UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20142015

OR

For the transition period from                    to                    

Commission File Number 0-19437

TRANSENTERIX, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

635 Davis Drive, Suite 300, Morrisville, NC 27560

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (919) 765-8400

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

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

None

(Title of class)

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

On June 30, 2014,2015, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value (based on the average bid and asked price of its common stock on that date) of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $144,527,730.$156,772,221.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, as of February 16, 201529, 2016 was 63,379,939.106,576,714.

Documents Incorporated By Reference: Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference to our Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A to be filed in respect of our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

TRANSENTERIX, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

DECEMBER 31, 20142015

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”) contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such forward-looking statements contain information about our expectations, beliefs or intentions regarding our product development and commercialization efforts, business, financial condition, results of operations, strategies or prospects. You can identify forward-looking statements by the fact that these statements do not relate strictly to historical or current matters. Rather, forward-looking statements relate to anticipated or expected events, activities, trends or results as of the date they are made. Because forward-looking statements relate to matters that have not yet occurred, these statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from any future results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Many factors could cause our actual operations or results to differ materially from the operations and results anticipated in forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to:

We do not undertake any obligation to update our forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable law.

2

PART I

Overview

TransEnterix, Inc. (the Company)“Company”) is a medical device company that is pioneering the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by addressing the clinical challenges associated with current laparoscopic and robotic options. The Company is focused on the commercialization and further development of the ALF-X^® Surgical Robotic System (the “ALF-X System”), a multi-port robotic system that brings the advantages of robotic surgery to patients while enabling surgeons with innovative technology, and on the development and future commercialization of a robotic-assisted surgical system called the SurgiBot™ System (the “SurgiBot System”), a single-port, robotically enhanced laparoscopic surgical platform. The ALF-X System has been granted a CE Mark in Europe for laparoscopic abdominal and pelvic surgery, as well as limited thoracic operations excluding cardiac and vascular surgery, but is not available for sale in the U.S. The SurgiBot System). System has been submitted for clearance to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and is not yet available for sale in any market.

The ALF-X System is a multi-port robotic surgery system which allows multiple robotic arms to control instruments and a camera. The system features advanced technology to enable surgeons with haptic feedback and the ability to move the camera via eye movement. The system replicates laparoscopic motion that is familiar to experienced surgeons, and integrates three-dimensional high definition (“3DHD”) vision technology. The ALF-X System also offers responsible economics to hospitals by offering robotic technology with reusable instruments thereby reducing additional costs per surgery when compared to laparoscopy.

The SurgiBot System is designed to utilize flexible instruments through articulating channels controlled directly by the surgeon, with robotic assistance, while the surgeon remains patient-side within the sterile field. The flexible nature of the SurgiBot System allows for multiple instruments to be introduced and deployed through a single site, thereby offering room for visualization and manipulation once inside the body. The SurgiBot System also allows for three-dimensional (3-D) high definition3DHD vision technology.

Corporate Transactions

On September 18, 2015, the Company entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, (the “Purchase Agreement”) with SOFAR S.p.A., (“SOFAR”) as seller, Vulcanos S.r.l. (“Vulcanos”), as the acquired company, and TransEnterix International, Inc. (“TransEnterix International”), a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of the Company which was incorporated in September 2015, as buyer. The closing of the transactions occurred on September 21, 2015 (the “Closing Date”) pursuant to which the Company acquired all of the membership interests of Vulcanos from SOFAR (the “ALF-X Acquisition”), and changed the name of Vulcanos to TransEnterix Italia S.r.l (“TransEnterix Italia”). The acquisition included all of the assets, employees and contracts related to the ALF-X System. For a description of the ALF-X Acquisition and related transactions, see the disclosure on page 42 of this Annual Report.

On September 3, 2013, TransEnterix Surgical, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as (“TransEnterix Inc. (TransEnterix Surgical)Surgical”), and SafeStitch Medical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (SafeStitch),(“SafeStitch”) consummated a merger transaction whereby TransEnterix Surgical merged with a merger subsidiary of SafeStitch, with TransEnterix Surgical as the surviving entity in the merger (the Merger)“Merger”). As a result of the Merger, TransEnterix Surgical became a wholly owned subsidiary of SafeStitch. On December 6, 2013, SafeStitch changed its name to TransEnterix, Inc.

As used herein, the terms “Company,” “we” or “us” each refers to both the combination of SafeStitch and TransEnterix Surgical after giving effect to the Merger.Merger, and the addition of TransEnterix International and TransEnterix Italia after giving effect to the ALF-X Acquisition, unless the context otherwise provides. The term “SafeStitch” refers to the historic business of SafeStitch Medical, Inc., prior to the Merger. TheMerger, and the term “TransEnterix Surgical” refers to the historic business of TransEnterix Surgical, Inc., prior to the Merger. For a description of the Merger and related transactions, see the disclosure on page 4144 of this Annual Report.

Prior to the Merger, each of TransEnterix Surgical and SafeStitch was focused on developing and/or commercializing other products, which product development and commercialization activities ceased in 2014. See the description below under the heading “Product Overview - Prior Product Development Activities.”

The Company operates in one business segment. Please see the disclosure in Note 2 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies – Segments” in the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report regarding our business operations in the U.S. and elsewhere.

We believe that future outcomes of minimally invasive surgery will be enhanced through our combination of more advanced tools and robotic functionality which are designed to: (i) empower surgeons with improved precision, dexterity and visualization; (ii) improve patient satisfaction and enable a desirable post-operative recovery; and (iii) provide a cost-effective robotic system, compared to existing alternatives today, for a potentially wide range of clinical applications. Our strategy is to focus on the development and future commercialization of the ALF-X and SurgiBot System.Systems.

Market Overview

Over the past two decades, laparoscopic surgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery. In laparoscopic surgery, multiple incisions are spread over the body, carbonnecessary to provide surgical access ports. Carbon dioxide gas insufflation is then used to create room in the body cavity, and long rigid instruments are introduced through ports placed in the incisions to perform surgical tasks. Millions of laparoscopic surgical procedures across a broad range of clinical applications are now performed each year worldwide, though many surgeries are still performed in an open fashion.

3

While laparoscopy has improved the invasive nature of many previously open procedures, it still has many limitations. Traditional, or rigid, laparoscopy still requires multiple incisions to achieve the visualization and instrument triangulation required to perform successful surgery. Rigid laparoscopy also creates physical challenges by forcing the surgeon’s hands and arms into awkward angles, requiring the surgeon to hold instruments in fixed positions for long periods of time, and requiring an assistant to stabilize and move a laparoscopic camera. Another challenge associated with rigid laparoscopic surgery is the creation of a cumbersome and potentially tissue-damaging fulcrum at the patient’s abdominal wall where instruments are manipulated. Nearly all laparoscopic instruments are rigid instruments that lack the internal articulation required to enhance dexterity in complex tasks. Most laparoscopic surgeries are performed with two-dimensional (2-D)(“2-D”) visualization of the operative field, making depth perception difficult.

Despite such limitations, traditional laparoscopy remains the prevalent technique in minimally invasive surgery. We believe that robotic devices that replicate laparoscopic motion are more comfortable for surgeons to adopt, thereby increasing the opportunity to enhance traditional surgical methods with robotics. Our ALF-X System and SurgiBot System each mimic laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic and computer controlled assistance have developed as technologies that offer the potential to improve upon many aspects of the laparoscopic surgical experience. Hundreds of thousands of robotic-assisted surgical procedures are now performed each year worldwide, but they still represent a small fraction of the total laparoscopic procedures performed. While initial widespread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery was focused on urologic and gynecologic procedures that were primarily performed in an open fashion prior to robotics, recently developed robotic approaches have been applied to many other clinical applications, particularly in general surgery. Despite recent advances, we believe there remain many limitations created byassociated with current robotic-assisted surgery systems used in connection with laparoscopic surgeries. For example, existing robotic systems require a large capital investment. Moreover, existing robotic systems require the surgeon to sit outside of the sterile field, requiring the surgeon leave the operating room to “scrub in” should it become necessary to enter the sterile field. There are further challenges in maneuvering the patient once a large, multi-arm robotic system is fixed in place.

Both traditional laparoscopic surgery and robotic-assisted surgery have begun to migrate towards methods and technologies that may allow for fewer incisions in the patient. The first major attempts at reduced incision or single incision surgery were through access ports that utilized long, rigid instruments. These instruments were usually crowded in a small space, often at the patient’s umbilicus, along with a laparoscopic camera for visualization. This configuration resulted in instrument collision, difficulty in establishing triangulation and working space for the instruments, and, often, difficulty associated with the crossing of instruments. More recent attempts at reduced incision surgery have leveraged robotic technology, but these efforts have diminished some of the benefits typically offered by robotic surgical systems and are plagued by some of the limitations of currently available robotic systems.

Product Overview

We are addressing the challenges in laparoscopy and robotic-assisted surgery with innovative products and product candidates that leverage the best features of both approaches to minimally invasive surgery.

Current Product Offerings

ALF-X System

The ALF-X System is a multi-port robotic surgery system which allows up to four arms to control robotic instruments and a camera. The system builds on the success of laparoscopy by enhancing the traditional features that surgeons have come to expect from existing products and by addressing some of the limitations associated with robotic surgery systems for laparoscopic procedures. The ALF-X System also offers responsible economics to hospitals by offering robotic technology with reusable instruments with minimal additional costs per surgery when compared to laparoscopy. The ALF-X System has been granted a CE Mark in Europe for use in abdominal and pelvic surgery, but is not available for sale in the U.S.

Key features of the ALF-X System are:

Current Products in Development

SurgiBot™SurgiBot System Robotic Platform

The SurgiBot System is currently in development and is designed as a single-incision, patient-side robotic-assisted surgery system. The system is intended to bring many of the advantages of robotic assistance to single-incisionsingle incision laparoscopic surgery while mitigating many of the drawbacks of existing robotic-assisted surgery systems.

4

The On June 1, 2015, the Company submitted its 510(k) application to the FDA for clearance of the SurgiBot System is composed primarily of three key components:

Key design features of the SurgiBot System are:

We believe that future advancements in robotic surgery will leverage three growth drivers: (1) build on the success of laparoscopy while addressing limitations; (2) develop innovative technology that addresses trade-offs; and (3) provide a compelling economic value to hospitals. TheALF-X System and the SurgiBot System will address theare designed to meet those needs, of the large and growing, yet underserved, population of physicianshelp expand robotic surgery to more diverse markets and hospitals who wish to offer the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery without the functional and economic challenges of current solutions. The SurgiBot System is designed for a potentially wide range of clinical applications, and we believe the system will be particularly attractive for general, bariatric and gynecologic surgery. In addition, we believe that the SurgiBot System can be offered to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) at a cost advantage relative to existing robotic surgery systems, and we expect hospitals, ASCs and physicians will be able to utilize existing laparoscopic procedure codes to receive reimbursement for procedures performed with the SurgiBot System.

