directors and Named Executive Officers

    

Walter De Logi (7)

   533,328     2.15  

Pascal Brandys (8)

   88,566     *  

Raymond Debbane (1)

   20,673     *  

Richard Flavell (9)

   227,182     *  

Robert Goldberg (10)

   213,026     *  

Richard Hamilton (11)

   859,430     3.37  

Thomas Kiley (12)

   81,537     *  

David B. Krieger (3) (13)

   2,922,345     11.57  

Edmund Olivier (4) (14)

   1,871,087     7.54  

Cheryl Morley

   —       *  

Douglas Suttles

   —       *  

Paul Kuc (15)

   189,364     *  

Michael Stephenson (16)

   146,664     *  

All directors and executive officers as a group (17 persons)

   7,522,158     28.09
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner Number
(#)
  Percentage
(%)
 
5% Stockholders        
Artal Luxembourg S.A.(1)  1,080,750   12.16 
         
Directors and Named Executive Officers        
Cheryl Morley(2)  2,187    *
Pascal Brandys(3)  12,883    *
Richard Flavell(4)  32,052    *
Robert Goldberg(5)  29,270    *
Aflalo Guimaraes(6)  486    *
Richard Hamilton(7)  107,063   1.20 
Thomas Kiley(8)  12,376    *
Paul Kuc(9)  55,324    *
Wilfriede van Assche(10)  21,168    *
All directors and executive officers as a group (10 persons)  302,961   3.36%

 

*Less than 1%.

(1)Includes 491,74756,730 shares of common stockCommon Stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held by Artal Luxembourg S.A. Raymond Debbane, one of our directors, is a director of Artal Group S.A. Artal Group S.A. is the parent entity of Artal International S.C.A., which is the parent entity of Artal Luxembourg S.A. Mr. Debbane disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares and shares underlying warrants held by Artal Luxembourg S.A., except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. The address for Artal Luxembourg S.A. is 105 Grand-Rue, L-1661,10-12 avenue Pasteur, L-2310 Luxembourg.
(2)Represents 2,606,232 shares of common stock held by Rothschild Trust Guernsey Limited as Trustee F/B/O the Ambergate Trust, or Rothschild, and 359,000 shares of common stock held by The Lynda De Logi trust. Includes 453,866 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held by Rothschild. Mr. De Logi is the settlor of the Ambergate Trust and one of the beneficiaries. Mr. De Logi disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares held by the Ambergate Trust. The address for Rothschild is PO Box 472, St. Peter’s House, Le Bordage, St. Peter Port GY1 6AX, Guernsey.
(3)

Includes 461,538 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held by Warburg Pincus Private Equity IX, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, or WP IX. The general partner of WP IX is Warburg Pincus IX LLC, a New York limited liability company, or WP IX LLC. Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, a New York limited liability company, or WP Partners, is the sole member of WP IX LLC. Warburg Pincus & Co., a New York general partnership, or WP, is the managing member of WP Partners. WP IX is managed by Warburg Pincus LLC, a New York limited liability company, or WP LLC.

 David B. Krieger, one of our directors, is a Managing Director of WP LLC and a General Partner of WP. The shares and shares underlying warrants acquired by WP IX are reflected as indirectly owned by Mr. Krieger because of his affiliation with the Warburg Pincus entities. Mr. Krieger disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares and shares underlying warrants held by WP IX, except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein. Charles R. Kaye and Joseph P. Landy are Managing General Partners of Warburg Pincus and Managing Members and Co-Presidents of WP and may be deemed to control the Warburg Pincus entities. Messrs. Kaye and Landy disclaim beneficial ownership of all shares held by the Warburg Pincus entities. The address for WP IX, WP IX LLC, WP Partners, WP, WP LLC, and Messrs. Kaye, Krieger and Landy is 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017.
(4)(2)Represents 776,515Includes 2,187 shares of common stock held by Oxford Bioscience Partners II, L.P., 103,229 shares of common stock held by Oxford Bioscience Partners (GS-Adjunct) II, L.P., 221,110 shares of common stock held by Oxford Bioscience Management Partners II, 162,406 shares of common stock held by Oxford Bioscience Partners (Adjunct) II, L.P. and 581,930 shares of common stock held by Oxford Bioscience Partners (Bermuda) II, Limited Partnership. OBP Management II L.P. is the general partner of Oxford Bioscience Partners II L.P., Oxford Bioscience Partners (Adjunct) II L.P. and Oxford Bioscience Partners (GS-Adjunct) II L.P. Edmund Olivier, Alan Walton, Cornelius Ryan and Jonathan Fleming are the general partners of OBP Management II L.P. OBP Management (Bermuda) II Limited Partnership is the general partner of Oxford Bioscience Partners (Bermuda) II Limited Partnership. Edmund Olivier, Alan Walton, Cornelius Ryan and Jonathan Fleming are the general partners of Oxford Bioscience Partners (Bermuda) II Limited Partnership. Messrs. Olivier, Walton, Ryan and Fleming all disclaim beneficial ownership of the shares except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein. The shares acquired by the Oxford Bioscience entities are reflected as indirectly owned by Mr. Olivier because of his affiliation with the Oxford Bioscience entities. The address for Oxford Bioscience Partners is 535 Boylston Street, Suite 402, Boston, MA 02116.
(5)Represents 97,780 shares of common stock held by Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences 2004 N.V. and 1,471,292 shares of common stock held by Gimv N.V. Includes 22,308 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held by Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences 2004 N.V. and 126,410 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held by Gimv N.V. The address for Adviesbeheer Gimv Life Sciences 2004 N.V. and Gimv N.V. is Karel Oomsstraat 37, B-2018, Antwerpen, Belgium.
(6)Represents 1,134,780 shares of common stock held by Oppenheimer International Growth Fund and 342,173 shares of common stock held by Oppenheimer MassMutual International Equity Fund. Includes 126,666 shares of common stock that may be acquired pursuant to the exercise of warrants held by Oppenheimer International Growth Fund. The address for Oppenheimer International Growth Fund is 2 World Financial Center, 225 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281.
(7)Includes 53,330 shares of common stock held by Lynda De Logi, Walter De Logi’s spouse.
(8)Includes 30,000 shares of common stockCommon Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 7, 2012, 3,750 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon Mr. Brandys’ cessation of service with us prior to vesting.10, 2015.

(9)(3)Includes 114,9995,563 shares of common stockCommon Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 7, 2012, 21,66710, 2015.

(4)Includes 18,030 shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 10, 2015, 167 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon Dr. Flavell’s cessation of service with us prior to vesting.

(10)(5)Includes 188,02623,503 shares of common stockCommon Stock held by The Robert B. Goldberg Revocable Living Trust and 25,0005,767 shares of common stockCommon Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 7, 2012, 2,500 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon Dr. Goldberg’s cessation of service with us prior to vesting.10, 2015.

(11)67

(6)Includes 46,600486 shares of restricted stock held by Dr. Hamilton, 33,333 shares of common stock held by the Richard Hamilton 2011-Ceres GRAT and 722,331 shares of common stockCommon Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 7, 2012, 66,66610, 2015.
(7)Includes 2,344 shares of restricted stock held by Dr. Hamilton, 4,166 shares of Common Stock held by the Richard Hamilton 2011-Ceres GRAT and 75,135 shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 10, 2015, 833 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon Dr. Hamilton’s cessation of service with us prior to vesting.

(12)(8)Includes 45,0007,810 shares of common stockCommon Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 7, 2012, 5,000 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon Mr. Kiley’s cessation of service with us prior to vesting.10, 2015. Also includes 14,7431,842 shares of common stockCommon Stock held by The Kiley Revocable Trust and 5,128641 shares of common stockCommon Stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants held by The Kiley Revocable Trust.

(13)Consists of 2,922,345 shares of common stock held by WP IX, including the 461,538 shares identified in footnote 3.
(14)Consists of 1,845,190 shares of common stock identified in footnote 4, 6,666 shares of common stock held by Mr. Olivier and 19,230 additional shares of common stock held by the Edmund and Ellen Olivier Revocable Family Trust.
(15)(9)Includes 32,300844 shares of restricted stock held by Mr. Kuc and 156,66440,903 shares of common stockCommon Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 7, 2012, 25,83410, 2015, 167 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon Mr. Kuc’s cessation of service with us prior to vesting.

(16)Consists of 146,664(10)Includes 657 shares of commonrestricted stock held by Ms. van Assche and 15,502 shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to stock options exercisable within 60 days of November 7, 2012, 25,83410, 2015, 167 of which are unvested and early exercisable and would be subject to a right of repurchase in our favor upon Mr. Stephenson’sMs. van Assche’s cessation of service with us prior to vesting.

Equity Compensation Plans

The following table provides information as of August 31, 2012November 10, 2015 regarding compensation plans under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance:

 

Plan Category

  Number of
Securities
to be Issued
Upon
Exercise of

Outstanding
Options
 Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price of
Outstanding
Options
   Number of
Securities
Remaining
Available
for Future
Issuance
Under Equity
Compensation
Plans
  

Number of Securities

to be Issued Upon

Exercise of

Outstanding Options

  

Weighted

Average Exercise

Price of

Outstanding

Options

 

Number of Securities

Remaining Available for

Future Issuance Under

Equity Compensation

Plans

 

Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders

   2,778,508(1)  $7.92     782,372(2)   402,130(1) $43.85   150,800(2)

Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders

   —      —       —             

Total

   2,778,508   $7.92     782,372    402,130(1) $43.85   150,800(2)
  

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

(1)Consists of shares underlying stock options granted under our Amended and Restated 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2011 Plan, our 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, or the 2010 Plan, and our 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, or the 2000 Plan.

(2)Consists of shares issuable under the 2011 Plan and the 2010 Plan. No additional shares are available for future issuance under the 2000 Plan other than in respect of shares underlying outstanding stock options. The shares issuable under the 2011 Plan may be increased by the number of shares that would have been issuable under any stock option granted under the 2010 Plan or the 2000 Plan that were forfeited or that expired without being exercised. No future grants will be made under the 2010 Plan.

Item 13.    Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Item 13.Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

In addition to the compensation arrangements, including employment, termination of employment and change-in-control and indemnification arrangements, discussed above under “Item 10. ManagementManagement” and Item“Item 11. Executive Compensation,” the following is a description of each transaction since September 1, 2011,2014, and each currently proposed transaction in which:

 

we have been or are to be a participant;

68

the amount involved exceeds or will exceed $120,000; and

 

·we have been or are to be a participant;
·the amount involved exceeds or will exceed $120,000; and
·any of our directors, executive officers or holders of more than 5% of any class of our capital stock at the time of the transactions in issue, or any immediate family member of or person sharing the household with any of these individuals, had or will have a direct or indirect material interest.

any of our directors, executive officers or holders of more than 5% of any class of our capital stock at the time of the transactions in issue, or any immediate family member of or person sharing the household with any of these individuals, had or will have a direct or indirect material interest.

Indemnification Arrangements

We have entered into an indemnity agreement with each of our directors and officers. The indemnity agreements and our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws require us to indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. Please see “Management“Item 10. Management — Limitation of Liability and Indemnification of Officers and Directors”.

Executive Compensation and Employment Arrangements

Please see “Item 11. Executive Compensation” for information on compensation arrangements with our executive officers, including option grants and agreements with executive officers.

Investors’ Rights Agreement

Stockholder Registration Rights

In June 2010, we entered into an Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement, or the Investors’ Rights Agreement, with our major stockholders pursuant to which we agreed to provide certain rights to those stockholders that are a party to the Investors’ Rights Agreement to register the shares of our common stockCommon Stock (i) issuable upon conversion of outstanding convertible preferred stock, (ii) issued as a dividend or other distribution related to the convertible preferred stock, (iii) currently held or later acquired, and (iv) issuable upon the exercise of warrants held by any stockholder that is party to the agreement. We will bear all expenses incurred in connection with any underwritten registration, including, without limitation, all registration, filing and qualification fees, printers and accounting fees and the reasonable fees of counsel for the selling holders, but excluding underwriting discounts and commissions.

The registration rights provided for under the Investors’ Rights Agreement terminate after the earlier of five years following the consummation of an initial public offering, or any such time as the holder would be able to dispose of all of its registrable securities in any three month period under SEC Rule 144.

Demand Registration Rights

Pursuant to the Investors’ Rights Agreement, if, at any time after six months after the effective date of the first registration statement for a public offering of our securities (other than a registration statement relating either to the sale of securities to our employees pursuant to a stock option, stock purchase or similar plan or an SEC Rule 145 transaction), upon the written request of the holders of at least 15% of the securities covered by the Investors’ Rights Agreement that we file a registration statement under the Securities Act covering the registration of at least 15% of the securities covered by the Investors’ Rights Agreement, then we are required to file a registration statement covering the resale of the common stockCommon Stock requested to be registered. We are not obligated to file a registration statement after we have effected five registration statements pursuant to the Investors’ Rights Agreement or during certain periods prior to and after a registration statement has been filed by the company or, for a period of 90 days in the event the board of directors, in its judgment, makes the determination that it would be seriously detrimental to the Company and its shareholders for such registration statement to be filed and is therefore essential to defer the filing of such registration statement.

 

If an underwriter selected for an underwritten offering advises the holders demanding registration that marketing factors require a limitation on the number of shares to be underwritten, then, subject to certain limitations, the number of shares of registrable securities that may be included in the underwriting will be allocated among all holders of registrable securities in proportion to the amount of our registrable securities owned by each holder.

69

Piggyback Registration Rights

Pursuant to the Investors’ Rights Agreement, if, subject to certain exceptions, we propose to register any of our stock or other securities under the Securities Act in connection with the public offering of such securities solely for cash, we are required to promptly give such holders written notice of such registration. Upon the written request of each eligible holder, we will, subject to certain limitations, cause to be registered under the Securities Act all such securities that each such holder has requested to be registered.

Registration Rights Agreement

Stockholder Registration Rights

On July 30, 2015, we entered into a Registration Rights Agreement with certain stockholders, and on August 26, 2015, we amended and supplemented the Registration Rights Agreement. We agreed pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement to provide certain rights to those stockholders that are a party to the Registration Rights Agreement to register (i) the shares of our Common Stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants held by such stockholders and (ii) any securities issued or issuable upon any stock split, dividend or other distribution, recapitalization or similar event with respect to the warrants or shares underlying the warrants held by such stockholders. We will bear all expenses incurred in connection with our performance of or compliance with the Registration Rights Agreement, including, without limitation, all registration, filing and qualification fees, printers and accounting fees and fees and disbursements of our counsel.

The registration rights provided for under the Registration Rights Agreement terminate after the earlier of (a) all securities registrable under the Registration Rights Agreement have been disposed of pursuant to an effective registration statement, (b) all securities registrable under the Registration Rights Agreement have been sold pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act, (c) all securities registrable under the Registration Rights Agreement may be sold without volume or manner-of-sale restrictions and without current public information pursuant to Rule 144 as set forth in a written opinion letter to such effect, addressed, delivered and acceptable to the Transfer Agent or (d) the five (5) year anniversary of the date of the issuance of the warrants that were the subject of the registration rights agreement.

Piggyback Registration Rights

Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, if, subject to certain exceptions, we determine to register any of our equity securities under the Securities Act, we are required to promptly give holders of Registrable Securities under the Registration Rights Agreement written notice of such determination. Upon the written request of each eligible holder, we will, subject to certain limitations, cause to be registered under the Securities Act all such securities that each such holder has requested to be registered.