5

Surgical Instruments

The Company has developed and manufactures, or has manufactured, flexible and rigid laparoscopic surgical instruments that are used in abdominal surgery, such as scissors, graspers, clip appliers, and suction and irrigation instruments. Such instruments were sold in limited volumes in connection with the SPIDER^® System, described below, and have been adapted for use with the SurgiBot System.

In April 2014, we launched one such instrument for use with the SPIDER System, a flexible energy device. This product received 510(k) clearance in March 2013 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it provides surgeons with a flexible instrument that can be used to perform tissue ligation. We believe the flexibility of our instrument provides the surgeon with the ability to create proper angles for tissue ligation that cannot be achieved with the rigid products currently being sold.

Prior Product Development ActivitiesOther Products

SPIDER Surgical System

Prior to the Merger,2015, TransEnterix Surgical developed and commercialized the SPIDER^® Surgical System (the SPIDER System)“SPIDER System”), a manual laparoscopic system, in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. The SPIDER System utilized flexible instruments and articulating channels that were controlled directly by the surgeon, allowing for multiple instruments to be introduced via a single site. The SPIDER System was cleared by the FDA in 2009 and CE Marked in August 2011. The Company also manufactured multiple instruments that could be deployed using the disposable SPIDER System.

The SPIDER System was commercially available in a limited release in select markets worldwide. It was distributed directly by TransEnterix Surgical in the United States. Outside of the United States, the SPIDER System was sold by distributors pursuant to distribution agreements. Based on input from customers and other surgeons, we determined that there was a greater market opportunity for a more fully-featured system (intended to be the SurgiBot System). As of December 31, 2014, we ceased all commercialization efforts with respect to the SPIDER System in order to fully focus our efforts on our other products, including the SurgiBot System.

Surgical Instruments

The Company has developed and manufactures flexible and rigid laparoscopic surgical instruments that are used in abdominal surgery, such as scissors, graspers, clip appliers, and suction and irrigation instruments. Such instruments were sold in limited volumes in connection with the SPIDER System, and have been adapted for use with the SurgiBot System.

In April 2014, we launched a flexible energy device. This product received 510(k) clearance in March 2013 from the FDA, and it provides surgeons with a flexible instrument that can be used to perform tissue ligation. We believe the flexibility of our instrument provides the surgeon with the ability to create proper angles for tissue ligation that cannot be achieved with the more rigid product alternatives.

In the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company had no revenue and no U.S. customers, as we focused our efforts on the SurgiBot System development. In the year ended December 31, 2014, we had one U.S. customer who accounted for 37% of theour revenue of TransEnterix Surgical’s products, including the SPIDER System. InAs noted above, the year ended December 31, 2013, we had one international customer who accounted for 37% of the revenue from TransEnterix Surgical’s products, including the SPIDER System. The international customer was Al Danah Medical Co. W.L.L., a distributor of such products pursuant to a pre-release distribution agreement with TransEnterix Surgical dated June 10, 2012. Although these customers were the most significant purchasers of our commercialized products during 2014Company ceased marketing and 2013, we do not believe we are dependent on such customers, as we ceased selling our SPIDER System products in 2014. The Company is continuing to consider alternatives to monetize the SPIDER System assets.

Intraluminal Gastroplasty Device (Gastroplasty Device)

Prioron December 31, 2014 to the Merger, SafeStitch was focusedfocus on developing its Gastroplasty Device for the treatment of obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Barrett’s Esophagus. SafeStitch had developed other surgical devices, including the SMART Dilator™, to be utilized in treating obesity, GERD and esophageal strictures, butdevelopment activities, therefore the Company ceased development of such other devices in 2013. In the second quarter of 2014, the Company determined to cease internal development of the Gastroplasty Device. The Company is evaluating strategic alternatives for the former SafeStitch products.

Prior to the Merger, SafeStitch also developed and was commercializing a surgical stapler called the AMID™ Hernia Fixation Device. The Company discontinued sales of the AMID Hernia Fixation Device in 2014.not dependent on these customers.

6

Business Strategy

Our strategy is to focus our resources on the commercialization and further development of the ALF-X System and the development and commercialization of the SurgiBot System. We are planningexpect to makelaunch sales of the product available,SurgiBot System, subject to our obtaining the requisite regulatory clearances and government clearances.approvals.

We believe that:

Research and Development

We are focusing our research and development efforts on the SurgiBot System. Our experience with the SPIDER Surgical System, which the Company discontinued selling as of December 31, 2014, has significantly advanced the development of certain components of the SurgiBot System. For example, the EndoDrive device portion of the SurgiBot System is very similar to the function and form of the SPIDER System that is inserted into the patient and features flexible articulating channels. The instruments used with both the SurgiBot System and the SPIDER System are long and flexible with many similar instrument tips and performance requirements. In addition to growing our internal expertise, we continue to collaborate extensively with outside experts in robotic systems and visualization technologies.

During the fiscal yearyears ended December 31, 2013, the Company incurred research2015, 2014 and development expenses of approximately $12.7 million, primarily related to the SurgiBot System development. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,2013, we incurred research and development expenses of approximately $29.7 million, $27.9 million and $12.7 million, respectively. In 2015 and 2014 such expenses primarily related to the SurgiBot System development. For 2013, such expenses related to the TransEnterix Surgical and SafeStitch products in development. We fund and SafeStitch and TransEnterix Surgical funded their respectiveour research and development expenses prior to the Merger, primarily from proceeds raised from equity and debt financing transactions. We expect to continue to use equity and debt financing transactions to fund our research and development activities. No customers are obligated to pay any material portion of such research and development expenses.

Intellectual Property

We believe that our intellectual property and expertise is an important competitive resource. Our experienced research and development team has created a substantial portfolio of intellectual property, including patents, patent applications, trade secrets and proprietary know-how. We maintain an active program of intellectual property protection, both to assure that the proprietary technology developed by us is appropriately protected and, where necessary, to assure that there is no infringement of our proprietary technology by competitive technologies.

7

The following summarizes our current patent and patent application portfolio.

IP related toPatents and Patent Applications Owned by the SurgiBot System and the SPIDER SystemCompany: The Company holds foursix United States patents, one Italian patent, one Russian patent, a European patent, two Japanese patents, and two Australian patents, and it has filed more than thirty patent applications filed in the United States and abroad. In each instance, we own all right, title and interest, and no licenses, security interests or other encumbrances have been granted on such patents and patent applications. The Italian and Russian patents resulted from filings related to the ALF-X System and will remain in force until 2030 and 2031, respectively. Three of our United States patents resulted from filings relating to the SPIDER System, which the Company stopped selling as of December 31, 2014, and will remain in force until 2028, 2028 and 2032, respectively. The European, Japanese and Australian patents, which also resulted from filings relating to the SPIDER System, will expire in 2027. The patent applications relate to the SPIDER System, the SurgiBot System, the ALF-X System and other instruments and systems for minimally invasive surgical procedures. We intend to seek further patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and internationally, where available and when appropriate, as we continue our SurgiBot System andALF-X System product development efforts.

IP relatedPatents and Patent Applications Licensed to the Gastroplasty DeviceCompany: We also have intellectual property from SafeStitch. We haveTransEnterix Italia has exclusively licensed technology, know-how, patents and patent applications relating to the ALF-X System from Creighton University (Creighton) for the Gastroplasty Device. TheseEuropean Union. This licensed portfolio includes one issued US patent which will remain in force until 2030, and at least fifteen patents issued in other countries, including two European patents, three Korean patents, three Japanese patents and three Chinese patents, which expire in 2027. At least fifteen additional patent applications include systems and techniques for minimally invasive gastrointestinal procedures, a dilator for use with an endoscope, and bite blocks for use with an endoscope and for preserving airways of patients during endoscopy. In addition, we have certain rights to other Creighton intellectual property that we have not yet defined as products under development. In total, our intellectual property estate from SafeStitch includes six issued patents and four patent applicationsare pending, including three in the United States, including those that are exclusivelyStates.

The license agreement with the European Union has a term which runs until the final licensed from Creighton. Fourpatent expires, unless the agreement is terminated earlier by mutual consent of the issued patents are owned by Creighton and relate to the Gastroplasty Device and related components. We include an evaluation of these intellectual property assets in our evaluation of strategic alternativesparties or for the Gastroplasty Device.

Pursuant to our exclusive license and development agreement with Creighton (the Creighton Agreement), we own all inventions conceived of and reduced to practice solely by our employees and agents related to the SafeStitch products, and all patent applications and patents related to the SafeStitch products claiming such inventions developed without the use of any licensed patent rights or associated know-how from Creighton. Creighton owns all inventions conceived of and reduced to practice solely by Dr. Charles Filipi, who was formerly our chief medical officer, or any Creighton employees or agents who work directly with Dr. Filipi in the course of performing duties for us, and all patent applications and patents claiming such inventions, which inventions, patent applications and all resulting licensed patent rights are subject to the Creighton Agreement. Together with Creighton, we jointly own all inventions conceived of and reduced to practice jointly by Dr. Filipi, and/or any Creighton employees or agents who work directly with him, and our employees or agents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Creighton owns all inventions conceived of or reduced to practice under its research and development budget, and all patent applications and patents claiming such inventions, even if conceived of solely by our employees or agents, and such inventions, patent applications and all resulting licensed patent rights are subject to the Creighton Agreement.breach. The Company has seven years afteris currently in compliance with the laterterms of the effective date of the Creighton Agreement or the disclosure and acceptance of a licensed patent and associated know-how (each as defined in the Creighton Agreement) to commence development of the licensed patent or commercially exploit the licensed products developed. We believe the Company’s work in developing the Gastroplasty Device has satisfied this requirement; however, if necessary, such seven-year term can be extended by the Company by payment, per licensed patent, of a term extension fee. If the Company fails to develop or commercially exploit a licensed patent and associated know-how within such term, the licensed patent and associated know-how revert back to Creighton. Otherwise, no specific term is established under the Creighton Agreement. Our obligation to pay royalties ends when the last valid claim (as defined in the Creighton Agreement) expires.

8

Dr. Filipi served as our Chief Medical Officer until June 30, 2014.license agreement.

Competition

Our industry is highly competitive, subject to change and significantly affected by new product introductions and other activities of industry participants. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial and human resources than we do and have established reputations with our target customers, as well as worldwide distribution channels that are more established and developed than ours.

There are many competitive offerings in the field of minimally invasive surgery. Several companies have launched devices that enable reduced incision or single incision laparoscopic surgery with or without robotic assistance. Our surgical competitors include, but are not limited to: Applied Medical, Medtronic plc, Intuitive Surgical, Titan Medical, Google and Johnson & Johnson.

In addition to surgical device manufacturer competitors, there are many products and therapies that are designed to reduce the need for or attractiveness of surgical intervention. These products and therapies may impact the overall volume of surgical procedures and negatively impact our business.

In addition, our ability to compete may be affected by the failure to fully educate physicians in the use of our products and products in development, or by the level of physician expertise. This may have the effect of making our products less attractive. Among the products with which we will directly compete,currently available surgical robotic systems, we expect the ALF-X System to differentiate on the basis of its use of standard trocars and lower per procedures costs; we expect the SurgiBot System, once cleared and marketed, to differentiate on the basis of internal triangulation and positioning of the surgeon within the sterile field, as well as a lower cost,capital cost; and we expect each of our systems to differentiate, in most cases.cases, and their ability to provide the surgeon with tactile feedback. Several medical device companies are actively engaged in research and development of robotic systems or other medical devices and tools used in minimally invasive surgery procedures. We cannot predict the basis upon which we will compete with new products marketed by others.

Government Regulation of our Product Development Activities

The U.S. government regulates the medical device industry through various agencies, including but not limited to, the FDA, which administers the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FDCA)“FDCA”). The design, testing, manufacturing, storage, labeling, distribution, advertising, and marketing of medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state, and local governmental authorities in the United States, including the FDA, and by similar agencies in other countries. Any device product that we develop must receive all requisite regulatory approvals or clearances, as the case may be, before it may be marketed in a particular country.

Device Development, Marketing Clearance and Approval

Medical devices are subject to varying levels of pre-market regulatory controls.requirements. The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes: (i) Class I devices are relatively simple and can be manufactured and distributed with general controls; (ii) Class II devices are somewhat more complex and requirereceive greater scrutiny;scrutiny from the FDA and have heightened regulatory requirements; and (iii) Class III devices are new, high risk devices, and frequently are permanently implantable or help sustain life.life and generally require a Pre-Market Approval (“PMA”) by the FDA.

9

In the United States, a company generally can obtain permission to distribute a new medical device in one of two ways. The first applies to any device that is substantially equivalent to a device first marketed prior to May 1976, or to another device marketed after that date, but which was substantially equivalent to a pre-May 1976 device. These devices are either Class I or Class II devices. To obtain FDA clearance to distribute the medical device, a company generally must submit a Section 510(k) notification, and receive an FDA order finding substantial equivalence to a predicate device (pre-May 1976 device or post-May 1976 device that was substantially equivalent to a pre-May 1976 device) and permitting commercial distribution of that medical device for its intended use. A 510(k) notification must provide information supporting a claim of substantial equivalence to a single medical device, the predicate device. If clinical

data from human experience are required to support the 510(k) notification, these data must be gathered in compliance with investigational device exemption (IDE)(“IDE”) regulations for investigations performed in the United States. The 510(k) process is normally used for products of the type that we are developing and propose to market and sell. The FDA review process for premarket notifications submitted pursuant to Section 510(k) takes, pursuant to statutory requirements, 90 days, but it can take substantially longer if the FDA has questions regarding the regulatory submission. It is possible for Section 510(k) clearance procedures to take from six to twenty-four months, depending on the concerns raised by the FDA and the complexity of the device. There is no guarantee that the FDA will “clear” a medical device for marketing, in which case the device cannot be distributed in the United States. There is also no guarantee that the FDA will deem the applicable device subject to the 510(k) process, as opposed to the more time-consuming, resource-intensive and problematic pre-market approval (PMA)PMA process described below. In 2011, the FDA issued a series of draft guidance documents designed to reform the 510(k) clearance process. Similarly, the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012 authorized the FDA to collect user fees for the review of certain pre-market submissions received on or after October 1, 2012, including 510(k) notifications. These fees are intended to improve the medical device review process, but the actual impact on the industry is still unknown.

The second, more comprehensive, approval process applies to a new device that is not substantially equivalent to a pre-1976 product or that is to be used in supporting or sustaining life or preventing impairment. These devices are normally Class III devices. For example, most implantable devices are subject to the approval process.process as a Class III device. Two steps of FDA approval are generally required before a company can market a product in the United States that is subject to approval, as opposed to clearance, as a Class III device. First, a company must comply with IDE regulations in connection with any human clinical investigation of the device. These regulations permit a company to undertake a clinical study of a “non-significant risk” device without formal FDA approval. Prior express FDA approval is required if the device is a significant risk device. Second, the FDA must reviewapprove the company’s PMA application, which contains, among other things, clinical information acquired under the IDE. Additionally, devices subject to PMA approval may be subject to a panel review to obtain marketing approval and are required to pass a factory inspection in accordance with the current “good manufacturing practices” standards in order to obtain approval. The FDA will approve the PMA application if it finds there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended use. The PMA process takes substantially longer than the 510(k) process, approximately one to two years or more. However, in some instances the FDA may find that a device is new and not substantially equivalent to a predicate device but is also not a high risk device as is generally the case with Class III PMA devices. In these instances FDA may allow a device to be down classified from Class III to Class I or II. The de novo classification option is an alternate pathway to classify novel devices of low to moderate risk that had automatically been placed in Class III after receiving a “not substantially equivalent” (NSE)(“NSE”) determination in response to a 510(k) notification. The FDCA hasregulations have also been amended to allow a sponsor to submit a de novo classification request to the FDA for novel low to moderate risk devices without first being required to submit a 510(k) application. These types of applications are referred to as “Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation” or “de novo.” In instances where a device is deemed not substantially equivalent to a Class II predicate device, the candidate device may be filed as a de novo application which may lead to delays in regulatory decisions by the FDA. FDA review of a de novo application may lead the FDA to identify the device as either a Class I or II device and worthy of either an exempt or 510(k) regulatory pathway.

10

We believe that the ALF-X System and the SurgiBot System-relatedSystem, and related products to both systems, are Class II devices, and we are in the process of pursuing Section 510(k) clearance for such products.the SurgiBot System. The FDA might find that the 510(k) submission does not agree with our assessmentprovide the evidence required to prove that the SurgiBot System is eligible for the 510(k) process or that the SurgiBot System is asubstantially equivalent to marketed Class II device.devices. If that were to occur, we would be required to undertake the more complex and costly PMA process or perhaps be considered for a de novo reclassification. However,All of these risks also exist for the ALF-X System, which we plan to gain U.S. market access from the FDA in the future. For either the 510(k), de novo, or the PMA process, the FDA could require us to conduct clinical trials, which would take more time, cost more money and pose certain other risks and uncertainties.

We have participated

Clinical studies conducted in discussions with, and intend to continue to engagethe U.S. or used in discussions with, the FDA regarding the appropriate regulatory pathway for our products, with primary emphasis directed toward confirming the regulatory pathway for the SurgiBot System. While clinical trial data for Class II devices are generally not required, we have received informationany U.S. application on an unapproved medical device require approval from the FDA that clinical trial data may be required for the SurgiBot Systemprior to enable market clearance. Should a clinical study be required to support a 510(k) submission, the Company would seek FDA advisement on study design, endpoints and statistical methods. Additionally, clinical data is required to support a CE Mark filing, but a clinical trial may not be required. The Company is pursuing regulatory guidance on the requirements related to the clinical evaluation to support a CE Mark.

initiation. Even when a clinical study has been approved by the FDA or deemed approved, the study is subject to factors beyond a manufacturer’s control, including, but not limited to, the fact that the institutional review board (IRB) at a specified clinical site might not approve the study, might decline to renew approval, or might suspend or terminate the study before its completion. There is no assurance that a clinical study at any given site will progress as anticipated. In addition, there can be no assurance that the clinical study will provide sufficient evidence to assure the FDA that the product is safe and effective, a prerequisite for FDA approval of a PMA, or substantially equivalent in terms of safety and effectiveness to a predicate device, a prerequisite for clearance under Section 510(k). Even if the FDA approves or clears a device, it may limit its intended uses in such a way that manufacturing and distribution of the device may not be commercially feasible.

After clearance or approval to market is given, the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, upon the occurrence of certain serious adverse events, are authorized under various circumstances to withdraw the clearance or approval of the device, or require changes to a device, its manufacturing process or its labeling or require additional proof that regulatory requirements have been met.

A manufacturer of a device approved through the PMA process is not permitted to make changes to the device which affects its safety or effectiveness without first submitting a supplement application to its PMA and obtaining FDA approval for that supplement, prior to marketing the modified device. In some instances, the FDA may require clinical trials to support a supplement application. A manufacturer of a device cleared through the 510(k) process must submit an additional premarket notification if it intends to make a change or modification in the device that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, such as a significant change or modification in design, material, chemical composition, energy source, labeling or manufacturing process. Any change in the intended uses of a PMA device or a 510(k) device requires an approval supplement or new cleared premarket notification. Exported devices are subject to the regulatory requirements of each country to which the device is exported, as well as certain FDA export requirements.

11

Pervasive and Continuing FDA Regulation

After a device is placed on the market, numerous FDA and other regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:

We are required to, and have, registered with the FDA and ISO as medical device manufacturers and must obtain all necessary permits and licenses to operate our business. As manufacturers, we and our suppliers are subject to announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA to determine our compliance with the Quality System Regulation or QSR,(“QSR”) and other regulations.

In Europe, we need to comply with the requirements of the Medical Devices Directive or MDD,(“MDD”) and appropriately affix the CE Mark on our products to attest to such compliance. To achieve compliance, our products must meet the “Essential Requirements” of the MDD relating to safety and performance and we must successfully undergo verification of our regulatory compliance, or conformity assessment, by a notified body selected by us. The level of scrutiny of such assessment depends on the regulatory class of the product. We are subject to continued surveillance by our notified body and will be required to report any serious adverse incidents to the appropriate authorities. We also must comply with additional requirements of individual countries in which our products are marketed. In the European Community, we are required to maintain certain International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certifications in order to sell products. These regulations require us or our manufacturers to manufacture products and maintain documents in a prescribed manner with respect to design, manufacturing, testing, labeling and control activities.