Related Person Transaction Policy

As provided in our current Audit Committee charter, our Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving all related party transactions on an ongoing basis and must review any potential conflict of interest situations where appropriate.

Director Independence

For a discussion of the independence of our directors, please see “Management — Director Independence” above.

Item 14.    Principal Accountant Fees and Services

Item 14.Principal Accountant Fees and Services

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm’s Fees

The following table presents fees billed for professional audit services and other services rendered to us by KPMG LLP for the years ended August 31, 20122015 and 20112014 (in thousands).

 

  Year ended
August 31,
  Year ended
August 31,
 
  2012   2011  2015  2014 

Audit Fees

  $1,178    $1,308   $673  $658 

Audit-related Fees

   70     50       45 

Tax Fees

   —       —          

All Other Fees

   —       —      3   3 
  

 

   

 

 

TOTAL

  $1,248    $1,358   $676  $706 
  

 

   

 

 

In the above table, in accordance with applicable SEC rules:

 

70

The “Audit Fees” category includes aggregate fees billed in the relevant fiscal year for professional services rendered for the audit of annual financial statements, review of financial statements included in Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, services rendered in connection with our initial public offering and for services that are normally provided in connection with statutory or regulatory filings or engagements for those fiscal years.

 

The “Audit-Related Fees” category consists of fees billed for professional services rendered in connection audit requirements relating to our government grants.

The “Audit Fees” category includes aggregate fees billed in the relevant fiscal year for professional services rendered for the audit of annual financial statements, review of financial statements included in Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, services rendered in connection with our initial public offering and for services that are normally provided in connection with statutory or regulatory filings or engagements for those fiscal years.
The “Audit-Related Fees” category consists of fees billed for professional services rendered in connection audit requirements relating to our government grants.

 

“Tax Fees” are fees in the year for professional services for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning. We did not incur any fees related to tax services from KPMG LLP in the years ended August 31, 20122015 or 2011.2014.

“All Other Fees” are fees in the year for any products and services not included in the first three categories. We did not incur any fees related to tax services from KPMG LLP in the years ended August 31, 2012 or 2011.

Audit Committee Pre-approval Policy

The

Our Audit Committee pre-approves all audit and non-audit services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm, except where pre-approval is not required because such non-audit services arede minimis under the rules of the SEC, in which case subsequent approval may be obtained. TheIn April 2013, our Audit Committee may delegatedelegated to one or more designated membersthe Chair of theour Audit Committee the authority to pre-approve audit and permissible non-audit services, provided such pre-approval decision is presented to the full Audit Committee at its scheduled meetings.services. Our Audit Committee pre-approval policy is set forth in the Audit Committee Charter available at http://investor.ceres.net.

All fees paid to, and all services provided by, KPMG LLP during the years ended August 31, 20122015 and 20112014 were pre-approved by theour Audit Committee.

71

PART IV

Item 15.    Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedule

(a)(1) Financial Statements

The financial statements listed in the accompanying Index to Consolidated Financial Statements on page F-1 are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules.

All schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes thereto.

(a)(3) Exhibits

See “Index to Exhibits” beginning on page E-1, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Index to Exhibits lists all exhibits filed with this Annual Report on Form 10-K and identifies which of those exhibits, if any, are management contracts and compensation plans.

72

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Annual Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on the 20th23rd day of November, 2012.2015.

 

CERES, INC.
By:

/S/s/    PAUL KUC

Name: Paul Kuc
Title: Chief Financial Officer

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Richard Hamilton, Paul Kuc and Wilfriede van Assche, his/her attorney-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for him/her in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Annual Report, and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connections therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and conforming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his or her substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue of hereof.

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

 

Signature

 

Capacity

 

Date

/s/    WALTER DE LOGI        

Walter De Logi, PhD

 Chairman
/s/    CHERYL MORLEYChair of the Board November 20, 201223, 2015
Cheryl P. Morley

/s/    PASCAL BRANDYS

Pascal Brandys

 Director November 20, 201223, 2015
Pascal Brandys

/s/    RAY DEBBANE        

Raymond Debbane

RICHARD FLAVELL
 Director November 20, 201223, 2015

/s/    RICHARD FLAVELL        

Richard Flavell, PhD, FRS, CBE

/s/    BOB GOLDBERG Director November 20, 201223, 2015
Robert Goldberg

/s/    BOB GOLDBERG        

Robert Goldberg

AFLALO GUIMARAES
 Director November 20, 201223, 2015
Aflalo Guimaraes

/s/    RICHARD HAMILTON

Richard Hamilton, PhD

 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director November 20, 201223, 2015
Richard Hamilton, PhD(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/    THOMAS D. KILEY

Thomas Kiley

 Director November 20, 201223, 2015

/s/    STEVEN KOONIN        

Steven Koonin

Thomas Kiley
 Director November 20, 2012

/s/    DAVID KRIEGER        

David B. Krieger

DirectorNovember 20, 2012

/s/    CHERYL P. MORLEY        

Cheryl P. Morley

DirectorNovember 20, 2012

/s/    EDMUND OLIVIER        

Edmund Olivier

DirectorNovember 20, 2012

/s/    DOUGLAS SUTTLES        

Douglas Suttles

DirectorNovember 20, 2012

CERES, INC.

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

  
/s/    PAUL KUCChief Financial OfficerNovember 23, 2015
Paul Kuc(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

CERES, INC.

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Page
Consolidated Financial Statements 

Consolidated Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

F-2

Consolidated Balance Sheets

F-3F- 3

Consolidated Statements of Operations

F-4F- 4

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

F-5F- 5

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)

F-6F- 6

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

F-7F- 7

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

F-9F- 9

F-1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMReport of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Ceres, Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Ceres, Inc. and subsidiarysubsidiaries as of August 31, 20122015 and August 31, 20112014 and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yeartwo-year period ended August 31, 2012.2015. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Ceres, Inc. and subsidiarysubsidiaries as of August 31, 20122015 and August 31, 20112014 and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-yeartwo-year period ended August 31, 20122015, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has incurred recurring losses and expects that the current level of cash and cash equivalents will only be sufficient to fund operations until January 2016 which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

November 20, 2012

/s/ KPMG LLP
Los Angeles, California
November 23, 2015

F-2

CERES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

 

  August 31,  August 31, 
  2012 2011  2015  2014 
Assets           

Current assets:

           

Cash and cash equivalents

  $21,069   $21,911   $8,095  $3,423 

Marketable securities

   33,565    —      -   24,579 

Prepaid expenses

   1,050    631    477   633 

Accounts receivable

   765    1,292    577   370 

Inventories

   841    —      -   84 

Deferred offering costs

   —      2,775  
Assets held for sale  474   - 

Other current assets

   278    225    143   240 
  

 

  

 

 

Total current assets

   57,568    26,834    9,766   29,329 
  

 

  

 

 

Property and equipment, net

   5,756    6,780    1,258   2,996 

Restricted cash and investment

   —      3,000  

Marketable securities

   5,720    —    

Other assets

   203    183    98   99 
  

 

  

 

 

Total long-term assets

   11,679    9,963    1,356   3,095 
  

 

  

 

 

Total assets

  $69,247   $36,797   $11,122  $32,424 
  

 

  

 

 
Liabilities, Convertible Preferred Stock and Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)   
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity        

Current liabilities:

           

Accounts payable and accrued expenses

  $5,476   $6,972   $4,402  $4,278 

Deferred revenue

   701    924  
Billings in excess of costs  802   356 

Deferred rent

   31    31    18   18 

Current portion of long-term debt

   134    2,168    -   70 
  

 

  

 

 

Total current liabilities

   6,342    10,095    5,222   4,722 

Deferred rent

   88    149    56   75 
Common stock warrant liabilities  1,631   - 

Long-term debt, net of current portion

   256    2,013    -   18 

Convertible notes

   —      13,630  

Preferred Stock warrant liabilities

   —      276  

Common Stock warrant liabilities

   —      17,450  
  

 

  

 

 

Total liabilities

   6,686    43,613    6,909   4,815 
  

 

  

 

 

Commitments and contingencies

           

Convertible preferred stock

   —      197,502  

Stockholders’ equity (deficit):

   

Common Stock, $0.01 par value; 490,000,000 shares authorized; 24,549,029 shares issued and outstanding at August 31, 2012; 25,000,000 shares authorized; 2,014,168 shares issued and outstanding at August 31, 2011.

   245    20  
Stockholders’ equity:        
Common Stock, $0.01 par value; 240,000,000 shares authorized; 8,830,700 shares issued and outstanding at August 31, 2015; 6,024,108 shares issued and outstanding at August 31,2014  88   60 

Additional paid-in capital

   304,672    8,352    335,424   332,049 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

   (283  (27  762   (595)

Accumulated deficit

   (242,073  (212,663  (332,061)  (303,905)
  

 

  

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)

   62,561    (204,318
  

 

  

 

 

Total liabilities, convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit)

  $69,247   $36,797  
  

 

  

 

 
Total stockholders’ equity  4,213   27,609 
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $11,122  $32,424 

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

F-3

CERES, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Operations

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

 

  Year Ended August 31,  Year Ended August 31, 
  2012 2011 2010  2015  2014 

Revenues:

            

Product sales

  $432   $116   $288   $434  $146 

Collaborative research and government grants

   4,939    6,500    6,326  
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Services  2,286   2,258 

Total revenues

   5,371    6,616    6,614    2,720   2,404 
  

 

  

 

  

 

         

Cost and operating expenses:

            

Cost of product sales

   2,384    2,492    2,946    5,267   3,021 

Research and development

   19,155    19,014    16,697    9,684   14,156 

Selling, general and administrative

   12,634    10,008    9,207    15,946   14,484 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Total cost and operating expenses

   34,173    31,514    28,850    30,897   31,661 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Loss from operations

   (28,802  (24,898  (22,236  (28,177)  (29,257)

Interest expense

   (560  (456  (153  (30)  (68)

Interest income

   39    7    23    28   5 

Other (expense) income

   (84  (11,020  (152
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Other income  24   - 

Loss before income taxes

   (29,407  (36,367  (22,518  (28,155)  (29,320)

Income tax (expense) benefit

   (3  31    (65
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Net Loss

  $(29,410 $(36,336 $(22,583
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Income tax expense  (1)  (1)
Net loss $(28,156) $(29,321)

Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to common stockholders

  $(2.18 $(18.34 $(11.70 $(4.57) $(6.48)

Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss per share attributable to common stockholders:

    
Weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss per shares attributable to common stockholders:        

Basic and diluted

   13,488,336    1,981,627    1,930,395    6,166,006   4,525,746 

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

F-4

CERES, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

(In thousands)

 

  Year Ended August 31,  Year Ended August 31, 
  2012 2011 2010  2015 2014 

Net loss

  $(29,410 $(36,336 $(22,583 $(28,156) $(29,321)

Other comprehensive income (loss):

            

Foreign currency translation adjustments

   (262  (27  —      1,346   100 

Net unrealized gains on marketable securities

   6   —      —    
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Net unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities  11   1 

Total comprehensive loss

  $(29,666 $(36,363 $(22,583 $(26,799) $(29,220)
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

F-5

CERES, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)

(In thousands, except share amounts)

 

   Common Stock   Additional
Paid-in
Capital
  Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
  Accumulated
Deficit
  Total
Stockholders’
Equity (Deficit)
 
   Number of
Shares
  Amount      

Balance at August 31, 2009

   1,899,376   $19    $4,148   $—     $(153,744 $(149,577

Exercise of common stock options

   48,666    —       31    —      —      31  

Stock compensation expense

   —      —       1,300    —      —      1,300  

Net loss

   —      —       —      —      (22,583  (22,583
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Balance at August 31, 2010

   1,948,042    19     5,479    —      (176,327  (170,829

Exercise of common stock options

   66,126    1     163    —      —      164  

Stock compensation expense

   —      —       2,710    —      —      2,710  

Net loss

   —      —       —      —      (36,336  (36,336

Foreign currency translation adjustment

   —      —       —      (27  —      (27
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Balance at August 31, 2011

   2,014,168    20     8,352    (27  (212,663  (204,318

Exercise of common stock options

   298,282    3     535    —      —      538  

Common stock issued upon IPO, net of offering costs

   5,750,000    58     65,100    —      —      65,158  

Conversion of convertible notes upon IPO

   1,098,575    11     14,271    —      —      14,282  

Conversion of convertible preferred stock upon IPO

   15,353,221    153     197,349    —      —      197,502  

Cancellation of common stock

   (5,817  —       —      —      —      —    

Restricted stock issued

   45,100    —       —      —      —      —    

Restricted stock cancelled

   (4,500  —       —      —      —      —    

Conversion of liability classified warrants to equity classified warrants upon IPO

   —      —       17,158    —      —      17,158  

Stock compensation expense

   —      —       1,909    —      —      1,909  

Effect of reverse stock split

   —      —       (2  —      —      (2

Net loss

   —      —       —      —      (29,410  (29,410

Foreign currency translation adjustment

   —      —       —      (262  —      (262

Unrealized gain on marketable securities

   —      —       —      6    —      6  
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Balance at August 31, 2012

   24,549,029   $245    $304,672   $(283 $(242,073 $62,561  
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 
           Accumulated       
  Common Stock  Additional  Other     Total 
  Number of     Paid-in  Comprehensive  Accumulated  Stockholders’ 
  Shares  Amount  Capital  Loss  Deficit  Equity (Deficit) 
Balance at August 31, 2013  3,112,147   30   308,256   (696)  (274,584)  33,006 
Common stock issued upon offering, net of costs  2,875,000   29   20,722   -   -   20,751 
Restricted stock issued  43,320   1   3   -   -   4 
Restricted stock cancelled  (6,359)  -   -   -   -   - 
Stock compensation expense  -   -   3,068   -   -   3,068 
Net loss  -   -   -   -   (29,321)  (29,321)
Foreign currency translation adjustment  -   -   -   100   -   100 
Unrealized gain on marketable securities  -   -   -   1   -   1 
Balance at August 31, 2014  6,024,108  $60  $332,049  $(595) $(303,905) $27,609 
Common stock issued upon offering, net of costs  2,798,478   28   1,110   -   -   1,138 
Restricted stock issued  9,125   -   -   -   -   - 
Restricted stock cancelled  (1,011)  -   -   -   -   - 
Stock compensation expense  -   -   2,265   -   -   2,265 
Net loss  -   -   -   -   (28,156)  (28,156)
Foreign currency translation adjustment  -   -   -   1,346   -   1,346 
Unrealized gain on marketable securities  -   -   -   11   -   11 
Balance at August 31, 2015  8,830,700  $88  $335,424  $762  $(332,061) $4,213 

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

F-6

CERES, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(In thousands)

 

 Year Ended 
  Year Ended
August 31,
  August 31, 
  2012 2011 2010  2015  2014 

Cash flows from operating activities:

            

Net loss

  $(29,410 $(36,336 $(22,583 $(28,156) $(29,321)

Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:

            

Change in fair value of common and preferred stock warrants and convertible notes

   84    (818  152  

Charge on issuance of convertible notes

   —      2,205    —    

Charge for modification of liability classified warrants

   —      9,633    —    

Impairment of assets, net of insurance proceeds

   26    —      —    

Net gain on disposal of assets

   30    42    106  

Depreciation

   2,059    2,075    2,420  
Change in fair value of common stock warrants  (24)  - 
Impairment of assets  502   - 
Net (loss) gain on disposal of assets  (39)  385 
Depreciation and amortization  657   1,517 
Amortization of premiums on marketable securities  142   288 