Impact of Regulation

Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include, among other things, any of the following sanctions:

12

Further, the levels of revenues and profitability of medical device companies like us may be affected by the continuing efforts of government and third party payors to contain or reduce the costs of health care through various means. For example, in certain foreign markets, pricing or profitability of products is subject to governmental control. In the United States, there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement similar governmental controls.

Therefore, we cannot assure you that any of our products will be considered cost effective, or that, following any commercialization of our products, coverage and reimbursement will be available or sufficient to allow us to manufacture and sell them competitively and profitably.

Health Care Regulation

Our business activities are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician payment transparency laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

In the United States, there have been, and we expect there to continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives, at both the federal and state government levels, to change the healthcare system in ways that, if approved, could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. At the current time, our products are not defined as durable medical equipment (DME)(“DME”). Non-DME devices used in surgical procedures are normally paid directly by the hospital or health care provider and not reimbursed separately by third-party payors. Instead, the hospital or health care provider is reimbursed based on the procedure performed and the inpatient or outpatient stay. As a result, these types of devices are subject to intense price competition that can place a small manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage as hospitals, ASCs and health care providers attempt to negotiate lower prices for products such as the ones we develop and sell.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable“Affordable Care Act)Act”) and the reconciliation law known as Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the Reconciliation“Reconciliation Act,” and, with the Affordable Care Act, the 2010“2010 Health Care Reform Legislation)Legislation”). The constitutionality of the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation was confirmed on June 28, 2012 by the Supreme Court of the United States. Specifically, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate and included changes regarding the extension of medical benefits to those who currently lack insurance coverage. Thus, the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation has changed the existing state of the health care system by expanding coverage through voluntary state Medicaid expansion, attracting previously uninsured persons through the new health care insurance exchanges and by modifying the methodology for reimbursing medical services, drugs and devices, such as our products. These structural changes could entail modifications to the existing system of third-party payors and government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or some combination of both, as well as other changes.

13

The 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation subjects manufacturers of medical devices to an excise tax of 2.3% on certain U.S. sales of medical devices beginning in January 2013. This excise tax was suspended in December 2015 for two years. If eventually implemented, this excise tax will likely increase our expenses in the future.

Further, the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation includes the Open Payments Act (formerly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act), which, in conjunction with its implementing regulations, requires certain manufacturers of certain drugs, biologics, and devices that are reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually certain payments or “transfers of value” provided to physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members during the preceding calendar year. We

provided our first reports under the Open Payments Act to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or CMS,(“CMS”) during 2014 and the first public disclosure of the Open Payments data by CMS occurred in September 2014. The failure to report appropriate data accurately, timely, and completely could subject us to significant financial penalties. Other countries and several states currently have similar laws and more may enact similar legislation.

Regulations under the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation have been, and are expected to continue to be, drafted, released and finalized throughout the next several years. The full impact of the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation, as well as laws and other reform measures that may be proposed and adopted in the future, remains uncertain, but may continue the downward pressure on medical device pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations.

International Regulation and Potential Impact

TheThrough the ALF-X Acquisition, the Company has expanded into international markets and intends to pursue continued expansion into international markets.expansion. Some of these markets maintain unique regulatory requirements outside of or in addition to those of the U.S. FDA and the European Union. Due to the variations in regulatory requirements within territories, the Company may be required to perform additional safety or clinical testing or fulfill additional agency requirements for specific territories. The Company may also be required to apply for registration using third parties within those territories and may be dependent upon the third parties’ successful regulatory processes to file, register and list the product applications and associated labeling. These additional requirements may result in delays in international registrations and commercialization of our products in certain countries.

Employees

As of December 31, 2014,2015, we had 100132 employees, including 98130 full time employees. The Company considers its relationships with its employees to be good.

Corporate Information

The Company’s principal executive offices are located at 635 Davis Drive, Suite 300, Morrisville, NC 27560. TransEnterix Surgical was originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on July 12, 2006. On September 3, 2013, TransEnterix Surgical merged with and into a SafeStitch merger subsidiary and became a wholly owned subsidiary of SafeStitch. SafeStitch was originally incorporated on August 19, 1988 as NCS Ventures Corp. under the laws of the State of Delaware. Its name was changed to Cellular Technical Services Company, Inc. on May 31, 1991. On September 4, 2007, SafeStitch acquired SafeStitch LLC, and, in January 2008, changed its name to SafeStitch Medical, Inc. On December 6, 2013, SafeStitch’s name was changed to TransEnterix, Inc.

As of December 31, 2015, the active subsidiaries of the Company are TransEnterix Surgical, Inc., SafeStitch LLC, TransEnterix International, Inc. and TransEnterix Italia, S.r.l.

14

Available Information

The Company maintains a website at www.transenterix.com. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, as reviewed and updated on February 18, 2014,October 29, 2015, is available on our website. Our annual reports on Form 10-K,

quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are available free of charge on our website as soon as practicable after electronic filing of such material with, or furnishing it to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC)“SEC”). This information may be read and copied at the Public Reference Room of the SEC at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20549. The SEC also maintains an internet website that contains reports, proxy statements, and other information about issuers, like TransEnterix, Inc., who file electronically with the SEC. The address of the site ishttp://www.sec.gov.www.sec.gov.

We have a history of operating losses, and we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability. In addition, we may be unable to continue as a going concern.

We are a medical device company with a limited operating history. We are not profitable and have incurred losses since our inception. Substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern as a result of anticipated capital needs as well as past recurring losses and an accumulated deficit. We continue to incur research and development and general and administrative expenses related to our operations. Our net loss for the year ended December 31, 20142015 was $37.7$46.9 million, and our accumulated deficit as of December 31, 20142015 was $135.9$182.9 million. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents, together with cash received from sales of our products, will not be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash needs through December 31, 2015.for the next 12 months.

We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and these losses will likely increase as we continue to develop and commercialize our products and product candidates. We will continue to incur research and development and general and administrative expenses related to our operations, and expect to increase our sales and marketing expenses as we increase our sales and marketing activities for the ALF-X System and, once approved, the SurgiBot System. If our products fail in development or do not gain regulatory clearance or approval, or if our products do not achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. We anticipate that, if needed, we will seek capital from other sources, such as equity offerings. Absent a significant increase in revenue or additional equity or debt financing, we may not be able to sustain our ability to continue as a going concern. We have filed shelf registration statements which have been declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). As of December 31, 2014, we had $143.6 million available for future financings. However, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in obtaining such additional financing on terms acceptable to the Company or at all.

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

The net proceeds of recent equity financings, including the public offering of our common stock completed in April 2014,June 2015, will not be sufficient to support development of our products and product candidates and provide us with the necessary resources to commercialize these products and product candidates. While we are currently focused on our ALF-X System, and our SurgiBot System product in development, we intend to advance multiple additional products through clinical and pre-clinical development in the future. We will likely need to raise substantial additional capital in order to continue our operations and achieve our business’ objectives.

We have filed shelf registration statements which have been declared effective by the SEC. As of December 31, 2015, we had $80.8 million available for future financings, however approximately $43.6 million may now be raised under the ATM offering we initiated in February 2016. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in obtaining such additional financing on terms acceptable to the Company or at all.

15

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Until we generate a sufficient amount of product revenue to finance our cash requirements, which may never occur, we expect to finance future cash needs primarily through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or strategic collaborations. We do not know whether additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are not able to secure additional funding when needed, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our clinical studies or research and development programs. To the extent that we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience significant dilution; and debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants that limit our operations. To the extent that we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our products or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

16

We have a substantial amount of indebtedness, which may adversely affect our financial resources and our ability to operate our business.

We are party to, and jointly and severally liable with our subsidiaries for, $10.0 million of outstanding debt of a Loan and Security Agreement, originally dated January 17, 2012, as amended, with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Oxford Finance LLC (Oxford), as Lenders, which agreement was amended and restated on September 26, 2014 (the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement). Under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, the Lenders have agreed to make certain term loans in an aggregate principal amount of up to $25,000,000, with the first tranche adding to the outstanding principal amount of the then existing term loan borrowed by the Company from the Lenders under the original loan agreement for an aggregate of $10,000,000 in borrowings as of September 26, 2014. Two additional tranches are to be made available as follows. The second tranche of $5,000,000 will be available at any time prior to one year after the closing date when the Company files a 510(k) application for its SurgiBot System, and completes an offering of its equity securities at or above $35 million. The third tranche of $10,000,000, will be made available to the Company at any time prior to two years after the closing date upon recognition of at least $10,000,000 of trailing six-month revenues from the SurgiBot System and SurgiBot-related products. The Company is entitled to make interest-only payments for 12 months from the closing date, which interest-only period is extended to 18 months if the Company receives 510(k) clearance for its SurgiBot System at any time before October 31, 2015. The maturity date of the Term Loans is April 1, 2018 without the interest-only extension and October 1, 2018 with the interest-only extension. Our resulting substantial level of indebtedness and other financial obligations increase the possibility that we may be unable to pay, when due, the principal of, interest on, or other amounts due in respect of, our indebtedness.

Further, under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, we are subject to certain restrictive covenants that, among other things, may limit our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital requirements, product development activities, debt service requirements, and general corporate or other purposes. These restrictive covenants include, without limitation, restrictions on our ability to: (1) change the nature of our business; (2) incur additional indebtedness; (3) incur liens; (4) make certain investments; (5) make certain dispositions of assets; (6) merge, dissolve, consolidate or sell all or substantially all of our assets; and (7) enter into transactions with affiliates.

If we breach any of these restrictive covenants or are unable to pay our indebtedness under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement when due, this could result in a default under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement. In such event, SVB and/or Oxford, as the case may be, may elect (after the expiration of any applicable notice or grace periods) to declare all outstanding borrowings, together with accrued and unpaid interest and other amounts payable under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, to be immediately due and payable. Any such occurrence would have an immediate and materially adverse impact on our business and results of operations. The Amended and Restated Loan Agreement is secured by a security interest in all assets of the Company and its current and future subsidiaries, including a security interest in intellectual property proceeds, but excluding a current security interest in intellectual property.

Some of our technologies are in an early stage of development and not yet proven. Further, our related product research and development activities may not lead to our technologies and products being commercially viable.

We are engaged in the research and development of minimally invasive surgical devices, robotic surgical devices, and medical devices that manipulate tissues for the treatment of certain intraperitoneal abnormalities. The effectiveness of our technologies is not well known in, or may not be accepted generally by, the clinical medical community. Further, our products are prone to the risks of failure inherent in medical device product development. In particular, any of our products may fail to show desired efficacy and safety traits. A number of companies in the medical device industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after obtaining promising results at earlier points. The occurrence of any such events would have a material adverse effect on our business.

17

The results of previous clinical experience with our devices and devices similar to those that we are developing may not be indicative of future results and may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities.

Positive results from limited in vivo and ex vivo animal trials and other early development work we have conducted or early clinical experience with the test articles or with similar devices should not be relied upon as evidence that later-stage clinical experience will be successful.

Further, our products may not be cleared or approved, as the case may be, even if the clinical data are satisfactory and support, in our view, clearance or approval. The FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design and our interpretation of the clinical data. Any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the clearance or approval of a product even after reviewing and providing comment on a protocol for a pivotal clinical trial that has the potential to result in FDA approval. These regulatory authorities may also clear or approve a product for fewer or more limited uses than we request. In addition, the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may not approve or clear the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our products.

We are highly dependent on the success of the SurgiBot System and the ALF-X System, and we cannot give any assurance that itthese products will receive regulatory clearance in the U.S. or that itthey or future products will be successfully commercialized.

We are highly dependent on the success of our products, especially the ALF-X System and the SurgiBot System. We cannot give any assurance that the FDA will grant regulatory clearance for the SurgiBot System or will not require the more burdensome PMA submission and approval,ALF-X System, nor can we give any assurance that the ALF-X System, the SurgiBot System or any of our other products will be successfully commercialized, for a number of reasons, including, without limitation, the potential introduction by our competitors of more clinically effective or cost-effective alternatives, or failure in our sales and marketing efforts. Any failure to obtain clearance or approval ofmarket access for our products or to successfully commercialize them would have a material and adverse effect on our business. Regulatory authorities may change requirements for the clearance of a product regardless of previous discussions with the company. These regulatory authorities may also clear a product for fewer or more limited uses than we request. In addition, the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may not approve or clear the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our products.

We expect that our sales cycle will be lengthy and unpredictable, which will make it difficult for us to forecast revenue and increase the magnitude of quarterly fluctuations in our operating results.

Purchase of a surgical robotic system such as the ALF-X System and, once cleared, the SurgiBot System represents a capital purchase by hospitals and other potential customers. The capital purchase nature of the transaction, the complexity of our product, the relative newness of surgical robotics and the competitive landscape requires us to spend substantial time and effort to assist potential customers in evaluating our robotic systems. We must communicate with multiple surgeons, administrative staff and executives within each potential customer in order to receive all approvals on behalf of such organizations. We may face difficulty identifying and establishing contact with such decision makers. Even after initial acceptance, the negotiation and documentation processes can be lengthy. Additionally, our customers may have stricter limitations on spending given the current economic climate. We expect our sales cycle to typically range between six and twelve months, but it may be longer. Any delay in completing sales in a particular quarter could cause our operating results to fall below expectations. We also expect such lengthy sales cycle makes it more difficult for us to accurately forecast revenue in future periods and may cause revenues and operating results to vary significantly in future periods.

We may fail to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the acquisition of the ALF-X technology, which may adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Our ability to successfully integrate the business of our Italian subsidiary, TransEnterix Italia, which relates to the manufacture, development and commercialization of the ALF-X System with our existing business will depend, in part, on our ability to realize the anticipated benefits and cost savings from the expanded market opportunity presented by the acquisition of the technology and the establishment of international operations. To realize these anticipated benefits and cost savings, we must successfully integrate TransEnterix Italia with our other operations and combine our respective operations, technologies and personnel, which is particularly challenging given the geographic and cultural differences between the personnel and facilities based in North Carolina and Italy. If we are not able to achieve these objectives within a reasonable time frame, or at all, the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the acquisition may not be realized fully, or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected, and the value of our common stock may be adversely affected.

In addition, the overall integration of the businesses is a complex, time-consuming and expensive process that, without proper planning and effective and timely implementation, could significantly disrupt our operations. Further, it is possible that the integration process could adversely affect our ability to maintain the pace of our SurgiBot System research and development operations, result in the loss of key employees and other senior management, or to otherwise achieve the anticipated benefits of the acquisition.

Risks in integrating TransEnterix Italia into our operations in order to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition include, among other factors:

In addition, the actual integration may result in additional and unforeseen expenses, and the anticipated benefits of the integration plan may not be realized. Actual cost synergies, if achieved at all, may be lower than we expect and may take longer to achieve than anticipated. If we are not able to adequately address these challenges, we may be unable to successfully integrate the ALF-X System business into our business, or to realize the anticipated benefits of the integration. Even if integration is successful, anticipated benefits and synergies may not be achieved. An inability to realize the full extent of, or any of, the anticipated benefits of the acquisition, as well as any delays encountered in the integration process, could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations, which may affect the value of our common stock.

Our global operations expose us to additional risks and challenges associated with conducting business internationally.

The international expansion of our business through the addition of an Italian subsidiary may expose us to risks inherent in conducting foreign operations. These risks include:

The risks that the Company faces in its international operations may continue to intensify as the Company further develops and expands its international operations.

Our business may become subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with domestic and international operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business domestically and internationally, in part due to some of our suppliers being located outside the U.S. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

If we cannot achieve sufficient margins for our SurgiBot System, weit may not be able to grow our revenues sufficiently to sustain our business.commercially successful.

The commercial viability of our SurgiBot System is a significant focus of our product development efforts. Competition in our industry is intense and we need to provide a commercially sustainable product. Although we expect our initial gross margins to be lower as we ramp up manufacturing, we need to produce a product with sufficient gross margins. Additionally, our SurgiBot System is designed with reusable and limited-life components, and we may not be able to meet reusability targets for applicable components at launch. If we are not successful, our revenue growth may be slower than expected and it could have a material adverse impact on our business.

If our competitors develop and market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than our products and future products, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.

The life sciences industry is highly competitive, and we face significant competition from many medical device companies that are researching and marketing products designed to address minimally invasive and robotic-assisted surgery.surgery, including new entrants in the competitive market. We are currently developing and commercializing medical devices, including the ALF-X System and the SurgiBot System, that will compete with other medical devices that currently exist or are being developed. Products we may develop in the future are also likely to face competition from other medical devices and therapies. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing and product development resources than we do. Large medical device companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing and in obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals for medical devices. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do. Some of the medical device companies we expect to compete with include Applied Medical, Titan Medical, Medtronic plc, Intuitive Surgical, Johnson & Johnson, Google and a number of minimally invasive surgical device, robotic surgical device manufacturers and providers of products and therapies that are designed to reduce the need for or attractiveness of surgical intervention. In addition, many other universities and private and public research institutions are or may become active in research involving surgical devices for minimally invasive and robotic-assisted surgery.

18

We believe that our ability to successfully compete will depend on, among other things:

If our competitors market products that are more effective, safer, easier to use or less expensive than our products or future products, or that reach the market sooner than our products, we may not achieve commercial success. In addition, the medical device industry is characterized by rapid technological change. It may be difficult for us to stay abreast of the rapid changes in each technology. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or products obsolete or less competitive.

We have a substantial amount of indebtedness, which may adversely affect our financial resources and our ability to operate our business.

We are party with Silicon Valley Bank and Oxford Finance LLC (the “Lenders”), to, and jointly and severally liable with certain of our U.S. subsidiaries for, $20.0 million of outstanding debt under term loans issued under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, as amended (the “Loan Agreement”). Under the Loan Agreement, the maximum borrowing potential is up to $30.0 million. We were entitled to make interest-only payments until January 31, 2016. The maturity date of the outstanding term loan is July 1, 2018. Our resulting substantial level of indebtedness and other financial obligations increase the possibility that we may be unable to pay, when due, the principal of, interest on, or other amounts due in respect of, our indebtedness.

19Further, under the Loan Agreement, we are subject to certain restrictive covenants that, among other things, may limit our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital requirements, product development activities, debt service requirements, and general corporate or other purposes. These restrictive covenants include, without limitation, restrictions on our ability to: (1) change the nature of our business; (2) incur additional indebtedness; (3) incur liens; (4) make certain investments; (5) make certain dispositions of assets; (6) merge, dissolve, consolidate or sell all or substantially all of our assets; (7) enter into transactions with affiliates; and (8) transfer more than designated amounts to TransEnterix Italia during the term of the Loan Agreement.

Our product development activities could be delayed or stopped.

We do not know whether our current product development activities will result in products that meet necessary standards and performance criteria and whether the development will be completed on schedule. Delays could occur based on a number of issues that could arise. For example, should clinical trials be required, the commencement of our planned clinical trialstheir completion could be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

commercialization.

The completion of our clinical trials, if required, could also be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

In addition other issues, such as the need to investigate third party patents and potential infringement matters, although not currently an issue, could arise thereby delaying our development efforts.

20

AnySome of our technologies are in an early stage of development and not yet proven. Further, our related product research and development activities may not lead to our technologies and products being commercially viable.

We are engaged in the research and development of minimally invasive surgical devices, robotic surgical devices, and medical devices. The effectiveness of our technologies is not well known in, or may not be accepted generally by, the clinical medical community. Further, our products are prone to the risks of failure orinherent in medical device product development. In particular, any of our products may fail to show desired efficacy and safety traits. A number of companies in the medical device industry have suffered significant delaysetbacks in completingadvanced clinical trials, foreven after obtaining promising results at earlier points. The occurrence of any such events would have a material adverse effect on our products could materially harm our financial results and the commercial prospects for our products.business.

Certain of our future products, such as the SurgiBot System, may require the approval of a PMA. Initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to support a PMA application, and additional safety and efficacy data beyond that typically required for a 510(k) clearance, can be time consuming and expensive and the outcome uncertain. Moreover, theThe results of earlyprevious clinical trialsexperience with our devices and devices similar to those that we are developing may not necessarily predictivebe indicative of future results and any product we advance into clinical trials may not have favorablesatisfy the requirements of the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities.

Positive results from limited in later clinical trials. Conducting successful clinical studies requires the enrollment of large numbers of patients,vivo and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Patient enrollment in clinicalex vivo animal trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the attractiveness of,other early development work we have conducted or the discomforts and risks associatedearly clinical experience with the treatments received by enrolled subjects, the availability of appropriatetest articles or with similar devices should not be relied upon as evidence that later-stage clinical trial investigators and support staff, proximity of patients to clinical sites, patient ability to meet the eligibility and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial and patient compliance. For example, patients mayexperience will be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo extensive post-treatment procedures or follow-up to assess the safety and effectiveness of our products or if they determine that the treatments received under the trial protocols are not attractive or involve unacceptable risks or discomforts. Patients may also not participate in our clinical trials if they choose to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of competitive products. In addition, patients participating in clinical trials may die before completion of the trial or suffer adverse medical events unrelated to investigational products.