Stock compensation

   1,909    2,710    1,300    2,265   3,068 

Discount on matured investments

   —      —      19  
Other  52   152 

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:

            

Prepaid expenses

   (419  44    316    122   113 

Accounts receivable

   527    (96  (745  (208)  589 

Inventories

   (841  —      —      65   (61)

Deferred offering costs

   2,775    (2,775  —    

Other assets

   59    (83  86    85   (21)

Accounts payables and accrued expenses

   (1,827  3,197    (298  892   390 

Deferred revenue

   (223  247    420  
Billings in excess of costs  446   356 

Deferred rent

   (61  (52  (39  (18)  (18)
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Net cash used in operating activities

   (25,312  (20,007  (18,846  (23,217)  (22,563)
  

 

  

 

  

 

         

Cash flows from investing activities:

            

Purchases of property and equipment

   (1,265  (548  (2,093  (387)  (1,014)

Proceeds from sale of property and equipment

   —      112    —      60   810 

Proceeds from insurance

   1,000    —      —    

Change in restricted cash and investments

   3,000    —      (2,900

Purchase of marketable securities (at cost)

   (39,278  —      —      (720)  (33,085)

Maturities of marketable securities

   —      —      15,365    25,116   29,700 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

   (36,543  (436  10,372  
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities  24,069   (3,589)
  

 

  

 

  

 

         

Cash flows from financing activities:

            

Principal payments on debt

   (6,921  (2,263  (462  (69)  (159)

Proceeds from issuance of convertible notes

   —      11,425    —    

Proceeds from issuance of debt and preferred stock warrants

   2,500    —      7,000  

Proceeds from issuance of convertible preferred stock and common stock warrants

   —      —      20,000  

Proceeds from issuance of common stock

   538    164    31  

Proceeds from issuance of common stock upon IPO, net of underwriters discounts and commission

   65,158    —      —    
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Proceeds from issuance of common stock and common stock warrants, net of underwriters discounts and commissions and offering expenses  2,794   20,751 

Net cash provided by financing activities

   61,275    9,326    26,569    2,725   20,592 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Effect of foreign currency translation on cash

   (262  (27  —      1,095   102 

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

   (842  (11,144  18,095  
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  4,672   (5,458)

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

   21,911    33,055    14,960    3,423   8,881 
  

 

  

 

  

 

         

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

  $21,069   $21,911   $33,055   $8,095  $3,423 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

F-7

CERES, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (continued)

(In thousands)

 

   Year Ended
August 31,
 
   2012   2011   2010 

Supplemental cash flow information:

      

Interest paid during the year

  $376    $373    $110  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income taxes paid during the year

  $3    $1    $1  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Supplemental schedule of non-cash investing and financing activities:

      

Additions to property and equipment under capital leases

  $489    $—      $9  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Acquisitions of assets under accounts payable & accrued expenses

  $330    $—      $—    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Accrued deferred offering costs

  $—      $1,965    $—    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Surrender of common stock applied to stock option exercise

  $90    $—      $—    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Warrants issued in connection with equipment financing

  $—      $—      $239  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Warrants issued in connection with issuance of convertible preferred stock

  $—      $—      $5,557  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Detail of IPO transactions;

      

Conversion of convertible notes to common stock

  $14,282    $—      $—    

Conversion of convertible preferred stock to common stock

   197,502     —       —    

Conversion of liability classified warrants to equity classified warrants

   17,158     —       —    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total non-cash IPO transactions

  $228,942    $—      $—    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
  

Year Ended

August 31,

 
  2015  2014 
Supplemental cash flow information:        
Interest paid during the year $30  $46 
Income taxes paid during the year $1  $1 

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements

F-8

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

(1) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Description of Business

Ceres, Inc. (the “Company”)(Company) is an agricultural biotechnology company sellingthat develops and markets seeds and traits to produce dedicated energy crops – renewable bioenergy feedstocks that can enable the large-scale replacement of petroleumfor feed, forages, sugar and other fossil fuels.markets. The Company uses a combination of advanced plant breeding, biotechnology and biotechnologybioinformatics to develop seed products.products and biotechnology traits to address many of the current limitations and future challenges facing agriculture. These technology platforms, which can increase crop productivity, improve quality, reduce crop inputs and improve cultivation on marginal land, have broad application across multiple end markets, including food, feed, fiber and fuel.

In January 2010, the Company incorporatedformed a subsidiary, Ceres Sementes do Brasil Ltda. The Company’s ownership in this subsidiary is 99.9% and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer owns the remaining interest. In May 2014, the Company formed a wholly owned subsidiary, Ceres Agrotechnologies Intl LLC. In May 2014, the Company also formed a subsidiary, CS Semillas de Mexico, S.de L. de C.V. The Company’s ownership in this subsidiary is 99.9% and Ceres Agrotechnologies Intl LLC owns the remaining interest.

On January 24, 2012,March 10, 2014, the Company completed a registered public offering of 23,000,000 shares of its common stock (including 3,000,000 shares purchased by the underwriter upon the exercise in full of their right to purchase up to an additional 3,000,000 shares to cover over-allotments) at a price to the public of $1.00 per share. The Company received approximately $20,800 of proceeds from the offering, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

On April 8, 2015, the Company filed an amendment to its amended and restated certificate of incorporation which effected a 1 for 38 reverse stock split of the Company’s issued and outstanding shares of common stock. The par value of the common stock was not adjusted as a result of the reverse stock split. All issued and outstanding shares of common stock, warrants, and stock options and per share amounts contained in the Company’s consolidated financial statements have been retroactively adjusted to reflect this reverse stock split for all periods presented.

On February 27, 2012,July 30, 2015, the Company closed its initialcompleted a registered public offering (IPO) of 5,750,000an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares of common stock (including 750,000 shares purchased byCommon Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the underwriters upon the exercise of their right to purchase up to an additional 750,000 shares)Company, at an offering price of $13.00$1.296 per share resulting infor estimated net proceeds toof approximately $1.0 million, after deducting the placement agent fee and related offering expenses. In connection with the offering, the Company issued warrants exercisable for one share of approximately $65,158, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. Upon closingCommon Stock for each share purchased at an exercise price of the IPO, all of the Company’s outstanding shares of convertible preferred stock were automatically converted into 15,353,221 shares of common stock, all of the Company’s outstanding convertible subordinated notes were automatically converted into 1,098,575 shares of common stock and all of the Company’s outstanding convertible preferred stock warrants were automatically converted into$1.62 per share. The Company also issued warrants to purchase a totalan aggregate of 20,51124,000 shares of common stock.Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.944 per share to the placement agent as part of the placement agent’s compensation.

On August 26, 2015, the Company completed a registered public offering of an aggregate of 1,598,478 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company, at an offering price of $1.22 per share for estimated net proceeds, together with the concurrent private placement, of approximately $1.7 million, after deducting the placement agent fee and related offering expenses. In connection with the offering, the Company issued warrants exercisable for 0.75 shares of Common Stock, for an aggregate of 1,198,859 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.22 per share. The Company also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 31,970 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.83 per share to the placement agent as part of the agent's compensation.

Liquidity

The Company has incurred substantial net losses from operations since its inception, including net losses of $29,410, $36,336$28,156 and $22,583$29,321 for the years ended August 31, 2012, 2011,2015 and 2010,2014, respectively. As of August 31, 20122015 the Company had an accumulated deficit of $242,073.$332,061.

As of August 31, 2015, the Company had cash and cash equivalents of $8,095. Management believes this will only be sufficient to fund operations until January 2016. The Company needs to raise additional capital to continue beyond this point. The Company is evaluating opportunities to secure additional financing, including the issuance of equity or debt, sale or divesture of business units, and additional revenues from grants or collaborations. However there are no assurances that such opportunities will be available or available on terms that are acceptable to the Company. If the Company is unable to raise additional funds, the Company will not have adequate liquidity to fund its operations and will be forced to significantly curtail or cease its operations. This raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. These financial statements have been prepared under the assumption that the Company will continue as a going concern and do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

The Company has incurred recurring losses and expects to incur additional losses related to the continued development and expansion of its business, including research and development, seed production and operations, and sales and marketing. The Company plans to finance its operations for the foreseeable future with cash and investments currently on hand, with cash inflows from collaboration and grant funding and from product sales. There is no assurance that the Company will achieve profitable operations, or if achieved, that profitable operations can be sustained on a continued basis.

Management believes that

F-9

Restructuring

On October 11, 2013, the Company commenced the implementation of a plan (Plan) intended to further align expenditures with the Company’s cashnear-term commercial opportunity in Brazil, shift Northern Hemisphere sorghum breeding activities from College Station, Texas to a more appropriate location, de-emphasize research and cash equivalentsdevelopment for U.S. cellulosic feedstocks, reduce costs and marketable securitiesconserve cash. The actions taken under the Plan, which included, among others, a workforce reduction that impacted 16 positions in the U.S, were completed at August 31, 20122014. During 2014, the Company incurred total charges of approximately $1,600 with respect to the U.S. workforce reductions, including $900 of one-time severance expenses, $400 for continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work was completed and $300 of other costs. Of the $1,600 of cash payments made during the nine months ending May 31, 2014, $1,000, $500 and $100 was recorded to research and development expenses, cost of sales and general and administrative expenses, respectively.

On June 19, 2015, the Company announced the continued realignment of its business to focus on food and forage opportunities and biotechnology traits for sugarcane and other crops. As part of the realignment, the Company undertook a restructuring of its Brazilian seed operations. The restructuring of the Company’s Brazilian seed operations, includes, among other actions, a workforce reduction that initially impacted 14 positions in Brazil primarily related to administration, operations and manufacturing as well as 2 support positions in the United States. The Company estimated that it would incur charges of approximately $600 over the five-month period ending in October 2015 with respect to the initial workforce reductions in Brazil and the U.S., including $100 in continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are sufficienteliminated, and $500 of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures. During the year ended August 31, 2015, the Company made cash payments of approximately $500 related to fundthese expenses. The remaining cash payments of approximately $100 are expected to be made prior to the quarter ended November 30, 2015, and are accrued in accounts payable and accrued expenses as of August 31, 2015.

As of August 19, 2015, the Company initiated a further workforce reduction that impacted an additional 19 positions in Brazil. The Company estimated that it would incur additional charges of approximately $800 over the four-month period ending on December 31, 2015 with respect to the additional workforce reductions in Brazil, including $100 in continuation of salary and benefits of certain employees until their work is completed and their positions are eliminated, and $700 of one-time severance and other costs, all of which will be cash expenditures. The restructuring of the Company’s Brazilian seed operations is expected to be substantially completed by February 1, 2016. After full implementation of the restructuring plan, the Brazilian operations will be focused on sugarcane trait development activities for at least the next 12 months.Brazilian sugarcane market. During the year ended August 31, 2015, the Company made cash payments of approximately $200 related to these expenses. The remaining cash payments of approximately $600 are expected to be made prior to December 31, 2015, and are accrued in accounts payable and accrued expenses as of August 31, 2015.

F-10

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and with the instructions for Form 10-KRules and Regulations S-X.of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its subsidiary.subsidiaries. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions. This affects the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Significant items subject to such estimates and assumptions include the valuation of property and equipment,assets held for sale, inventory, deferred tax assets, common stock, convertible preferred stock, stock options, warrant liabilities and convertible notes.liability classified warrants. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Cash Equivalents

The Company considers all highly liquid investments, with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased, to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents totaled $16,769$3,792 and $10,018$2,174 at August 31, 20122015 and 2011,2014, respectively.

Restricted Cash and Restricted Investments

Cash and investment accounts that are restricted as to withdrawal or usage are presented as restricted cash and investments.

Marketable Securities

Marketable securities are classified as available for sale and are recorded at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, if any, net of taxes, reported as a component of shareholders’ equity (deficit) until realized or until a determination is made that an other-than-temporary decline in market value has occurred.

In determining whether an other-than-temporary impairment exists for debt securities, management considers: (1) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer and (3) the intent and ability of the Company to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value. The CompanyManagement has determined that there has been no other-than-temporary impairment of its marketable securities.

The cost of marketable securities sold is based upon the specific identification method and any realized gains or losses on the sale of investments are reflected as a component of interest income or expense. There were no sales of marketable securities during the yearyears ended August 31, 2012.2015 and 2014.

The Company classifies marketable securities as current or non-current based upon whether such assets are reasonably expected to be realized in cash or sold or consumed during the normal operating cycle of the business.

Financial Instruments

The carrying value of financial instruments such as cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivables, accounts payable, and accrued expenses approximate their fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. At each period end, the fair value of the long-term debt approximated carrying value based on interest rates currently available to the Company.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Assets and liabilities recorded at fair value in the consolidated financial statements are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value. Hierarchical levels that are

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

directly related to the amount of subjectivity associated with the inputs to the valuation of these assets or liabilities are as follows:

 

Level 1 — Observable inputs such asare quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.liabilities that the Company can access at the measurement date.

F-11

 

Level 2 — Observableinputs are inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices in markets that are not active, or other inputsincluded within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assetsliability, either directly or liabilities.

indirectly.

 

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs that are supported by littleunobservable inputs for the asset or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.liability.

The following tables present the Company’s financial assets that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of August 31, 20122015 and 20112014 by level within the fair value hierarchy:

 

  August 31, 2012  August 31, 2015 
  Level 1   Level 2   Level 3   Total  Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total 

Financial Assets

                        

Money market funds

  $16,769    $—      $—      $16,769   $3,732  $  $  $3,732 

Commercial paper — available for sale

   —       10,187     —       10,187  

Corporate bonds — available for sale

   —       29,098     —       29,098  
  

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 
Certificates of deposit — available for sale     60      60 

Total

  $16,769    $39,285    $—      $56,054   $3,732  $60  $  $3,792 
  

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 

 

   August 31, 2011 
   Level 1   Level 2   Level 3   Total 

Financial Assets

        

Money market funds

  $10,018    $—      $—      $10,018  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

All of the money market funds and certificates of deposit are included in cash and cash equivalents on the consolidated balance sheets.

  August 31, 2014 
  Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Total 
Financial Assets                
Money market funds $2,114  $  $  $2,114 
Certificates of deposit — available for sale     4,240      4,240 
Commercial paper — available for sale     5,249      5,249 
Corporate bonds ��� available for sale     15,150      15,150 
Total $2,114  $24,639  $  $26,753 

All of the money market funds and $60 of the certificates of deposit are included in cash and cash equivalents on the consolidated balance sheets.

Financial Liabilities

Certain common stock warrants have been classified as liabilities due to some features which could enable the holder to receive cash. The Company utilized an option pricing valuation model to determine the fair value of its outstanding common and convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities. The inputs to the model includeincluded fair value of the stock related to the warrant, exercise price of the warrant, expected term, expected volatility, risk-free interest rate and dividend yield. As several significant inputs arewere not observable, the overall fair value measurement of the common stock warrants iswere classified as Level 3. The changes in fair value of the Company’s Level 3 warrants and convertible notescommon stock warrant liabilities were as follows:

   Common
Stock
Warrant
Liabilities
  Preferred
Stock
Warrant
Liabilities
  Convertible
Notes
 

Fair value, August 31, 2010

  $8,578   $333   $—    

Issuance of convertible notes

   —      —      13,640  

Fair value adjustments

   (761  (57  (10

Warrant modification adjustment

   9,633    —      —    
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Fair value, August 31, 2011

   17,450    276    13,630  

Fair value adjustments

   (516  (52  652  

Conversion upon closing of IPO

   (16,934  (224  (14,282
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Fair value, August 31, 2012

  $—     $—     $—    
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

$1,631 at August 31, 2015. There were no common stock warrant liabilities outstanding at August 31, 2014.