Sufficient and appropriate clinical protocols to demonstrate safety and efficacy are required and we may not adequately develop such protocols to support clearance and approval. Further, the FDA may require us to submit data on a greater number of patients than we originally anticipated and/or for a longer follow-up period or change the data collection requirements or data analysis applicable to our clinical trials. Delays in patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may cause an increase in costs and delays in the approval and attempted commercialization of our products or result in the failure of the clinical trial. In addition, despite considerable time and expense invested in our clinical trials, the FDA may not consider our data adequate to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Such increased costs and delays or failures could adversely affect our business, results of operations and prospects.successful.

The results of clinical trials may not support future product candidates or claims or may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.

In the future, we may need to conduct clinical trials to support approval or commercialization of new products, and any future clinical trial activities that we undertake will be subject to extensive regulation and review by numerous governmental authorities both in the United States and abroad.

Clinical studies intended to support a 510(k) or PMA must be conducted in compliance with the FDA’s Good Clinical Practice regulations and similar requirements in foreign jurisdictions. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our product candidate claims or that the FDA or foreign authorities and Notified Bodies will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and pre-clinical studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon a product candidate and may delay development of others. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay the filing of associated product submissions and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize products requiring

submission of clinical data. It is also possible that patients enrolled in a clinical trial will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of the product candidate’s safety profile, which could cause us to delay or abandon development of such product.

21

The regulatory approval and clearance processes are expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us or our collaboration partners from obtaining approvals or clearances, as the case may be, for the commercialization of some or all of our products.

The product development and design, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, clearance, selling, marketing and distribution of medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, which regulations differ from country to country. We are not permitted to market our products in the United States until we receive a clearance letter under the 510(k) process or approval of a PMA from the FDA, depending on the nature of the device. While we believe we understand, from our discussions with the FDA, the regulatory pathway for our SurgiBot System, we cannot be certain of the regulatory pathway we will need to follow until we file for 510(k) clearance. Obtaining approval of any PMA can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. While the FDA normally reviews a premarket notification in 90 days, there is no guarantee that our future products will qualify for this more expeditious regulatory process, which is reserved for Class I and II devices, nor is there any assurance, even if a device is reviewed under the 510(k) premarket notification process, that the FDA will review it expeditiously or determine that the device is substantially equivalent to a lawfully marketed non-PMA device. In the past the Company has been successful in receiving 510(k) clearance within the 90 day review period, but it can take longer (six to eighteen months) to obtain 510(k) clearance for a Class II device. If the FDA failsasks questions during a 510(k) process, the time required to answer the questions can extend the time to market up to an additional six months. If the company cannot sufficiently answer the questions, or for a variety of other reasons the FDA does not provide clearance for a product candidate, such as the SurgiBot System, then we cannot market the device. In lieu of acting on a premarket notification, the FDA may seek additional information or additional data which would further delay our ability to market the product.

Regulatory approval of a PMA, PMA supplement or clearance pursuant to a 510(k) premarket notification is not guaranteed, and the approval or clearance process, as the case may be, is expensive, uncertain and may, especially in the case of the PMA application, take several years. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the medical device clearance process or approval process. Despite the time and expense exerted, failure can occur at any stage, and we could encounter problems that cause us to repeat or perform additional development, standardized testing, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. The number of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for FDA clearance or approval varies depending on the medical device candidate, the disease or condition that the medical device candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular medical device candidate. The FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a medical device candidate for many reasons, including:

22

Once our products are cleared or approved, modifications to our products may require new 510(k) clearances, premarket approvals or new or amended CE Certificates of Conformity, and may require us to cease marketing or recall the modified products until clearances, approvals or the relevant CE Certificates of Conformity are obtained.

Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design, or manufacture, requires a new 510(k) clearance or, possibly, a PMA. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA may review such determinations. The FDA may not agree with our decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. If the FDA disagrees with our determinations for any future changes, or prior changes to previously marketed products, as the case may be, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified products until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

Furthermore, the FDA’s ongoing review of the 510(k) program may make it more difficult for us to make modifications to our products, either by imposing more strict requirements on when a new 510(k) for a modification to a previously cleared product must be submitted, or applying more onerous review criteria to such submissions. In July and December 2011, respectively, the FDA issued draft guidance documents addressing when to submit a new 510(k) due to modifications to 510(k) cleared products and the criteria for evaluating substantial equivalence. The July 2011 draft guidance document was ultimately withdrawn as the result of the FDASIA, and as a result, the FDA’s original guidance document regarding 510(k) modifications, which dates back to 1997, remains in place. It is uncertain when the FDA will seek to issue new guidance on product modifications. Any efforts to do so could result in a more rigorous review process and make it more difficult to obtain clearance for device modifications.

Even if we obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for our products, the terms thereof and ongoing regulation of our products may limit how we manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate anticipated revenues.

Once regulatory clearance or approval has been granted, the cleared or approved product and its manufacturer are subject to continual review. Any cleared or approved product may be promoted only for its indicated uses. In addition, if the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities clear or approve any of our products, the labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising and promotion for the product will be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. We and theany outsourced manufacturers of our products are also required to comply with the FDA’s QSR,Quality System Regulation (“QSR”), or similar requirements of non-U.S. regulatory authorities which includes requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance, as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation as well as other quality system requirements and regulations from non-U.S. regulatory authorities. Further, regulatory agencies must approve our manufacturing facilities for Class III devices before they can be used to manufacture our products, and all manufacturing facilities are subject to ongoing regulatory inspection. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA, either before or after clearance or approval, or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, or if previously unknown problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

23

Any of these sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition. Furthermore, our key component suppliers may not currently be or may not continue to be in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, which could result in our failure to produce our products on a timely basis and in the required quantities, if at all.

In addition, the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may change their policies and additional regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay regulatory clearance or approval of our products. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we would likely not be permitted to market our future products and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Even after clearance or approval for our products is obtained, we are subject to extensive post-market regulation by the FDA. Our failure to meet strict regulatory requirements could require us to pay fines, incur other costs or even close our facilities.

Even after we have obtained the proper regulatory clearance or approval to market a product, the FDA has the power to require us to conduct post-market studies. These studies can be very expensive and time-consuming to conduct. Failure to complete such studies in a timely manner could result in the revocation of clearance or approval and the recall or withdrawal of the product, which could prevent us from generating sales from that product in the United States. The FDA has broad enforcement powers, and any regulatory enforcement actions or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on us, could dissuade some surgeons from using our products and adversely affect our reputation and the perceived safety and efficacy of our products.

We are also required to comply with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which covers the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the design, manufacture, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage, shipping, installation and servicing of our marketed products. The FDA enforces the QSR through periodic announced and unannounced inspections of manufacturing facilities. In addition, in the future, regulatory authorities and/or customers may require specific packaging of sterile products, which could increase our costs and the price of our products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, including unanticipated adverse events or adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, manufacturing problems, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements such as QSR, may

result in changes to labeling, restrictions on such products or manufacturing processes, withdrawal of the products from the market, voluntary or mandatory recalls, a requirement to repair, replace or refund the cost of any medical device we manufacture or distribute, fines, suspension of regulatory approvals, product seizures, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties which would adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

24

If one of our products, or a malfunction of one of our products, causecauses or contributecontributes to a death or a serious injury, we will be subject to medical device reporting regulations, which can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions.

Under the FDA’s medical device reporting or MDR,(“MDR”) regulations, we are required to report to the FDA any incident in which our product may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our product malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. Repeated product malfunctions may result in a voluntary or involuntary product recall, which could divert managerial and financial resources, impair our ability to manufacture our products in a cost-effective and timely manner, and have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition. We are also required to follow detailed recordkeeping requirements for all firm-initiated medical device corrections and removals, and to report such corrective and removal actions to the FDA if they are carried out in response to a risk to health and have not otherwise been reported under the MDR regulations. Even though we are currently not marketing a number of our cleared products, such as the SPIDER, because these products are still in the marketplace, we are required to handle complaints and submit MDRs for any events meeting the reportability requirements.

All manufacturers bringing medical devices to market in the European Economic Area (EEA)(“EEA”) are legally bound to report any incident that led or might have led to the death or serious deterioration in the state of health of a patient, user or other person, and which the manufacturer’s device is suspected to have caused, to the competent authority in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. In such case, the manufacturer must file an initial report with the relevant competent authority, which would be followed by further evaluation or investigation of the incident and a final report indicating whether further action is required.

Any adverse event involving our products could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection or enforcement action. Adverse events involving our products have been reported to us in the past, and we cannot guarantee that they will not occur in the future. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business and may harm our reputation and financial results.

A recall of our products, either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA or another governmental authority, or the discovery of serious safety issues with our products, could have a significant adverse impact on us.

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities such as the competent authorities of the EEA countries have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our distributors could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues.

25

Any future recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and could have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future sales and our ability to generate profits.

U.S. legislative or FDA regulatory reforms may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates and to manufacture, market and distribute our products after approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory approval, manufacture and marketing of regulated.regulated products. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of future products. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

For example, the FDA may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our products under development or impact our ability to modify our currently cleared products on a timely basis. For example, the FDA recently issuedheld a public workshop to gather input on evidentiary requirements for new and modified robotically-assisted surgical devices. The company would need to align its submissions and business practices with any resulting guidance documents intended to explainpublished by the procedures and criteria the FDA will use in assessing whether a 510(k) submission meets a minimum threshold of acceptability and should be accepted for review. Under the “Refuse to Accept” guidance, the FDA conducts an early review against specific acceptance criteria to inform 510(k) submitters if the submission is administratively complete, or if not, to identify the missing element(s). Submitters are given the opportunity to provide the FDA with the identified information, but if the information is not provided within a defined time, the submission will not be accepted for FDA review.agency.

Any change in the laws, regulations or regulationsguidance that govern the clearance and approval processes relating to our current and future products could make it more difficult and costly to obtain clearance or approval for new products, or to produce, market and distribute existing products. Significant delays in receiving clearance or approval, or the failure to receive clearance or approval for our new products would have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician payment transparency laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Our business activities are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician payment transparency laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

26

Current legislation and future legislative or regulatory reform of the health care system may affect our ability to sell our products profitably.