 

The fair value of the common stock warrant liabilities at August 31, 2015 was estimated using the following weighted-average assumptions:

Year Ended
August 31, 2015
Expected term (in years)4.91 - 5.49
Expected volatility69.80%
Risk free interest rate1.54%
Expected dividend yield0%

Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable represents amounts owed to the Company from product sales and collaborative research and government grants. The Company had no amounts reserved for doubtful accounts at August 31, 20122015 and 20112014 as the Company expected full collection of the accounts receivable balances.

F-12

Customers representing greater than 10% of accounts receivable were as follows (in percentages):

 

  As of
August 31,
  As of
August 31,
 

Customers

  2012   2011  2015  2014 

Customer A

   47.9     20.0  

Customer B

   *     21.3    23.7   59.5 

Customer C

   *     30.4  

Customer D

   13.6     20.0  

Customer E

   15.2     *    18.9   25.9 
Customer F  38.2   ** 
Customer G  16.1   ** 

 

*Less than 10%

**  No balance

Customers representing greater than 10% of revenues were as follows (in percentages):

 

  Year Ended August 31,  Year Ended August 31, 

Customers

  2012   2011   2010  2015  2014 

Customer A

   24.7     20.5     12.7    **   17.5 

Customer B

   16.8     16.6     13.5    33.5   41.9 

Customer C

   *     20.9     9.8  

Customer D

   17.4     25.4     28.5  
Customer E  12.2   16.5 

Customer F

   14.0     *     *    13.1   11.6 
Customer I  11.9   ** 

 

*Less than 10%

**  No revenue

Inventories and Inventory Valuation

At August 31, 2015, inventory was fully reserved. At August 31, 2014, seed inventory consisted of work-in-process and finished goods for costs related to the Company’s sorghum seeds in Brazil. When inventory costs exceed expected market value due to obsolescence or lack of demand, inventory write-downs are recorded for the difference between the cost and the market value in the period based on the Company's evaluation of such inventory.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment is stated at cost. Depreciation is provided using the straight-line method over the shorter of the estimated useful lives or the remaining life of the lease. Depreciation periods for the Company’s property and equipment are as follows:

 

Automobiles and trucks

3-5 years

Office, laboratory, farm and warehouse equipment and furniture

3-5 years

Leasehold improvements

3-10 years

Buildings

14-39 years

Assets Held for Sale

The Company reclassifies long-lived assets to Assets Held for Sale when all required criteria for such reclassification are met. The assets are recorded at the lower of the carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. Assets held for sale must meet the following conditions: (1) management, having authority to approve the action, commits to a plan to sell the asset, (2) the asset is available for immediate sale in its present condition, (3) an active program to locate a buyer and other actions required to complete the plan to sell the asset have been initiated, (4) the sale of the asset is probable, and transfer of the asset is expected to qualify for recognition as a completed sale, within one year, (5) the asset is being actively marketed for sale at a price that is reasonable in relation to its current fair value, and (6) actions required to complete the plan indicate that it is unlikely that significant changes to the plan will be made or that the plan will be withdrawn.

F-13

In connection with an agreement the Company entered into on March 31, 2014 to sell its facility and certain equipment located in College Station, Texas, a determination was made that the assets met the criteria to be classified as held for sale and the fair value for the related assets was in excess of their carrying amount. Accordingly, the Company recorded a charge of $464 to Research and development expense for the difference between the net carrying amount of these assets of $1,152 and the net cash proceeds of $688. On June 2, 2014, the Company completed the sale of this facility and equipment for net cash proceeds of $688.

In connection with the announcement by the Company on June 19, 2015, to restructure its Brazilian seed operations, a determination was made that the fixed assets in Brazil met the criteria to be classified as held for sale and the carrying amount of those assets was in excess of their fair value. Accordingly, the Company recorded a charge of $395 to cost of product sales, research and development and general and administrative expense for the difference between the net carrying value of these assets of $869 and estimated net cash proceeds of $474. Fair value of the assets held for sale was determined using an appraisal for certain assets and resale information available for certain assets.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived assets, such as property and equipment, are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. To the extent that an impairment indicator has occurred, recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated undiscounted future cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized in the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the fair value of the asset.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

On February 3, 2012, the Company’s plant breeding and field research station located near College Station, Texas was damaged by a tornado. The impact was limited to structural damage to the building that houses office space and a small laboratory and work space. A greenhouse, tractor sheds, and some agricultural equipment were also damaged. The cost to construct the damaged buildings was approximately $1,500.

For the year ended August 31, 2012, the Company impaired $1,026 in assets related to damage at the Texas facility, and at August 31, 2012, the Company had received insurance proceeds of $1,000 for repair costs. The remainder of the repairs, which will also be covered by insurance, was largely completed by September 2012.

Common and Convertible Preferred Stock Warrant Liabilities

Prior to the closing of the IPO, the Company determined that common stock warrants issued to certain holders of convertible preferred stock were not considered indexed to the Company’s common stock and therefore required liability classification. In addition, the Company accounted for its warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s convertible preferred stock that were contingently redeemable as liabilities at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets. These common and convertible preferred stock warrants were subject to re-measurement at each balance sheet date and the changes in fair value, if any, were recognized as other (expense) income.

Upon the closing of the IPO, certain common and convertible preferred stock warrants, previously classified as liabilities were revalued and reclassified to additional paid-in capital as they no longer met the requirements for liability classification given the automatic conversion of the convertible preferred stock to common stock upon consummation of the IPO.

Convertible Preferred Stock

In connection with the Company’s decision to file a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the IPO, the Company adopted the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 480-10-S99-3A,Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities.

The convertible preferred stock was not redeemable by the Company or at the option of the preferred stockholders. The holders of the Company’s outstanding convertible preferred stock, voting or consenting together as a separate class, controlled the vote of the Company’s stockholders. As a result, the holders of all series of the Company’s convertible preferred stock could vote to approve a change in control under circumstances that would trigger a deemed liquidation under the Company’s certificate of incorporation in effect prior to the IPO. As redemption of the convertible preferred stock through a deemed liquidation was outside the control of the Company, all shares of convertible preferred stock were classified as temporary equity rather than as a component of stockholders’ (deficit) equity in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. The carrying value of convertible preferred stock was recorded at its fair value at the date of issue. All series of convertible preferred stock are collectively referred to in the consolidated financial statements as convertible preferred stock.

As discussed in Note (1), all of the outstanding shares of convertible preferred stock were automatically converted into shares of common stock upon the closing of the IPO.

Stock-Based Compensation

The Company accounts for stock-based compensation arrangements with employees using a fair value method under ASC Topic 718,, Compensation - Stock Compensation, which requires the recognition of

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

compensation expense for costs related to all stock-based payments including stock options. options and restricted stock awards.

The fair value method requires the Company to estimate the fair value of stock-based payment awards on the date of grant using an option pricing model. The Company uses an option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock options granted that are expensed on a straight-line basis over the vesting period. The Company accounts for stock options issued to non-employees based on the estimated fair value of the awards using the option pricing model. The measurement of stock-based compensation to non-employees is subject to periodic adjustments as the underlying equity instruments vest, and the resulting change in value, if any, is recognized in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations during the period the related services are rendered.

The Company accounts for restricted stock awards based on the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant that are expensed on a straight-line basis over the vesting period.

Revenue Recognition

Revenues are recognized when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) transfer of product or technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. To date, the Company’s primary source of revenues has been derived from collaborative research agreements and government grants and to a lesser extent, product sales.

Product Sales

Product sales are derived from seed and biomass sales, of seeds.and trait fees. Product sales are recognized, net of discounts and allowances, once passage of title and risk of loss have occurred and contractually specified acceptance criteria have been met, provided all other revenue recognition criteria have also been met. To date, product sales have not been significant.

F-14

Collaborative Research and Government Grants

From time to time, the Company entershas entered into research and development collaboration agreements with third parties, including a large agriculture supplier, a consumer goods conglomerate and several biofuel producers andproducers. In addition, the Company has received grants from government agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The research and development collaboration agreements typically provide the Company with multiple revenue streams, which may include up-front, non-refundable fees for licensing certain of the Company’s technologies, government grants and fees for research and development activities, and contingent milestone payments based upon achievement of contractual criteria.

 

Technology License Fees— For collaboration agreements in which the Company has continuing involvement, license fees are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the arrangement. Licensing fees are non-refundable and not subject to future performance.

 

Government Grants— The Company receives payments from government entities in the form of government grants. Government grants generally provide the Company with partial cost reimbursement for certain types of expenditures in return for research and development activities over a contractually defined period.period, as well an allocated portion of overhead expenses. Revenues from government grants are recognized in the period during which the related costs are incurred, provided thatsubstantially all the conditions under which the government grants were provided have been met and the Company has only perfunctory obligations outstanding.

 

Research and Development Fees— Generally, fees for research and development activities are recognized as the services are performed over the performance period, as specified in the respective agreements. Certain of the Company’s collaboration agreements require the Company to deliver research data by specific dates and that the collective program plan will result in reaching specific crop characteristics by certain dates. For such arrangements, the Company recognizes revenues either on a straight-line basis over the term of the arrangement or based on the approximate percentage of completion of services under the agreement, but the revenue recognized cannot exceed payments received by the Company to date under the agreement. The research and development period is estimated at the inception of each agreement and is periodically evaluated.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

Milestone Fees— Fees that are contingent based on achievement of substantive performance milestones at inception of the agreement are recognized based on the achievement of the milestone, as defined in the respective agreements.

Deferred Revenue

The Company recognizes deferred revenue to the extent that cash received under the collaboration agreement is in excess of the revenues recognized related to the agreement since the work under the agreement has not yet been performed at the time of cash receipt.

In April 2002, the Company entered into a multi-year discovery and development collaboration with Monsanto Company, focused on applying genomics technologies to identify genes that provide improvements in corn, soybean and certain other row crops. Pursuant to this agreement, Monsanto licensed rights to a portion of the Company’s trait discovery pipeline in certain row crops in exchange for license payments over several years. Monsanto also funded a research program with the Company, which was completed in 2007. Payments for such licenses were nonrefundable and were not subject to future performance. The Company had no milestone fees for any periods presented herein. In 2010, the Company and Monsanto agreed to amend the agreement. The amendment included an additional license fee of $450 pertaining to an expansion of the license grant. This amount was recorded in revenues for collaborative research and government grants in 2010. In connection with entering into the collaboration agreement, Monsanto also obtained an equity interest in the Company in the form of preferred stock which, at the time of the IPO, represented less than 5% of the Company’s common stock.

On December 20, 2007, the Company and Campbell Soup Company (Campbell) entered into a development and license agreement under which the Company is working to improve yields of a food product. The agreement provided that the Company would receive $7,500 in payments from Campbell over a five-year period provided milestones were met. In addition, the agreement provided that the Company would be entitled to receive a royalty based on the gross sales of crop varieties created under the agreement. In December 2011, the development and license agreement was amended to extend the $7,500 in payments from Campbell over a six-year period. The Company recognized revenue of $933, $1,683 and $1,883 under this agreement in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The Company has earned research funding revenues from several agreements with the DOE, the USDA, USAID and several leading bio-fuelsbiofuel producers whereby the Company performed research activities and received revenues that partially reimbursed its expenses incurred. Under such grants and agreements, the Company retained a proprietary interest in the products and technology it developed. These expense reimbursements primarily consisted of direct expense sharing arrangements. The Company recorded revenue related to these grants and collaboration agreements of approximately $2,416, $3,120$1,630 and $2,800$1,980 in 2012, 20112015 and 2010,2014, respectively. The cumulative remaining amount to be claimed for all grants

Software and certain collaboration agreements outstanding as ofServices

During the years ended August 31, 2012 is approximately $2,154.

On December 16, 2008, the Company2015 and Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. (Syngenta) entered into a software license and collaboration agreement pursuant to which2014, the Company provided services related to software software developmentarrangements that involve (1) significant production, modification or customization and (2) post contract customer support for certain research application-based software.(PCS). The agreementcustomer has the option, annually, to extend the arrangement or elect to receive only maintenance. The Company does not have vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) related to these components. In addition, there are substantive acceptance provisions related to the production, modification or customization. The company applies the completed contract method to the arrangement. However, only costs related to the production, modification or customization are deferred. Revenue is recognized upon acceptance of the production, modification or customization as that is later that the expiration of the annual PCS period. Revenue related to these arrangements was structured into three phases$656 and under the agreement,$278 million in 2015 and 2014.

The Company also had an arrangement that included a license, installation services and PCS. As the Company received $1,500 in payments over an approximate 4.5 year period. The software delivered is comprised of multiple elements, which include software, installation, training, customization of software, and software support. On April 16, 2012, the agreement was amended to reflect Syngenta’s acceptance of all software and software support services provided under the original agreement and to allowdoes not have VSOE for the continuationelements, the Company has billings in excess of certain software support services during a post development support period beginning April 16, 2012 and extendingcash until all services are terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The Company recognized revenues equal to the amount of expense recognized as services were rendered until

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

April 15, 2012, when the software support becamePCS is the only undelivered element. Beginning April 16, 2012, the unrecognizedelement and will recognize revenue under the agreement is being recognized ratably over the remaining software supportPCS period. There was no revenue related to these arrangements during 2015 and 2014.

F-15

Billings in Excess of Costs

The Company recognizes billings in excess of costs to the extent that cash received under the software and service arrangements are in excess of the revenues recognized revenues totaling $750, $243 and $268related to the arrangements since the work under this agreement in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.the arrangements have not yet been performed, or the work has not been fully completed at the balance sheet date.

Research and Development

Research and development expenses principally consist of personnel costs related to the Company’s research and development staff as well as depreciation of research and development assets. Research and development expenses also include costs incurred for laboratory supplies, reimbursable costs associated with government grants and collaborative agreements, third-party contract payments, consultants, facility and related overhead costs.

Seed Inventories

At August 31, 2012, inventory consisted of work-in-process and finished good costs related to sweet sorghum seeds. Inventory costs are computed on a first-in, first-out basis and valued at the lower of cost or market with any excess cost recognized during the period within cost of product sales. A full valuation reserve has been recorded on all other seed products as no established market exists.

At August 31, 2011, a full valuation reserve was recorded against all seed inventory due to the early commercialization of the Company’s seed products and no established market for the these products.

Income Taxes

The Company accounts for income taxes in accordance with ASC 740,Income Taxes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance is provided for the amount of deferred tax assets that, based on available evidence, are not expected to be realized.

The Company accounts for unrecognized tax benefits also in accordance with ASC 740,Income Taxes, which prescribes a minimum probability threshold that a tax position must meet before a financial statement benefit is recognized. The minimum threshold is defined as a tax position that is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by the applicable taxing authority, including resolution to any related appeals or litigation, based solely on the technical merits of the position. The Company has no accrual for interest or penalties related to uncertain tax positions at August 31, 20122015 and 2011,2014, and did not recognize interest or penalties in the Statements of Operations during the years ended August 31, 2012, 20112015 and 2010.2014.

Since the Company’s inception,

The major jurisdictions in which the Company has been subject tofiles income taxes principally intax returns include the federal and state jurisdictions within the United States and Brazil, where it has a subsidiary. The Company anticipates that as it expands its operations outside the United States, it will become subject to taxation based in the foreign statutory rates and the effective tax rate could fluctuate accordingly. The tax years 2007 to 2011after 2009 remain open to examination by federal and state taxing jurisdictions and the tax years 2010-2011after 2011 remain open to examination by foreign jurisdictions. However, the Company has NOLs beginning in 1998 which would cause the statute of limitations to remain open for the year in which the NOL was incurred.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

Foreign Currency Translation

The Brazilian real is the functional currency of the Company’s subsidiary in Brazil.Brazil and the Mexican Peso is the functional currency of the Company’s subsidiary in Mexico. Accordingly, assetassets and liability accountsliabilities of those operations are translated into United States dollars using the current exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date and equity accounts are translated into United States dollars using historical rates. The revenuesRevenues and expenses are translated usingat the weighted average rate of exchange rates in effect whenduring the transactions occur.reporting period. Gains and losses from foreign currency translation adjustments are represented as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

The Company’s unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities and foreign currency translation adjustments represents the components of comprehensive loss and have been disclosed in the consolidated statements of stockholders’ equity.

F-16

The following summarizes the changes in the balances of each component of accumulated comprehensive income (loss) during the years presented:

        Accumulated 
  Foreign  Unrealized  Other 
  Currency  Gains (Losses)  Comprehensive 
  Translation  on Securities  Loss 
Balance at August 31, 2013 $(684) $(12) $(696)
Comprehensive gain  100   1   101 
Balance at August 31, 2014  (584)  (11)  (595)
Comprehensive gain  1,346   11   1,357 
Balance at August 31, 2015 $762  $-  $762 

Basic and Diluted Net Loss Per Share

Basic net loss per common share is computed by dividing net loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted net loss per common share is computed by dividing net loss available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares and dilutive potential common share equivalents then outstanding, to the extent they are dilutive. Potential common shares consist of shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants (using the treasury stock method), and the weighted average conversion of the convertible preferred stock into shares of common stock (using the if-converted method). Dilutive net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share for all periods presented because the effects of potentially dilutive items were anti-dilutive.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net loss per common share:

   Year Ended
August 31,
 
   2012  2011  2010 

Net loss

  $(29,410 $(36,336 $(22,583
  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Basic and diluted net loss per common share

  $(2.18 $(18.34 $(11.70

Basic and diluted weighted average outstanding common shares used for net loss

   13,488,336    1,981,627    1,930,395  

The following potentially dilutive, common share equivalents were excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per common share because their effect was antidilutiveanti-dilutive for each of the periods presented:

 

 Year Ended 
  Year Ended
August 31,
  August 31, 
  2012   2011   2010  2015  2014 

Options to purchase common stock

   2,778,508     2,597,285     2,291,408    409,763   396,504 

Warrants to purchase common stock

   2,082,045     1,994,868     1,994,868    2,775,083   320,255 

Warrants to purchase convertible preferred stock

   —       20,511     20,511  

Convertible preferred stock

   —       15,353,226     15,353,226  

Convertible notes

   —       1,171,818     —    
  

 

   

 

   

 

 

Total

   4,860,553     21,137,708     19,660,013    3,184,846   716,759 
  

 

   

 

   

 

 

Segment and geographic information

Management has determined that it has one business activity and operates in one segment as it only reports financial information on an aggregate and consolidated basis to its Chief Executive Officer, who is the Company’s chief operating decision maker. Geographic information regarding the Company’s operations outside of North America is not significant for any period presented.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

On

In July 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-11,Income Taxes (Topic 740): Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists. ASU 2013-11 requires an entity to present an unrecognized tax benefit as a reduction of a deferred tax asset for a net operating loss (NOL) carryforward, or similar tax loss or tax credit carryforward, rather than as a liability when: (1) the uncertain tax position would reduce the NOL or other carryforward under the tax law of the applicable jurisdiction, and (2) the entity intends to use the deferred tax asset for that purpose. ASU 2013-11 changes existing presentation requirements but does not require new recurring disclosures and is effective for fiscal years, and the interim periods within those years, beginning after December 16, 201115, 2013. The Company does not anticipate that the adoption of this ASU will materially change the presentation of its consolidated financial statements.

F-17

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued the Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-11,(“ASU”) 2014-09Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities, in conjunctionRevenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) .. ASU 2014-09 replaces the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issuancemajority of amendments toDisclosures — Offsetting Financial Assetsand Financial Liabilities (Amendments to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 7). While the Boards retained the existing offsetting models underall U.S. GAAP and IFRS,guidance that currently exists on revenue recognition with a single model to be applied to all contracts with customers. The core principle of ASU 2014-09 is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the new standards require disclosurestransfer of promised goods or services to allow investorscustomers in an amount that reflects the consideration to better compare financial statements prepared under U.S. GAAP with financial statements prepared under IFRS. The new standards arewhich the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.

For a public entity, ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning January 1, 2013 andafter December 15, 2017, including interim periods with those annual periods. Retrospectivewithin that reporting period. Early application is required.not permitted. An entity must apply ASU 2014-09 using either the full retrospective approach, by restating all years presented, or the cumulative effect at the date of adoption approach. We are currently assessing the impact that these changes will have on our consolidated financial statements and therefore are unable to quantify such impact or determine the method of adoption.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern Sub-topic 205-40. The new guidance addresses management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. This ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2016, and early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluatingdoes not expect the impact of adoption of this standard, if any,guidance to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.position or results of operations.

F-18

(2) Marketable Securities

Marketable

At August 31, 2015, there were no marketable securities.

At August 31, 2014, marketable securities classified as available for sale consisted of the following:

 

   August 31, 2012 
Available for sale securities  Amortized
Cost
   Gross
Unrealized
Gain
   Gross
Unrealized
Loss
  Fair Value 

Commercial Paper

  $10,187    $2    $(2 $10,187  

Corporate Bonds

   29,092     17     (11  29,098  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

Total

  $39,279    $19    $(13 $39,285  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

There were no securities classified as available for sale as of

  August 31, 2014 
     Gross  Gross    
  Amortized  Unrealized  Unrealized    
Available for sale securities Cost  Gain  Loss  Fair Value 
Certificates of Deposit $4,244  $-  $(4) $4,240 
Commercial Paper  5,249   -   -   5,249 
Corporate Bonds  15,157   -   (7)  15,150 
Total $24,650  $-  $(11) $24,639 

At August 31, 20112014, $60 of the certificates of deposit and there$1,199 of the commercial paper, respectively, is included in the cash and cash equivalents on the consolidated balance sheet.

There were no marketable securities classified as held-to maturity as of August 31, 20122015 and 2011,2014, respectively.

The following table summarizes the amortized cost and fair value of the Company’s

All marketable securities classified by stated maturity as ofat August 31, 2012:2014 are due to mature in one year or less.

 

   August 31, 2012 
   Amortized Cost   Fair Value 

Marketable securities

    

Due in 1 year or less

  $33,567    $33,565  

Due in 1 — 2 years

   5,712     5,720  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
  $39,279    $39,285  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

(3) Inventories

At August 31, 2015, inventory was fully reserved. Inventories at August 31, 2014 consisted of the following:

 

 August 31, 
  August 31,
2012
  2014 

Work in process

  $264   $20 

Finished goods

   577  
  

 

 
Seed inventory  64 

Total inventories

  $841   $84 
  

 

 

F-19

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

(4) Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are summarized as follows:

 

 As of 
  As of
August 31,
  August 31, 
  2012 2011  2015  2014 

Land

  $43   $43   $43  $43 

Automobiles and trucks

   728    373    44   1,113 

Buildings

   3,252    3,391    1,215   1,215 

Office, laboratory, farm and warehouse equipment and furniture

   15,552    16,346    10,863   12,718 

Leasehold improvements

   5,709    5,759    5,659   5,659 
  

 

  

 

   17,824   20,748 
   25,284    25,912  

Less accumulated depreciation

   (19,528  (19,132
  

 

  

 

 
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization  (16,566)  (17,752)

Property and equipment, net

  $5,756   $6,780   $1,258  $2,996 
  

 

  

 

 

(5) Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses

Accounts payable and accrued expenses consisted of the following:

 

 As of 
  As of
August 31,
  August 31, 
  2012   2011  2015  2014 

Accounts payable

  $1,865    $3,790   $2,000  $1,406 

Accrued payroll and related expenses

   2,530     1,505    1,581   2,303 

Research and development contracts

   686     1,099    283   123 

Accrued grower commitments

   76     90  
Taxes  395   - 

Other

   319     488    143   446 
  

 

   

 

  $4,402  $4,278 
  $5,476    $6,972  
  

 

   

 

 

(6) Long-Term Debt

There were no long-term debt obligations as of August 31, 2015. Long-term debt as of August 31, 2014 is summarized as follows:

 

 As of 
  As of
August 31,
  August 31, 2014 
  2012 2011    

Equipment Loans

  $—     $4,176  

Capital Leases

   390    5   $88 
  

 

  

 

 
   390    4,181  

Less current portion

   (134  (2,168  (70)
  

 

  

 

  $18 
  $256   $2,013  
  

 

  

 

 

Equipment Loans

In January 2010, the Company entered into a Loan and Security Agreement (the Loan Agreement) with a commercial bank (the Bank). The Loan Agreement provided financing for qualified equipment purchases. The Company borrowed a total of $7,000 in two tranches at interest rates of Prime Rate plus 2.75%, which was to be

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

(7) Stock-Based Compensation

 

repaid over 36 to 40 months. In connection with the Loan Agreement, the Company issued the Bank warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s convertible preferred stock. The fair value of the warrants was recorded as a discount on the equipment loan and was being recognized over the term of the equipment loan as interest expense. Upon closing of the Company’s IPO, the convertible preferred stock warrants were converted to warrants to purchase common stock (see Note (1)).

In September 2011, the Company entered into an Amended Loan and Security Agreement (Amended Loan Agreement) with the Bank that provided for an additional $3,500 term loan consisting of (i) a $2,500 immediately available term loan which was advanced to the Company in September 2011 and (ii) a $1,000 term loan available upon satisfaction of additional term loan advance conditions, which was not drawn by the Company. The interest rate for the Amended Loan Agreement was a fixed rate based on the Bank Prime Rate at the time of each loan advance. The Company paid interest only (4%) until April 2012 and principal plus interest were to be paid in equal installments over 36 months commencing April 1, 2012.

In May 2012, the Company repaid all amounts due and owing to the Bank under the Amended Loan Agreement. Upon repayment, the unamortized portion of the loan discount was charged to interest expense. At August 31, 2011, the Company held restricted cash of $3,000 in the form of a deposit related to the Amended Loan Agreement. The restriction lapsed upon repayment to the Bank.

The aggregated maturities of debt as of August 31, 2012 are as follows:Equity Plans

 

2013

  $134  

2014

   213  

2015

   43  
  

 

 

 
  $390  
  

 

 

 

(7) Stock-Based Compensation

Stock Option and Stock Issuance Plans

The Company has established three stock option and stock issuanceequity plans: the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (2000 Plan), the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (2010 Plan) and the Amended and Restated Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (2011 Plan, and collectively with the 2000 Plan and the 2010 Plan, the OptionEquity Plans). The OptionEquity Plans provide for grants of Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) to employees and NonstatutoryNonqualified Stock Options (NSOs), stock and restricted stock to employees, directors, and consultants. In addition, the 2011 Plan provides for the grant of other equity based awards such as restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights and deferred stock to employees, directors and consultants. The option term, as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors, generally may not exceed ten years. Vesting, also determined by the Company’s Board of Directors, generally occurs ratably over four to five years. ISOs and NSOs may be granted at a price per share of not less than the fair market value at the date of grant.

F-20

The total number of shares reserved for issuance under the OptionEquity Plans is 5,254,999.844,374. At the Company’s 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the stockholders approved the amendment and restatement of the Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, which increased the maximum aggregate number of shares that may be issued under the plan by 187,500,000 shares and prohibits the re-pricing of stock options without stockholder approval. As of August 31, 2012,2015, the Company had 782,372135,456 shares available under the 2011 Plan for future grant. The Company does not intend to make further grants under the 2000 Plan or the 2010 Plan.

Stock Option Valuation and Compensation

The Company uses a Black Scholes option pricing model to determine the fair value of stock options. The weighted average grant date fair value of stock option awards was $10.40, $8.16$3.04 and $4.53$7.28 per option share for 2012, 2011,2015 and 2010,2014, respectively.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

The weighted average grant date estimated fair value of the Company’s common stock was $14.44, $11.97$3.76 and $6.96$10.24 per share for 2012, 2011,2015 and 2010,2014, respectively.

The fair value of employee stock options was estimated using the following weighted-average assumptions:

 

 Year ended 
  Year ended
August  31,
  August 31, 
  2012 2011 2010  2015  2014 

Expected term (in years)

   5.50-6.46    6.08-6.46    6.25    5.50-6.08   5.50-6.08 

Expected volatility

   78%-81  70%-78  70  79%-83%  83%-87%

Risk free interest rate

   0.88%-1.35  1.48%-2.44  2.29%-2.69  1.66%-2.06%  1.62%-2.04%

Expected dividend yield

   0  0  0  0%  0%

Expected Term — Because of limited employee share option exercises, the Company uses a simplified method in which the expected term of an award is presumed to be mid-point between the vesting date and the expiration date of the award. The expected term for all employee option grants is an average of 6.223.06 years.

Expected Volatility — The Company estimates the volatility of its common stock by using the historical volatility of a group of comparable companies over the option’s expected term. The decision to use historical volatility of comparable companies was based upon the fact there is limited history of trading activity of the Company’s common stock.

Risk-Free Interest Rate — The Company bases the risk-free interest rate used in the option valuation model on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with remaining terms similar to the expected term on the options.