In the United States, there have been, and we expect there to continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives, at both the federal and state government levels, to change the healthcare system in ways that, if approved, could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. While many of the proposed policy changes require congressional approval to implement, we cannot assure you that reimbursement payments under governmental and private third-party payor programs to health care providers will remain

at levels comparable to present levels or will be sufficient to cover the costs allocable to patients eligible for reimbursement under these programs. Any changes that lower reimbursement rates under Medicare, Medicaid or private payor programs could negatively affect our business.

To the extent that any of our products are deemed to be durable medical equipment (DME)(“DME”), they may be subject to distribution under Medicare’s Competitive Acquisition regulations, which could adversely affect the amount that we can seek from payors. Non-DME devices used in surgical procedures are normally paid directly by the hospital or health care provider and not reimbursed separately by third-party payors. As a result, these types of devices are subject to intense price competition that can place a small manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage as hospitals and health care providers attempt to negotiate lower prices for products such as the ones we develop and sell.

Most significantly, in March 2010, President Obama signed into law both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable“Affordable Care Act)Act”) and the reconciliation law known as Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the Reconciliation Act,“Reconciliation Act”, and, with the Affordable Care Act, the 2010“2010 Health Care Reform Legislation)Legislation”). The constitutionalitySupreme Court of the United States upheld fundamental aspects of the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation was confirmed onin June 28, 2012 by the Supreme Court of the United States.and again in June 2015. Specifically, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate included changes regarding the extension of medical benefits to those who currently lack insurance coverage.coverage, and affirmed that subsidies are available to participants enrolled in both state and federally created health care exchanges. Thus, the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation has changed the existing state of the health care system by expanding coverage through voluntary state Medicaid expansion, attracting previously uninsured persons through the new health care insurance exchanges and by modifying the methodology for reimbursing medical services, drugs and devices. These structural changes could entail modifications to the existing system of third-party payors and government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, or some combination of both, as well as other changes.

Beyond coverage and reimbursement changes, the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation subjects manufacturers of medical devices to an excise tax of 2.3% on certain U.S. sales of medical devices beginning in January 2013. Although there are current bills in Congress to repeal thisThis excise tax it remains current law. Thiswas suspended in December 2015 for two years, however, if eventually implemented, this excise tax will likely increase our expenses in the future.

Further, the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation includes the Open Payments Act (formerly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act), which, in conjunction with its implementing regulations, requires certain manufacturers of certain drugs, biologics, and devices that are reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually certain payments or “transfers of value” provided to physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members during the preceding calendar year. We provided our first reports under the Open Payments Act to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or CMS, during 2014 and the first public disclosure of the Open Payments data by CMS occurred in September 2014.(“CMS”). The failure to report appropriate data accurately, timely, and completely could subject us to significant financial penalties. Other countries and several states currently have similar laws and more may enact similar legislation.

27

Regulations under the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation have been, and are expected to continue to be, drafted, released and finalized throughout the next several years. The full impact of the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation, as well as laws and other reform measures that may be proposed and adopted in the future, remains uncertain, but may continue the downward pressure on medical device pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations.

Finally, we are unable to predict what additional legislation or regulation, if any, relating to the health care industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted in the future or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business. Any cost containment measures or other health care system reforms that are adopted could have a material and adverse effect on our ability to commercialize our existing and future products successfully.

Even if we receive regulatory clearance or approval to market our products, the market may not be receptive to our products, which could undermine our financial viability.

Even if our products obtain regulatory clearance or approval, resulting products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, health care payors and/or the medical community. To date, we haveWe experienced minimal sales of theour SPIDER System and AMID HFD stapler (both products were discontinued in 2014) and have not made any sales of the SurgiBot System.System or the ALF-X System, to date. We believe that the degree of market acceptance will depend on a number of factors, including:

If applicable, availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors can also impact the acceptance of our product offerings.

If we fail to attract and retain key management and scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our products.

We will need to effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial, development, marketing and other resources in order to successfully pursue our research, development and commercialization efforts for our existing and future products. Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and pre-clinical and clinicalscientific personnel. The loss of the services of any of our senior management, particularly Todd M. Pope, and Joseph P. Slattery and Anthony Fernando, could delay or prevent the development or commercialization of our products. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. We employ these individuals on an at-will basis and their employment can be terminated by us or them at any time, for any reason and with or without notice. We will need to hire additional personnel as we continue to expand our research and development activities and build a sales and marketing organization.

28

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and scientific personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among medical device and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will impede significantly the achievement of our research and development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy. In particular, if we lose any members of our senior management team, we may not be able to find suitable replacements in a timely fashion or at all and our business may be harmed as a result.

Because our design, development and manufacturing capabilities are limited, we may rely on third parties to design, develop, manufacture or supply some of our products. An inability to find additional or alternate sources for these services and products could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In 2014, weWe have used third-party design and development sources to assist in the design and development of our SurgiBot system.medical device products. In the future, we may choose to use additional third-party sources for the design and development of our products. If these design and development partners are unable to provide their services in the timeframe or to the performance level that we require, we may not be able to establish a contract and obtain a sufficient alternative supply from another supplier on a timely basis and in the manner that we require.

In 2014 we operated manufacturing facilities for production of the SPIDER System and maintained manufacturing facilities for the AMID HFD product (both products were discontinued in 2014). In the future, we may choose to use a third-party manufacturer for our other products. In addition, certain product component parts are likely to come from third-party suppliers. If these manufacturing partners are unable to produce our products or component parts in the amounts that we require, we may not be able to establish a contract and obtain a sufficient alternative supply from another supplier on a timely basis and in the quantities we require.

Our products require precise, high quality manufacturing. We and our contract manufacturers will be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities to ensure strict compliance with QSR,the quality systems regulations, current “good manufacturing practices” and other applicable government regulations and corresponding standards. If we or our contract manufacturers fail to achieve and maintain high manufacturing standards in compliance with QSR, we may experience manufacturing errors resulting in patient injury or death, product recalls or withdrawals, delays or interruptions of production or failures in product testing or delivery, delay or prevention of filing or approval of marketing applications for our products, cost overruns or other problems that could seriously harm our business.

Any performance failure by us or on the part of our design and development partners or contract manufacturers could delay product development or regulatory clearance or approval of our products, or commercialization of our products and future products, depriving us of potential product revenue and resulting in additional losses. In addition, our dependence on any third party for design, development or manufacturing could adversely affect our future profit margins. Our ability to replace any then-existing manufacturer may be difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and, in the case of Class III devices, the FDA must approve any replacement manufacturer before manufacturing can begin. It may be difficult or impossible for us to identify and engage a replacement manufacturer on acceptable terms in a timely manner, or at all.

29

We may become subject to potential product liability claims, and we may be required to pay damages that exceed our insurance coverage.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims that are inherent in the design, testing, manufacture, sale and distribution of our products and each of our product candidates that we are seeking to introduce to the market. Surgical medical devices involve significant risks of serious complications, including bleeding, nerve injury, paralysis, infection, and even death. Any product liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could result in the increase of our product liability insurance rates or in our inability to secure coverage in the future on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. In addition, if our product liability insurance proves to be inadequate to pay a damage award, we may have to pay the excess of this award out of our cash reserves, which could significantly harm our financial condition. If longer-term patient results and experience indicate that our products or any component of a product causes tissue damage, motor impairment or other adverse effects, we could be subject to significant liability. A product liability claim, even one without merit, could harm our reputation in the industry, lead to significant legal fees, and result in the diversion of management’s attention from managing our business.

We currently have a limited sales, marketing and distribution organization. If we are unable to develop our sales, marketing and distribution capability on our own or through collaborations with marketing partners, we will not be successful in commercializing our products.

WeAlthough we have recently expanded our commercial organization, we currently have limited marketing, sales and distribution capabilities. We intend to distribute our products through direct sales and independent contractor and distribution agreements with companies possessing established sales and marketing operations in the medical device industry, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in building our sales capabilities. To the extent that we enter into co-promotion or other arrangements, our product revenue is likely to be lower than if we directly market or sell our products. In addition, any revenue we receive will depend in whole or in part upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful and are generally not within our control. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products. If we are not successful in commercializing our existing and future products, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

If we or our licensors are unable to obtain and enforce patent protection for our products, our business could be materially harmed.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect proprietary methods and technologies that we develop or license under the patent and other intellectual property laws of the United States and other countries, so that we can prevent others from unlawfully using our inventions and proprietary information. However, we may not hold proprietary rights to some patents required for us to commercialize our proposed products. WeIn the United States, we, or one of our subsidiaries, have numerousor licensed 7 issued patents and over 40 pending patent applications that are in process. For example, with respectapplications. Many of these relate to the SPIDER System, and the SurgiBot System, wethe ALF-X System, instruments useful with those systems, or alternatives to those systems. We have three issued patents and we havealso filed over 30 patent applications inabroad for the United StatesSurgiBot System, ALF-X System and abroad.the SPIDER System. Because certain U.S. patent applications are confidential until patents issue, such as applications filed prior to November 29, 2000, or applications filed after such date which will not be filed in foreign countries, third parties may have filed patent applications for technology covered by our pending patent applications without our being aware of those applications, and our patent applications may not have priority over those applications. For this and other reasons, we or our third-party collaborators may be unable to secure desired patent rights, thereby losing desired exclusivity. If licenses are not available to us on acceptable terms, we will not be able to market the affected products or conduct the desired activities, unless we challenge the validity, enforceability or infringement of the third-party patent or otherwise circumvent the third-party patent.

30

Our strategy depends on our ability to promptly identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. In addition, we will rely on third-party collaborators to file patent applications relating to proprietary technology that we develop jointly during certain collaborations. The process of obtaining patent protection is expensive and time-consuming. If our present or future collaborators fail to file and prosecute all necessary and desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner, our business will be adversely affected. Despite our efforts and the efforts of our collaborators to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may be able to develop and use information that we regard as proprietary.

The issuance of a patent provides a presumption, but does not guarantee that it is valid. Any patents we have obtained, or obtain in the future, may be challenged or potentially circumvented. Moreover, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the USPTO)“USPTO”) may commence interference proceedings involving our patents or patent applications. Any such challenge to our patents or patent applications

would be costly, would require significant time and attention of our management and could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, future court decisions may introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of any patent, including those owned by medical device companies.

Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents. The patent position of medical device companies, including ours, is generally uncertain and involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards that the USPTO and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. There is also no uniform, worldwide policy regarding the subject matter and scope of claims granted or allowable in medical device patents. Accordingly, we do not know the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights or the breadth of claims that will be allowed in any patents issued to us or to others. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the aggressive enforcement of patents, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Therefore, the enforceability or scope of our owned or licensed patents in the United States or in foreign countries cannot be predicted with certainty, and, as a result, any patents that we own or license may not provide sufficient protection against competitors. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent protection for our pending patent applications, those we may file in the future, or those we may license from third parties.