Expected Dividend Yield — The Company does not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Total stock-based

F-21

Stock-based compensation expense included in operating expenses and total intrinsic value of stock options exercised areis as follows:

 

   Year ended
August 31,
 
   2012  2011   2010 

Stock-based compensation costs for employee stock options

  $2,464   $1,478    $1,288  

Fair value changes of collaboration warrants

   (555  1,232     12  
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total stock-based compensation costs included in operating expenses

  $1,909   $2,710    $1,300  
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Intrinsic value of stock options exercised

  $3,573   $632    $298  
  

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

 

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

  Year ended 
  August 31, 
  2015  2014 
Stock-based compensation costs for employee stock options $2,270  $3,074 
Fair value changes of collaboration warrants  (5)  (6)
Total stock-based compensation costs included in operating expenses $2,265  $3,068 

 

Stock Option Activity

The following summarizes the stock option transactions under the OptionEquity Plans during the periods presented:

 

   Shares  Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
 

Options outstanding at August 31, 2010

   2,291,408   $4.44  

Options granted

   545,033    11.76  

Options exercised

   (66,125  2.49  

Options forfeited

   (173,031  4.14  
  

 

 

  

Options outstanding at August 31, 2011

   2,597,285    6.06  

Options granted

   623,646    12.77  

Options exercised

   (298,283  2.11  

Options forfeited

   (144,140  7.34  
  

 

 

  

Options outstanding at August 31, 2012

   2,778,508   $7.92  
  

 

 

  

     Weighted 
     Average 
  Shares  Exercise
Price
 
Options outstanding at August 31, 2013  348,830  $59.92 
Options granted  98,004   10.16 
Options forfeited  (50,330)  67.60 
Options outstanding at August 31, 2014  396,504   46.62 
Options granted  41,738   3.75 
Options forfeited  (28,479)  23.41 
Options outstanding at August 31, 2015  409,763  $43.87 

The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding and exercisable at August 31, 2012:2015:

 

Range of

Exercise Price

  Number
Outstanding
and Exercisable
   Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life
(in years)
   Weighted-
Average
Exercise Price
   Number
Vested and
Exercisable
   Weighted-
Average
Exercise Price
   Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life
(in years)
 

$1.95

   436,145     0.15    $1.95     436,145    $1.95     0.15  

$3.90-$4.05

   356,321     3.49     3.91     356,321     3.91     3.49  

$6.75

   866,924     6.29     6.75     735,340     6.75     6.06  

$7.32

   262,693     8.28     7.32     108,414     7.32    ��8.28  

$16.77

   161,995     8.78     16.77     5,721     16.77     8.43  

$17.16

   85,694     8.88     17.16     1,354     17.16     8.88  

$13.00

   487,307     9.49     13.00     —       —       —    

$12.71

   56,516     9.20     12.71     3,802     12.71     8.85  

$12.10

   52,497     9.49     12.10     —       —       —    

$8.97

   750     9.80     8.97     —       —       —    

$6.66

   11,666     9.98     6.66     —       —       —    
  

 

 

       

 

 

     
   2,778,508         1,647,097      
  

 

 

       

 

 

     
       Weighted-      Weighted- 
   Remaining  Average  Number  Remaining  Average 
Range of Number  Contractual  Exercise  Vested and  Contractual  Exercise 
Exercise Price Outstanding  Life  Price  Exercisable  Life  Price 
                   
$1.96 - $5.06  36,004   9.52  $4.00   187   8.76  $5.06 
$7.26 - $15.60  137,803   5.26  $12.24   134,754   5.19  $12.30 
$26.24 - $32.40  56,831   3.50  $29.53   50,326   2.95  $29.83 
$45.68 - $61.60  103,286   3.67  $54.93   102,719   3.65  $54.91 
$96.80 - $137.28  75,839   6.26  $113.77   58,178   6.24  $114.68 
   409,763           346,164         

The tax benefit realized from options exercised during the year ended August 31, 2012 was $32. There were no

No tax benefits realized forwere recorded on compensation costs recognized during the years ended August 31, 20112015 and 2010.2014. As of August 31, 2012,2015 and 2014, there was $8,189were $1,159 and $2,993 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to stock options.options respectively. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average 3.781.46 years. The Company’s policy is to issue new shares for options exercised.

F-22

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

Restricted Stock Activity

The following summarizes the restricted stock transactions under the OptionEquity Plans duringfor the year ended August 31, 2012:periods presented:

 

 Shares  Weighted
Average
Grant Date
Fair Value
 
  Shares Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
 

Restricted stock outstanding and unvested at August 31, 2011

   833   $6.51  
Restricted stock outstanding and unvested at August 31, 2013  36,311  $44.40 

Restricted stock granted

   45,100    12.16    41,032  $10.48 

Restricted stock vested

   (833  6.51    (32,877) $16.96 

Restricted stock forfeited

   (4,500  12.71    (6,648) $38.00 
  

 

  

Restricted stock outstanding and unvested at August 31, 2012

   40,600   $12.10  
  

 

  
Restricted stock outstanding and unvested at August 31, 2014  37,818  $32.58 
Restricted stock granted  9,125  $4.20 
Restricted stock vested  (8,690) $36.63 
Restricted stock forfeited  (1,011) $12.77 
Restricted stock outstanding and unvested at August 31, 2015  37,242  $25.17 

As of August 31, 2012,2015, there was $390$91 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to restricted stock awards. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average of 1.571.07 years.

(8) Convertible Notes and Warrant Modification

In August 2011,Stock Activity

During the fiscal year 2014, the Company completed the sale of $11,425 aggregate principal amount of the Convertible Notes to nine existing investors in the Company in a private placement. The Convertible Notes were convertible, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein, into shares of the Company’s common stock upon the consummation of a qualified initial public offering of the Company’s common stock at a price per share equal to 20% discount from the public offering price, or $10.40. Purchasers of the Convertible Notes included holders of more than 5% of the Company’s outstanding capital stock and affiliates of certain of the Company’s directors. Additionally, so long as any investors who held warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock issued in connection with certain of the Company’s preferred stock financings purchased at least their respective full pro rata portion of the Convertible Notes being offered, the Company agreed to amend the termination provisions of such investors existing warrants such that the warrants no longer expired upon the IPO. In January 2012, the Company amended the Convertible Notes such that the notes would have automatically converted into shares of convertible preferred stock had the initial public offering not consummated by June 30, 2012.

In connection with the offering of the Convertible Notes, warrants to purchase 539,972granted 2,288 shares of common stock issued in connectionunder the 2011 Plan with our Series F Preferreda fair market value of $7.28 per share. The Company recorded $16.7 of expense related to this stock grant.

(8) Stockholders’ Equity

Common Stock offering, or

On March 7, 2014, the Modified F warrantsCompany held its 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (Annual Meeting). At the Annual Meeting, the stockholders approved an amendment to the Company’s Amended and allRestated Certificate of Incorporation which decreased the warrants issued in connection with our Series G Preferred Stock offering were amended such that they would not expire upon the consummationtotal number of a qualified initial public offering. Warrants to purchase 229,257 shares of common stock issued in connection with the Series F Preferred Stock offering, or the Non-Modified F warrants were not amended and remain outstanding.

The Company calculated the fair value of the modified warrants immediately priorCompany from 490,000,000 to and subsequent to the modification and determined that the cumulative incremental increase in the fair value of these liability classified warrants associated with this modification to be $9,633. Accordingly, the Company recorded the change in value to other income (expense) in August 2011.

Until such time as the conversion features were triggered, the Company accounted for the Convertible Notes and various embedded derivatives in accordance with ASC 825-10, the Fair Value Option for Financial Liabilities, whereby the Company initially and subsequently measured this financial instrument in its entirety at fair value, with the changes in fair value recorded each quarterly reporting period in other income (expense).

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

The Company obtained the assistance of a third-party valuation firm in estimating that the fair market value of the Convertible Notes as of August 31, 2011 was $13,630. The Company estimated the fair value of the Convertible Notes upon the closing of the IPO to be $14,282. Accordingly, the change in fair value was recorded in other income (expense).

Upon closing of the IPO, the Convertible Notes were revalued and converted into 1,098,575 shares of common stock (see Note (9))

(9) Stockholders’ Equity

Initial Public Offering

On February 27, 2012, the Company closed its IPO of 5,750,000 shares of common stock (including 750,000 shares purchased by the underwriters upon the exercise of their right to purchase up to an additional 750,000 shares) at an offering price of $13.00 per share, resulting in net proceeds to the Company of approximately $65,158, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

Upon closing of the IPO:

the Company’s outstanding shares of convertible preferred stock were automatically converted into 15,353,221 shares of common stock;

the Convertible Notes were revalued and converted into 1,098,575 shares of common stock (see Note (8)); and

the outstanding convertible preferred stock warrants were revalued and automatically converted into warrants to purchase a total of 20,511 shares of common stock.

Common Stock

Pursuant to the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation, the Company is authorized to issue 490,000,000 shares of common stock.240,000,000. Holders of the Company’s common stock are entitled to dividends as and when declared by the Board of Directors, subject to rights and holders of all classes of stock outstanding having priority rights to dividends. There have been no dividends declared to date. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote.

Preferred Stock

Pursuant to the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation, the Company is authorized to issue 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock. The Board of Directors has the authority, without action by the Company’s stockholders, to designate and issue shares of preferred stock in one or more series and to fix the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions thereof.

F-23

Common and Preferred Stock Warrants Financing

Warrants issued in connection with Series F Convertible Preferred Stock Financing

In connection with the issuance of the Series F Convertible Preferred Stock in September 2007, the Company issued warrants to purchase 769,229 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $19.50 per share. The warrants are immediately exercisable.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

As discussed in Note (1), the common stock warrants issued to the holders of Series F Convertible Preferred Stock were reported as a liability at fair value as of each balance sheet date. Upon closing of the IPO, the common stock warrants no longer met the requirements for liability classification. The warrants were valued as of the closing date with changes being recorded to the statement of operations and were reclassified to additional paid in capital.

Upon closing of the IPO, the Company estimated the fair value of certain warrants (Non-Modified F warrants and Modified F warrants) to be $6,301 based on a risk free rate of 0.40%, expected volatility of 89%, expected term of 3.5 years and 0% dividend yield. The fair value of the Non-Modified F warrants at August 31, 2011 was estimated to be $1,229 based on a risk free rate of 0.41%, expected volatility of 86%, expected term of 1.9 years and 0% dividend yield. The estimated fair value of the Modified F warrants at August 31, 2011 was $5,454 based on a risk free rate of 0.96%, expected volatility of 98%, expected term of 4.0 years and 0% dividend yield.

Warrants issued in connection with Series G Convertible Preferred Stock Financing

In connection with the issuance of the Series G Convertible Preferred Stock in June 2010, the Company issued warrants to purchase 1,025,640 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $19.50 per share. The warrants are immediately exercisable.

As discussed in Note (1), the common stock warrants issued to the holders of Series G Convertible Preferred Stock were reported as a liability at fair value as of each balance sheet date. Upon closing of the IPO, the common stock warrants no longer met the requirements for liability classification. The warrants were valued as of the closing date with changes being recorded to the statement of operations and were reclassified to additional paid in capital.

Upon closing of the IPO, the Company estimated the fair value of these warrants to be $10,633 based on a risk free rate of 1.64%, expected volatility of 73%, expected term of 8.3 years and 0% dividend yield. The fair value of the warrants at August 31, 2011 was estimated to be $10,767 based on a risk free rate of 2.23%, expected volatility of 66%, expected term of 8.8 years and 0% dividend yield.

Warrants issued in connection with Borrowing and Loan Agreements

In July 2004, in conjunction with the Borrowing Agreement the Company issued the Bank warrants to purchase 18,461 shares of the Company’s Series E Convertible Preferred Stock at a price of $6.50 per share. Upon closing of the IPO, these preferred stock warrants were converted into warrants to purchase 6,153 shares of common stock at $19.50 per share.

In February 2010, in connection with the Loan Agreement (see Note (6)), the Company issued the Bank warrants to purchase 43,076 shares of the Company’s Series F Convertible Preferred Stock at a price of $6.50 per share. Upon closing of the IPO, these preferred stock warrants were converted into warrants to purchase 14,358 shares of common stock at $19.50 per share.

As discussed in Note (1), the preferred stock warrants issued in connection with the Borrowing and Loan Agreements were reported as a liability at fair value as of each balance sheet date. Upon closing of the IPO, the preferred stock warrants no longer met the requirements for liability classification. The warrants were valued as of the closing date with changes being recorded to the statement of operations and were reclassified to additional paid in capital.

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

Upon closing of the IPO, the Company estimated the fair value of the Series E and F preferred stock warrants to be $68 and $158, respectively, based on a risk-free interest rate of 1.35%, volatility of 81%, expected term of 7.96 — 8.01 years, and 0% dividend yield.

Warrants issued in connection with Noble Agreement

In May 2006, the Company entered into a collaboration agreement with The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. (Noble) (Noble Agreement) to establish a research program.program (see Note (12)). In connection with this collaboration, the Company granted Noble a warrant to purchase 133,33316,667 shares of the Company’s common stock for an exercise price of $30.00$240.00 per share (see Note (13)).share. The original terms were as follows: the warrant vests in equal installments of 33,3334,167 shares on May 19, 2009, May 19, 2011, May 19, 2013, and May 19, 2015, respectively, and remainedshall remain exercisable for a period of two years from the respective vesting dates. These warrants arewere accounted for at fair value and remeasured until vested. The fair value, including the resulting change in value as a result of remeasurement is beingwas recognized as research and development expense. The inception to date expense recognized with respect to this warrant totals $775$624.4 as of August 31, 2012 including a modification charge2015. As of $450 described below. At August 2012, 66,66631, 2015, all of the 16,667 warrants had vested under this arrangement. The fair value of the warrants not yet vested at August 31, 2012 was $199 using a risk-free rate of 0.59% based on the respective exercise periods of each installment, expected volatility of 93.3%, expected term of 4.72 years based on the respective exercise periods of each installment, and 0% dividend yield.

On

In June 20, 2011, the Company and Noble agreed to modify the warrants issued to Noble as follows: the warrant vests in equal installments of 33,3334,167 shares on May 19, 2013 and May 19, 2015, respectively and shall remain exercisable until the earliest of a period of five years from the respective vesting dates and May 18, 2017. A modification charge of $450 was recorded in June 2011.

Warrants issued in connection with TAMU Agreement

In August 2007, the Company entered into a sponsored research and intellectual property rights agreement with The Texas A&M University System (TAMU) (TAMU Agreement) to establish a research program.program (see Note (12)). In connection with this collaboration, the Company granted TAMU a warrant to purchase 66,6668,333 shares of the Company’s common stock for an exercise price of $30.00$240.00 per share. The warrant vests based on certain research and commercialization milestones being met and shall remain exercisable until August 28, 2017. This warrant is accounted for at fair value and remeasured until the vesting targets are met. The fair value, including the resulting change in value as a result of remeasurement is being recognized as research and development expense. The inception to date expense recognized with respect to this warrant totals $142$0 as of August 31, 2012.2015. The fair value of the warrantwarrants at August 31, 20122015 was $209,$0, using a risk-free rate of 0.59%0.74%, expected volatility of 93.3%72.1%, expected term of 4.991.99 years and 0% dividend yield. No warrants had vested under this arrangement as of August 31, 2012.2015.

In December 2011, pursuant to the IPan Amended and Restated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (IP Rights Agreement) (see Note (13)(12)), the Company issued warrants to TAMU to purchase 66,6668,333 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $14.30$114.40 per share. The warrants expire on September 24, 2026 and, subject to certain conditions, vest in equal installments on the fifth, tenth and fifteenth anniversary of the IP Rights Agreement. The inception to date expense recognized with respect to this warrant totals $34$1.8 as of August 31, 2012.2015. The fair value of the warrantwarrants at August 31, 20122015 was $372,$3.8, using a risk-free rate of 1.57%2.21%, expected volatility of 78.3%88.9%, expected term of 14.0611.06 years and 0% dividend yield. No warrants had vested under this arrangement as of August 31, 2012.2015.

CERES, INC.

NotesWarrants issued in connection with March 10, 2014 registered public offering

On March 10, 2014 the Company issued warrants to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except sharepurchase an aggregate of 60,000 shares of common stock to certain affiliated designees of the underwriter as part of the underwriter’s compensation related to the registered public offering. The warrants are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on March 4, 2015 and expire on March 4, 2019. The exercise price is $12 per share data)

of common stock. The fair value of these warrants upon issuance was $305 using a risk free rate of 1.64%, expected volatility 84.2%, expected term of 5 years and 0% dividend yield and was treated as an issuance cost of the common stock.

 

(10)Warrants issued in connection with the July 30, 2015 registered public offering

On July 30, 2015 the Company issued warrants exercisable for one share of Common Stock for each share purchased in the July 30, 2015 offering for an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.62 per share. The Company estimated the fair value upon issuance of these warrants to be $760.0 based on a risk-free rate of 1.62%, volatility of 69.50%, expected term or 5.5 years and 0% dividend yield. The warrants are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on January 30, 2016 and expire on January 30, 2021. The fair value of these warrants at August 31, 2015 was $755.6 based on a risk-free rate of 1.54%, volatility of 69.80%, expected term of 5.41 years and 0% dividend yield.

F-24

The Company also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 24,000 shares of our Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.944 per share to the placement agent as part of the placement agent’s compensation. The Company estimated the fair value upon issuance of these warrants to be $13.3 based on a risk-free rate of 1.62%, volatility of 69.50%, expected term of 5.0 years and 0% dividend yield. The warrants issued to the placement agent are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on July 30, 2016 and expire on July 30, 2020. The fair value of these warrants at August 31, 2015 was $13.2 based on a risk-free rate of 1.62%, volatility of 69.80%, expected term of 4.9 years and 0% dividend yield.

Warrants issued in connection with the August 26, 2015 registered public offering

On August 26, 2015, the Company issued warrants exercisable for 0.75 shares of Common Stock for each share purchased in the August 26, 2015 offering for an aggregate of 1,198,859 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.22 per share. The Company estimated the fair value upon issuance of these warrants to be $863.5 based on a risk-free rate of 1.49%, volatility of 69.80%, expected term of 5.5 years and 0% dividend yield. The warrants are exercisable at any time orfrom time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on February 26, 2016 and expire on February 26, 2021. The fair value of these warrants at August 31, 2015 was $844.2 based on a risk-free rate of 1.54%, volatility of 69.80%, expected term of 5.5 years and 0% dividend yield.

The Company also issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 31,970 shares of our Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.83 per share to the placement agent as part of the placement agent’s compensation. The Company estimated the fair value upon issuance of these warrant to be $18.7 based on a risk-free rate of 1.49%, volatility of 69.80%, expected term of 5.0 years and 0% dividend yield. The warrants issued to the placement agent are exercisable at any time or from time to time, in whole or in part, beginning on August 26, 2016 and expire on August 26, 2020. The fair value of these warrants at August 31, 2015 was $18.3 based on a risk-free rate of 1.54%, volatility of 69.80%, expected term of 5.0 years and 0% dividend yield.

(9) Income Taxes

Deferred tax benefits associated with deferred tax assets are offset by a corresponding valuation allowance. Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and amounts used for income tax purposes.

Income tax expense (benefit) attributable to income (loss)loss before income taxes consisted of the following:

 

 Current  Deferred  Total 
  Current Deferred   Total 

Year ended August 31, 2012

     
Year ended August 31, 2015         

U.S. federal

  $—     $—      $—     $  $  $ 

State and local

   3    —       3    1      1 
  

 

  

 

   

 

  $1  $  $1 
  $3   $—      $3  
  

 

  

 

   

 

 
  Current Deferred   Total 

Year ended August 31, 2011

     

U.S. federal

  $(30  —      $(30

State and local

   (1  —       (1
  

 

  

 

   

 

 
  $(31  —      $(31
  

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 Current  Deferred  Total 
  Current   Deferred   Total 

Year ended August 31, 2010

      
Year ended August 31, 2014            

U.S. federal

  $—      $64    $64   $  $  $ 

State and local

   1     —       1    1      1 
  

 

   

 

   

 

  $1  $  $1 
  $1    $64    $65  
  

 

   

 

   

 

 

F-25

Income tax expense differs from the amount computed by applying the federal corporate income tax rate of 34% to the loss before income taxes due to the following:

 

 Year Ended Year Ended 
  Year Ended
August  31,
2012
 Year Ended
August  31,
2011
 Year Ended
August  31,
2010
  August 31, August 31, 

Computed “expected” tax expense (benefit)

  $(9,999 $(12,365 $(7,656
 2015  2014 
Computed “expected” tax expense $(9,584) $(9,969)

Increase (reduction) in income taxes resulting from:

            

Stock-based compensation

   636    893    435    625   774 

State and local income taxes, net of federal income tax benefit

   2    (1  1    1   1 

Foreign rate differential

   1,258    512    —          

Convertible note changes and change in fair value

   —      750    —    

Warrants modification and changes in fair value

   29    2,997    —          

Other

   182    7    69    21   12 

Change in valuation allowance

   7,895    7,176    7,216    8,937   9,183 
  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Income tax expense (benefit)

  $3   $(31 $65  
  

 

  

 

  

 

 
Income tax expense $1  $1 

F-26

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

The following table summarizes the tax effects of temporary differences that give rise to significant portions of the deferred tax assets and liabilities at each period end:

 

 August 31, August 31, 
  As of
August 31,
2012
 As of
August 31,
2011
  2015  2014 

Deferred tax assets:

           

Accrued liabilities

  $799   $491   $240  $279 

Other assets

   17    5    157   169 

Inventory capitalization

   145    126    266   446 

Deferred revenue

   275    368    348   139 
  

 

  

 

 

Total current deferred tax assets

   1,236    990    1,011   1,031 
  

 

  

 

         

Noncurrent assets:

           

Depreciation

   2,044    1,574    1,834   2,310 

Inventory reserves

   2,328    1,984    2,973   2,689 

Deferred rent

   27    40    22   29 

Other assets

   301    136    1,013   859 

Net operating loss carryforward

   74,412    65,857    112,373   101,485 

Federal and state tax credit carryforward

   8,919    8,919    8,919   8,919 
  

 

  

 

 

Total noncurrent deferred tax assets

   88,031    78,510    127,133   116,291 
  

 

  

 

 

Total deferred tax assets

   89,267    79,500    128,145   117,323 

Less valuation allowance

   (89,267  (79,500  (128,145)  (117,323)
  

 

  

 

 

Net deferred tax assets

  $—     $—     $  $ 
  

 

  

 

 

As of August 31, 2012,2015 the Company had $195,514$273,908 of federal, $131,051$196,789 of state and $5,255$25,833 of foreign net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards available to offset future taxable income, if any, which expire in varying amounts from 2018 through 20322035 for federal tax purposes and from 20142015 through 20322035 for state tax purposes if unused. The carry forwardcarryforward period for the foreign NOL is indefinite. The excess tax benefits associated with the exercise of non-qualified stock options, restricted stock grants, and disqualifying dispositions of incentive stock option stock, for 20122015 and 20112014 in the amount of $2,367$911 and $58,$957, respectively, did not reduce the current income taxes payable and, accordingly, are not included in the deferred tax asset relating to NOL carryforwards, but are included with the federal and state NOL carryforwards. In addition, the Company has alternative minimum tax (AMT) for state income tax purposes of approximately $17 and research and development tax carryforwards for federal income tax purposes of approximately $8,907, which are available to offset future tax liabilities, if any, through 2029.

In accordance with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 382 and 383, the annual utilization of net operating loss carryforwards and credits is limited if a change in control occurs, including a change resulting from an initial public offering. The Company has not completed a Section 382 analysis to determine if a change in ownership has occurred. Until such analysis is completed, there are no assurances that the existing net operating loss carryforwards or credits are not subject to significant limitation.

In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. Management considers the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, and tax planning strategies in making this assessment. Based upon the historical taxable

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

income (loss) and projections for future taxable income (loss) over the periods in which the deferred tax assets are deductible, management believes it is more likely that the Company will not realize the benefits of these deductible differences. Accordingly, the Company has established a full valuation allowance of $89,267$128,145 and $79,500$117,323 for the years ended August 31, 20122015 and 2011,2014, respectively.

(11)

F-27

(10) 401(k) Benefit Plan

The Company has a 401(k) profit sharing plan (the Plan) which covers substantially all employees of the Company. Plan participants may make voluntary contributions of up to 60% of their earnings up to the statutory limit. The Company will match 50% of each employee contribution up to a maximum of 4% of the employee’s salary in matching funds per pay period. The matching contribution vests over a three-year service period; 25% vests immediately and an additional 25% vests for each year of service to the Company thereafter over the next three years. The Company recorded expense of $297, $279$132 and $218$207 in 2012, 20112015 and 2010,2014, respectively. The Company made no discretionary contributions in any year.

(12)

(11) Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases certain of its facilities and equipment under various noncancelable operating leases expiring through 2023.2020. The leaseleases on the facilities contains provisions for future rent increases. The Company records monthly rent expense equal to the total of the payments due over the lease term, divided by the number of months of the lease term. The difference between rent expense recorded and the amount paid is credited or charged to deferred rent, which is reflected as a separate line item in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of August 31, 20122015 and 2011.2014.

In connection with one of its facilities leases, the Company received a reimbursement for leasehold improvements of $270. This reimbursement is a lease incentive which has been recognized as a liability in deferred rent and is being amortized to rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Total rental expense recognized during each period was $519, $645$457 and $477$440 for 2012, 20112015 and 2010,2014, respectively.

Future minimum payments under noncancelable operating leases as of August 31, 20122015 are as follows:

 

   Operating
leases
 

2013

  $694  

2014

   441  

2015

   25  

2016

   15  

2017

   12  

Thereafter

   79  
  

 

 

 

Total minimum lease payments

  $1,266  
  

 

 

 
  Operating 
  leases 
2016 $621 
2017  606 
2018  618 
2019  631 
2020  51 
Total minimum lease payments $2,527 

(13)

(12) Research Collaboration Agreements

The Company has a number of research agreements with academic collaborators, including among others, Texas A&M University, The Samuel RobertsTAMU, Noble, Foundation, Inc., and the Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. In conjunctionconnection with these agreements, the Company receives certain exclusive options or licensing rights to technology and intellectual property developed under these agreements. The Company expenses the services receivedamounts under these agreements to research and development expense in the period

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

in which the services are rendered. The Company also licenses technology from third parties. Initial payments under these license agreements are capitalized and expensed on a straight-line basis over the license term.

Noble Agreement

In May 2006, the Company entered into a collaboration agreement with Noble to establish a research program. Under the Noble Agreement, the Company agreed to fund certain research activities undertaken by Noble in an amount up to $3,800 through July 31, 2012 and granted Noble a warrant to purchase 133,33316,667 shares of the Company’s common stock for an exercise price of $30.00$240.00 per share (see Note (9)). Additional projects may be added under the agreement, if agreed to by both parties.

F-28

Under the collaboration agreement, in August 2012 the Company agreed to fund certain research activities undertaken by Noble through July 31, 2013 and 2014 of $82.7 and $85.3 per year, respectively.

TAMU Agreement

In August 2007, the Company entered into a Sponsored Research and Intellectual Property Rights agreement with TAMU to establish a research program. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to fund certain research activities undertaken by TAMU in an amount up to $5,100 through 2012 and granted TAMU a warrant to purchase 66,6668,333 shares of the Company’s common stock for an exercise price of $30.00$240.00 per share (see Note (9)).

On September 24, 2011, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement and an Amended and Restated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (the “IP Rights Agreement”) with TAMU which both expire on September 23, 2026. The specific research projects and budgets undertaken pursuant to such agreement will be determined by an Executive Committee comprised of two members from each of TAMU and the Company as set forth in the Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement. In December 2011, pursuant to the IP Rights Agreement, the Company issued warrants to TAMU to purchase 66,6668,333 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $14.30$114.40 per share (see Note (9)).

At August 31, 2012,2015, the future minimum payments under the Company’s research collaboration agreements are as follows:

 

2013

  $2,524  

2014

   2,178  

2015

   2,617  

2016

   2,772  

2017

   613  
  

 

 

 
  $10,704  
  

 

 

 
 2016  $602 
 2017   50 
    $652 

F-29

CERES, INC.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

 

(14) Selected Quarterly Financial Information (unaudited)

The following is a summary of the unaudited quarterly results of operations for the years ended August 31, 2012 and 2011:

   November 30,  February 29,  May 31,  August 31, 
   2011  2012  2012  2012 

2012:

     

Net sales

  $1,748   $1,311   $1,148   $1,164  

Cost of revenues

   763   487   627   507 

Operating loss

   (7,094  (6,980  (8,078  (6,650

Net loss

   (7,540  (6,831  (8,416  (6,623

Basic and diluted net loss per share

   (3.73  (2.48  (0.34  (0.27
   November 30,  February 28,  May 31,  August 31, 
   2010  2011  2011  2011 

2011:

     

Net sales

   1,715   1,614   1,567  $1,720  

Cost of revenues

   1,058   271   610   553 

Operating loss

   (5,784  (5,205  (6,800  (7,109

Net loss

   (5,910  (5,380  (8,281  (16,765

Basic and diluted net loss per share

   (3.02  (2.72  (4.18  (8.34

Quarterly and year-to-date computations of per share amounts are made independently. Therefore, the sum of per share amounts for the quarters may not agree with per share amounts for the year shown elsewhere in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

(15) Subsequent Events

In connection with the issuance of the consolidated financial statements for the year ended August 31, 2012, the Company evaluated subsequent events through November 20, 2012, the date the consolidated financial statements were issued.

During September 2012, the Company modified options to purchase 403,333 shares of common stock that were scheduled to expire on December 18, 2012 by extending the terms such that the options now expire on December 18, 2015.

On September 12, 2012, the Company received an additional subcontract award of $1,930 under the BRDI grant to Exelus, Inc. to develop drought and salt tolerant traits in switchgrass and miscanthus.

On September 29, 2012, the Company received an additional grant award of $3,447 under the USAID grant to develop stress tolerance and yield improvement traits in rice for Asia.

The development and license agreement between the Company and Campbell Soup Company, dated December 20, 2007, as amended, was terminated and cancelled on November 19, 2012. In connection with the termination, Campbell will pay the Company the amount of $550 in full and complete satisfaction of all remaining financial obligations under the development and license agreement.

EXHIBIT INDEX

 

 Where Located
     

Where Located

         Filed

Exhibit No.

  

Description of Exhibit

  

Form

  

Exhibit No.

  

Filing Date

  

Filed

Herewith

 Description of Exhibit Form Exhibit No. Filing Date Herewith
3.1 Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Ceres, Inc. 10-Q 3.1 4/12/2012 
  

3.1

  Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Ceres, Inc.  10-Q  3.1  4/12/2012  
3.1.1 Certificate of Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Ceres, Inc. filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on March 11, 2014 and effective as of March 11, 2014. 8-K 3.1 3/11/2014 
  
3.1.2 Certificate of Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Ceres, Inc. filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on April 8, 2015 and effective as of April 8, 2015. 8-K 3.1 4/08/2015 
  

3.2

  Amended and Restated Bylaws of Ceres, Inc.  10-Q  3.2  4/12/2012   Amended and Restated Bylaws of Ceres, Inc. 10-Q 3.2 4/12/2012 
  

4.1

  Form of Ceres, Inc. Common Stock Certificate  S-1/A  4.1  1/17/2012   Form of Ceres, Inc. Common Stock Certificate S-1/A 4.1 1/17/2012 
  

4.2

  Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series E Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated August 16, 2004, as amended  S-1/A  4.2  7/25/2011   Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series E Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated August 16, 2004, as amended S-1/A 4.2 7/25/2011 
  

4.2.1

  Amendment No. 2 to Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series E Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated August 16, 2004, as amended        X Amendment No. 2 to Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series E Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated August 16, 2004, as amended 10-K 4.2.1 11/20/2012 
  

4.3

  Warrants to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010  S-1/A  4.5  7/25/2011   Warrants to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010 S-1/A 4.5 7/25/2011 
  

4.3.1

  Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010 (6,153.67 shares)        X Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010 (6,153.67 shares) 10-K 4.3.1 11/20/2012 
  

4.3.2

  Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010 (8,205 shares)        X Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase Shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank, dated March 1, 2010 (8,205 shares) 10-K 4.3.2 11/20/2012 
  

4.4

  Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., dated November 28, 2006, as amended  S-1/A  4.3  9/16/2011   Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., dated November 28, 2006, as amended S-1/A 4.3 9/16/2011 
  

4.5

  Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Texas A&M University System, dated July 18, 2008, as amended  S-1/A  4.4  7/25/2011   Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Texas A&M University System, dated July 18, 2008, as amended S-1/A 4.4 7/25/2011 

4.6

  Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Texas A&M University System, dated December 19, 2011  S-1/A  4.10  1/17/2012  

4.7

  Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement, dated June 25, 2010, by and among Ceres, Inc. and the stockholders named therein  S-1  4.6  5/23/2011  

4.8

  Form of Series F Original Warrant        X

4.8.1

  Form of Series F Original Warrant, as amended  S-1/A  4.7  8/23/2011  

4.9

  Form of Series G Original Warrant, as amended  S-1/A  4.8  8/23/2011  

4.10

  Form of Convertible Note  S-1/A  4.9  8/23/2011  

4.10.1

  Amendment No. 1 to Convertible Notes, dated January 10, 2012  S-1/A  4.11  1/17/2012  

10.1

  Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended  8-K  10.1  8/20/2012  

      

Where Located

Exhibit No.