We cannot assure you that any patents that will issue, that may issue or that may be licensed to us will be enforceable or valid or will not expire prior to the commercialization of our products, thus allowing others to more effectively compete with us. Therefore, any patents that we own or license may not adequately protect our future products.

For our ALF-X System, we rely on our license from the European Union, and any loss of our rights under such license agreement, or failure to properly prosecute, maintain or enforce the patent applications underlying such license agreement, could materially adversely affect our business prospects for the ALF-X System.

Some of the patents and patent applications in our patent portfolio related to the ALF-X System are licensed to TransEnterix Italia under a license agreement with the European Union. Presently, we rely on such licensed technology for our ALF-X System products and may license additional technology from the European Union or other third parties in the future. The EU license agreement gives us rights for the commercial exploitation of the licensed patents, patent applications and know-how, subject to certain provisions of the license agreement. Failure to comply with these provisions could result in the loss of our rights under the EU license agreement. Our inability to rely on these patents and patent applications which are the basis of certain aspects of our ALF-X System technology would have an adverse effect on our business.

Further, our success will depend in part on the ability of us, the European Union and other third-party licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our licensed intellectual property and, in particular, those patents to which we have secured exclusive rights. We, the European Union or other third-party licensors may not successfully prosecute the patent applications which are licensed to us, may fail to maintain these patents, and may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies that are infringing these patents, or may pursue such litigation less aggressively than necessary to obtain an acceptable outcome from any such litigation. Without protection for the intellectual property we have licensed, other companies might be able to offer substantially identical products for sale, which could materially adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and results of operations.

If we or our licensors are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information and know-how, the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, know-how and confidential and proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we will seek to enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and collaborators upon the commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements generally require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. Our agreements with employees also generally provide and will generally provide that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions. Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our confidential information. The disclosure of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

31

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale or import products or impair our competitive position. In addition, to the extent that a third party develops new technology that covers our products, we may be required to obtain licenses to that technology, which licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If licenses are not available to us on acceptable terms, we will not be able to market the affected products or conduct the desired activities, unless we challenge the validity, enforceability or infringement of the third-party patent or circumvent the third-party patent, which would be costly and would require significant time and attention of our management. Third parties may have or obtain valid and enforceable patents or proprietary rights that could block us from developing products using our technology. Our failure to obtain a license to any technology that we require may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we become involved in patent litigation or other proceedings related to a determination of rights, we could incur substantial costs and expenses, substantial liability for damages or be required to stop our product development and commercialization efforts, any of which could materially adversely affect our liquidity, business prospects and results of operations.

Third parties may sue us for infringing their patent rights. Likewise, we may need to resort to litigation to enforce a patent issued or licensed to us or to determine the scope and validity of proprietary rights of others. In addition, a third party may claim that we have improperly obtained or used its confidential or proprietary information. Furthermore, in connection with our third-party license agreements, we generally have agreed to indemnify the licensor for costs incurred in connection with litigation relating to intellectual property rights. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding relating to intellectual property rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and the litigation would divert our management’s efforts. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could limit our ability to continue our operations.

If any parties successfully claim that our creation or use of proprietary technologies infringes upon their intellectual property rights, we might be forced to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed on such parties’ patent rights. In addition to any damages we might have to pay, a court could require us to stop the infringing activity or obtain a license. Any license required under any patent may not be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, such licenses are likely to be non-exclusive and, therefore, our competitors may have access to the same technology licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license and are unable to design around a patent, we may be unable to effectively market some of our technology and products, which could limit our ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations.

32

Our business may become subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with domestic and international operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business domestically and internationally, in part due to some of our suppliers being located outside the U.S. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

We may be required to recognize impairment charges for our goodwill and other intangible assets.

As of December 31, 2014,2015, the net carrying value of our goodwill and other intangible assets totaled approximately $93.8$194.3 million, which was 69%78% of total assets. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, we periodically assess these assets to determine if they are impaired. Significant negative industry or economic trends, disruptions to our business, inability to effectively integrate acquired businesses, unexpected significant changes or planned changes in use of the assets, divestitures and share price declines may impair our goodwill and other intangible assets. Any charges relating to such impairments would adversely affect our results of operations in the periods recognized.

Our stockholders have experienced dilution of their percentage ownership of our stock and may experience additional dilution in the future.

AsIn the June 2015 public offering, and in the ALF-X Acquisition, we issued a resultsignificant number of the Merger, we issued new shares of common stock to certain former TransEnterix Surgical stockholders, representing approximately 65%increase our outstanding shares of the total outstanding voting power of all our stockholders immediately following the closing of the Merger.common stock to over 100,000,000 shares. The issuance of these shares caused existing stockholders at the time of the Mergerpublic offering and ALF-X Acquisition to experience immediate and significant dilution in their percentage ownership of our outstanding common stock. In addition, the private placement issuance of our Series B Preferred Stockfrom February 2015 through February 2016, we offered and sold, through Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., as sales agent, $25 million in September 2013 caused substantial dilution to our stockholders, as each share of Series B Preferred Stock was converted into ten shares of our common stock on December 6, 2013,in an at-the-market offering. On February 9, 2016, we entered into a new “at-the-market” facility with Cantor under which we can offer and our stockholders experienced additional dilutionsell, through Cantor, up to approximately $43.6 million in our April 2014 $56 millionshares of common stock public offering.stock.

33

We will likely need to raise substantial additional capital in order to continue our operations and achieve our business objectives. The future issuance of the Company’s equity securities will further dilute the ownership of our outstanding common stock.

The market price of our common stock has been, and may continue to be, highly volatile, and such volatility could cause the market price of our common stock to decrease and could cause you to lose some or all of your investment in our common stock.

During the two yearsyear period ended December 31, 2014,2015, the market price of our common stock fluctuated from a high of $14.00 per share to a low of $0.22$1.40 per share, and our stock price continues to fluctuate. The market price of our common stock may continue to fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as:

Further, the stock market in general, and the market for medical device companies in particular, has recently experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. The volatility of our common stock is further exacerbated due to its low trading volume. Continued market fluctuations could result in extreme volatility in the price of our common stock, which could cause a decline in the value of our common stock and the loss of some or all of your investment.

Trading of our common stock is limited, and trading restrictions imposed on us by applicable regulations may further reduce trading in our common stock, making it difficult for our stockholders to sell their shares; and future sales of common stock could reduce our stock price.

Trading of our common stock is currently conducted on the NYSE MKT. The liquidity of our common stock is limited, not only in terms of the number of shares that can be bought and sold at a given price, but also as it may be adversely affected by delays in the timing of transactions and reduction in security analysts’ and the media’s coverage of us, if at all. As of December 31, 2014,2015, approximately 41%46% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock were held by officers, directors and beneficial owners of at least 10% of our outstanding shares, each of whom is subject to certain restrictions with regard to trading our common stock. These factors may result in different prices for our common stock than might otherwise be obtained in a more liquid market and could also result in a larger spread between the bid and asked prices for our common stock. In addition, without a large public float, our common stock is less liquid than the stock of companies with broader public ownership, and, as a result, the trading prices of our common stock may be more volatile. In the absence of an active public trading market, an investor may be unable to liquidate his investment in our common stock. Trading of a relatively small volume of our common stock may have a greater impact on the trading price of our stock than would be the case if our public float were larger. We cannot predict the prices at which our common stock will trade in the future, if at all.

34

Sales by stockholders of substantial amounts of our shares of common stock, the issuance of new shares of common stock by us or the perception that these sales may occur in the future could materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock, and you may lose all or a portion of your investment in our common stock.

Directors, executive officers, principal stockholders and affiliated entities own a significant percentage of our capital stock, and they may make decisions that you do not consider to be in the best interests of our stockholders.

OurAs of December 31, 2015, our directors, executive officers, principal stockholders and affiliated entities beneficially owned, in the aggregate, approximately 47%46% of our outstanding voting securities. As a result, if some or all of them acted together, they would have the ability to exert substantial influence over the election of our board of directors and the outcome of issues requiring approval by our stockholders. This

concentration of ownership may also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of the Company that may be favored by other stockholders. This could prevent transactions in which stockholders might otherwise recover a premium for their shares over current market prices.

In connection with the Merger,ALF-X Acquisition, we entered into a voting and lock-up agreement with certain of our stockholders pursuant to which such stockholders agreed to vote to approve certain corporate actions following the Merger.SOFAR.

In connection with the Merger and the related private placement transaction, stockholders holding an aggregate of 93% of our common stock on the effective date of the Merger, and members of our Board of Directors,ALF-X Acquisition, we entered into lock-up and voting agreements (each, a Voting Agreement),Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of September 21, 2015, with SOFAR, pursuant to which such personsthe Company agreed to register the for resale following the end of the lock-up periods described below.

In connection with the ALF-X Acquisition, SOFAR entered into a Lock-Up Agreement pursuant to which it agreed, subject to certain exceptions, not to sell, transfer or otherwise convey any of the 15,543,413 shares of the Company’s securities held by them (collectively, Covered Securities)common stock issued to it as part of the transaction (the “Securities Consideration”) for one year following the Merger closing date.Closing Date. The Voting Agreements provideLock-up Agreement provides that such personsSOFAR may sell, transfer or convey: (i) up tono more than 50% of their respective Coveredthe Securities Consideration during the period commencing on September 3, 2014, the one-year anniversary of the Merger closing date;Closing Date and ending on the eighteen-month anniversary of the Closing Date; and (ii) up to an aggregate ofno more than 75% of their respective Coveredthe Securities Consideration during the period commencing on March 3, 2015, the eighteen-month anniversary of the Merger closing date.Closing Date and ending on the two-year anniversary of the Closing Date. The restrictions on transfer contained in the Voting AgreementsLock-up Agreement cease to apply to the Covered Securities on September 3, 2015,Consideration following the second anniversary of the Merger closing date. In accordance with a Registration Rights Agreement dated September 3, 2013, we included many of these stockholders as selling stockholders on a shelf registration statement we filed in November 2014. OnClosing Date, or earlier upon certain other conditions. Once such shelf registration statement we registered, for the account of such selling stockholders, the Covered Securitieslock-up restrictions end, it is possible that were released from the transfer restrictions of the Voting Agreement on September 3, 2014. SalesSOFAR will sell shares of our common stock by such selling stockholders could have a negative impact on the trading price of our common stock and increase the volatility of our common stock trading price.