  

Description of Exhibit

  

Form

  

Exhibit No.

  

Filing Date

  

Filed

Herewith

   10.2

  Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan  S-1/A  10.2  7/25/2011  

   10.3

  Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan  S-1/A  10.3  10/14/2011  

   10.4

  Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan  S-1/A  10.4  5/23/2011  

   10.5

  Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan  S-1/A  10.5  7/25/2011  

   10.6

  Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan  S-1/A  10.6  9/16/2011  

   10.7

  Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan  S-1/A  10.8  1/25/2012  

   10.8

  Ceres, Inc. Performance Incentive Plan  S-1/A  10.31  10/14/2011  

   10.9

  Form of Stock Option Grant Notice and Option Award Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan  S-1/A  10.32  1/17/2012  

   10.10

  Form of Restricted Stock Grant Notice and Restricted Stock Award Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan        X

   10.11

  Form of Indemnification Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and its directors and officers  S-1/A  10.36  1/25/2012  

   10.12

  Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Richard Hamilton, dated September 1, 2011  S-1/A  10.23  9/16/2011  

   10.13

  Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Paul Kuc, dated September 1, 2011  S-1/A  10.24  9/16/2011  

   10.14

  Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Michael Stephenson, dated September 1, 2011  S-1/A  10.25  9/16/2011  

   10.15

  Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Wilfriede van Assche, dated September 1, 2011  S-1/A  10.26  9/16/2011  

   10.16

  Exclusive Consultancy Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Richard Flavell, dated October 11, 2011        X

   10.17

  Exclusive Consulting Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Robert Goldberg, dated January 1, 2006, and the amendments thereto dated November 17, 2006, December 31, 2010 and July 20, 2011  S-1/A  10.28  10/14/2011  

   10.18

  Agricultural Lease Agreement between John & Connie Giesenschlag and Ceres, Inc. dated April 1, 2008  S-1/A  10.9  7/25/2011  

   10.19

  Ground Lease Agreement between John & Connie Giesenschlag and Ceres, Inc. dated April 1, 2008  S-1  10.10  5/23/2011  

  10.20

  Exclusive License Agreement between Cambridge University Technical Services, Ltd. and Ceres, Inc., dated November 1, 2001  S-1/A  10.11  10/14/2011  

      

Where Located

Exhibit No.

  

Description of Exhibit

  

Form

  

Exhibit No.

  

Filing Date

  

Filed

Herewith

  10.21

  Sponsored Research Agreement between The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007, as amended  S-1/A  10.12  1/17/2012  

  10.21.1

  Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement between Texas AgriLife Research (f/k/a The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System) and Ceres, Inc., dated September 24, 2011  S-1/A  10.34  12/19/2011  

   10.22

  Intellectual Property Rights Agreement between The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007  S-1/A  10.13  12/19/2011  

  10.22.1

  Amended and Restated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement between The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated September 24, 2011  S-1/A  10.35  12/29/2011  

  10.23

  Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreements between The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated April 23, 2008  S-1/A  10.14  8/29/2011  

  10.24

  Line License Agreement between The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated October 16, 2009  S-1/A  10.15  10/14/2011  

  10.25

  Line License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and The Texas A&M University System, dated July 12, 2011.  S-1/A  10.30  8/29/2011  

  10.25.1

  Amendment No. 1 to Line License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and The Texas A&M University System, dated July 12, 2011.        X

  10.26

  Master Research Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006  S-1/A  10.16  1/25/2012  

  10.26.1

  Schedule 7 to Master Research Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006        X

  10.27

  Evaluation, Production and License Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006  S-1/A  10.17  10/14/2011  

  10.28

  License Agreement for NF/GA992 and NF/GA993 between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated December 1, 2008  S-1/A  10.18  10/14/2011  

  10.29

  License Agreement for NF/GA002 between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated September 1, 2009  S-1/A  10.19  10/14/2011  

      

Where Located

Exhibit No.

  

Description of Exhibit

  

Form

  

Exhibit No.

  

Filing Date

  

Filed

Herewith

  10.30

  Collaboration Agreement between the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University and Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2007, as amended  S-1/A  10.20  1/25/2012  

  10.30.1

  Amendment IV to the Schedule I to the Collaboration Agreement between the Institute of Biological, Environmental, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University in Wales, U.K. and Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2007.  10-Q  10.1  7/12/2012  

  10.31

  Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc., dated November 15, 2007, as amended  S-1/A  10.21  12/19/2011  

   10.31.1

  Amendment III to the Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc., dated November 15, 2007, as amended  10-Q  10.1  7/12/2012  

   10.31.2

  Amendment IV to the Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc., dated November 15, 2007, as amended        X

  10.32

  Enabling Technology License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Monsanto Company, dated April 1, 2002  S-1/A  10.29  7/5/2011  

   10.33

  Convertible Note Purchase Agreement among Ceres, Inc. and the investors named therein, dated August 1, 2011  S-1/A  10.33  11/10/2012  

   21.1

  List of Subsidiaries  S-1  21.1  5/23/2011  

   23.1

  Consent of KPMG LLP        X

   24.1

  Power of Attorney (see signature page to this Annual Report on Form 10-K).        X

  *31.1

  Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.        X

  *31.2

  Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.        X

  *32.1

  Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. §1350.        X

E-1

    Where Located
          Filed
 Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Form Exhibit No.Filing Date Herewith
4.6 Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to The Texas A&M University System, dated December 19, 2011 S-1/A 4.10 1/17/2012  
           
4.7 Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement, dated June 25, 2010, by and among Ceres, Inc. and the stockholders named therein S-1 4.6 5/23/2011  
           
4.8 Form of Series F Original Warrant 10-K 4.8 11/20/2012  
           
4.8.1 Form of Series F Original Warrant, as amended S-1/A 4.7 8/23/2011  
           
4.9 Form of Series G Original Warrant, as amended S-1/A 4.8 8/23/2011  
           
4.10 Form of Convertible Note S-1/A 4.9 8/23/2011  
           
4.10.1 Amendment No. 1 to Convertible Notes, dated January 10, 2012 S-1/A 4.11 1/17/2012  
           
4.11 Common Stock Purchase Warrant Agreement, dated March 10, 2014, between Ceres, Inc. and certain affiliated designees of Aegis Capital Corp. 8-K 4.1 3/10/2014   
           
4.12 Form of Investor Warrant, dated July 30, 2015 8-K 4.1 7/30/2015  
           
4.13 Form of Placement Agent Warrant, dated July 30, 2015 8-K 4.2 7/30/2015  
           
4.14 Form of Investor Warrant, dated August 26, 2015 8-K 4.1 8/26/2015  
           
4.15 Form of Placement Agent Warrant, dated August 26, 2015 8-K 4.2 8/26/2015  
        
10.1 Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended 8-K 10.1 8/20/2012  
           
10.2 Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan S-1/A 10.2 7/25/2011  
           
10.3 Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2000 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan S-1/A 10.3 10/14/2011  
           
10.4 Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan S-1/A 10.4 5/23/2011  
           
10.5 Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan S-1/A 10.5 7/25/2011  
           
10.6 Form of Stock Purchase Agreement under the Ceres, Inc. 2010 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan S-1/A 10.6 9/16/2011  
           
10.7 Amended and Restated Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan 8-K 10.1 2/13/2013  
           
10.8 Ceres, Inc. Performance Incentive Plan S-1/A 10.31 10/14/2011  
           
10.9 Form of Stock Option Grant Notice and Option Award Agreement under the Amended and Restated Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan S-1/A    10.32 1/17/2012  

E-2

    Where Located
          Filed
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Form Exhibit No. Filing Date Herewith
10.10 Form of Restricted Stock Grant Notice and Restricted Stock Award Agreement under the Amended and Restated Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan 10-K 10.10 11/20/2012  
           
10.10.1 Form of Stock Payment Grant Notice and Stock Payment Award Agreement under the Amended and Restated  Ceres, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan 10-K 10.10.1 11/26/2013  
           
10.11 Form of Indemnification Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and its directors and officers S-1/A 10.36 1/25/2012  
           
10.12 Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Richard Hamilton, dated September 1, 2011 S-1/A 10.23 9/16/2011  
           
10.13 Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Paul Kuc, dated September 1, 2011 S-1/A 10.24 9/16/2011  
           
10.14 Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Michael Stephenson, dated September 1, 2011 S-1/A 10.25 9/16/2011  
           
10.15 Employment Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Wilfriede van Assche, dated September 1, 2011 S-1/A 10.26 9/16/2011  
           
10.16 Exclusive Consultancy Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Richard Flavell, dated October 11, 2011 10-K 10.16 11/20/2012  
           
10.17 Exclusive Consulting Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Robert Goldberg, dated June 19, 2013 10-K 10.1 7/11/2013  
           
10.18 Agricultural Lease Agreement between John & Connie Giesenschlag and Ceres, Inc. dated April 1, 2008 S-1/A 10.9 7/25/2011  
           
10.19 Ground Lease Agreement between John & Connie Giesenschlag and Ceres, Inc. dated April 1, 2008 S-1 10.10 5/23/2011  
           
10.20 Exclusive License Agreement between Cambridge University Technical Services, Ltd. and Ceres, Inc., dated November 1, 2001 S-1/A 10.11 10/14/2011  
           
10.21 Sponsored Research Agreement between The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007, as amended S-1/A 10.12 1/17/2012  

E-3

    Where Located
          Filed
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Form Exhibit No. Filing Date Herewith
10.21.1 Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement between Texas AgriLife Research (f/k/a The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System) and Ceres, Inc., dated September 24, 2011 S-1/A 10.34 12/19/2011  
           
10.22 Intellectual Property Rights Agreement between The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated August 29, 2007 S-1/A 10.13 12/19/2011  
           
10.22.1 Amended and Restated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement between The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated September 24, 2011 S-1/A 10.35 12/29/2011  
           
10.23 Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreements between The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated April 23, 2008, as amended S-1/A 10.14 8/29/2011  
           
10.23.1 Amendment No. 2 to Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement between The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated April 23, 2008 (MTA-001018) 8-K 10.1 1/10/2013  
           
10.23.2 Amendment No. 2 to Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement between The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated April 23, 2008 (MTA-001019) 8-K 10.1 1/10/2013  
           
10.24 Line License Agreement between The Texas A&M University System and Ceres, Inc., dated October 16, 2009 S-1/A 10.15 10/14/2011  
           
10.25 Line License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and The Texas A&M University System, dated July 12, 2011. S-1/A 10.30 8/29/2011  
           
10.25.1 Amendment No. 1 to Line License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and The Texas A&M University System, dated July 12, 2011. 10-K 10.25.1 11/20/2012  
           
10.26 Master Research Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006 S-1/A 10.16 1/25/2012  
           
10.26.1 Schedule 7 to Master Research Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006 10-K 10.26.1 11/20/2012  

E-4

    Where Located
          Filed
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Form Exhibit No. Filing Date Herewith
10.27 Evaluation, Production and License Agreement between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated May 19, 2006 S-1/A 10.17 10/14/2011  
           
10.28 License Agreement for NF/GA992 and NF/GA993 between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated December 1, 2008 S-1/A 10.18 10/14/2011  
           
10.29 License Agreement for NF/GA002 between The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., dated September 1, 2009 S-1/A 10.19 10/14/2011  
           
10.30 Collaboration Agreement between the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University and Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2007, as amended S-1/A 10.20 1/25/2012  
           
10.30.1 Amendment IV to the Schedule I to the Collaboration Agreement between the Institute of Biological, Environmental, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University in Wales, U.K. and Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2007. 10-Q 10.1 7/12/2012  
           
10.30.2 Amendment V to the Schedule I to the Collaboration Agreement between the Institute of Biological, Environmental, and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University in Wales, U.K. and Ceres, Inc., dated April 1, 2007. 10-K 10.30.2 11/26/2013  
           
10.31 Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc., dated November 15, 2007, as amended S-1/A 10.21 12/19/2011  
           
10.31.1 Amendment III to the Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc., dated November 15, 2007, as amended 10-Q 10.1 7/12/2012  
           
10.31.2 Amendment IV to the Collaboration Agreement between Institute of Crop Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Ceres, Inc., dated November 15, 2007, as amended 10-K 10.31.2 11/20/2012  
           
10.32 Enabling Technology License Agreement between Ceres, Inc. and Monsanto Company, dated April 1, 2002 S-1/A 10.29 7/5/2011  

E-5

    Where Located
          Filed
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Form Exhibit No. Filing Date Herewith
10.33 Convertible Note Purchase Agreement among Ceres, Inc. and the investors named therein, dated August 1, 2011 S-1/A 10.33 11/10/2011  
           
10.34 Form of Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2015, by and among Ceres, Inc. and certain investors 8-K 10.2 7/30/2015  
           
10.35 Form of Registration Rights Agreement Amendment, dated as of August 26, 2015, by and among Ceres, Inc. and certain investors 8-K 10.2 8/26/2015  
           
10.36 Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 26, 2015, by and among Ceres, Inc. and certain investors 8-K 10.1 7/30/2015  
           
10.37 Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 20, 2015, by and among Ceres, Inc. and certain investors 8-K 10.1 8/26/2015  
           
21.1 List of Subsidiaries 10-K 21.1 11/20/2014  
           
23.1 Consent of KPMG LLP       X
           
24.1 Power of Attorney (see signature page to this Annual Report on Form 10-K).       X
           
*31.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.       X
           
*31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.       X
           
*32.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. §1350.       X
           
101.INS XBRL Instance Document       X
           
101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document       X
           
101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document       X
           
101.DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document       X
           
101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document       X
           
101.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document       X

 

Where Located

Exhibit No.

Description of Exhibit

Form

Exhibit No.

Filing Date

Filed

Herewith

#101.INS

XBRL Instance DocumentX

#101.SCH

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema DocumentX

#101.CAL

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase DocumentX

#101.DEF

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase DocumentX

#101.LAB

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase DocumentX

#101.PRE

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase DocumentX

Certain provisions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment.

*

This certification is furnished herewith and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

#

Pursuant to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, the Interactive Data Files on Exhibit 101 hereto are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended are deemed not filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and otherwise are not subject to liability under those sections.

E-6

 

E-5