UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
Form 10-K
 
x
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the fiscal year ended: March 31, 20122014
or
 
oTransition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
Commission file number: 000-54014
 
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
Nevada 20-5093315
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
384 Oyster Point Boulevard, No. 8343 Allerton Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
(650) 244-9990577-3600
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive office)
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
None
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes   oNo   xS

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.    Yes   o    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   o

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   xS    No   o

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.  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filero
  
Accelerated filero
  
Non-accelerated filero
  
Smaller reporting companyx
    
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes   o    No   x
 
The aggregate market value of the common stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates of the registrant on September 30, 2011,2013, the last business day of the registrant’s second fiscal quarter was: $22,210,726.$9,655,600.
 
As of June 28, 201219, 2014 there were 17,599,96325,451,877 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.
 


 

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
      
Item No. Page No.Item No.  Page No.
PART I1. Business4      
1A.Risk Factors17   2
1B.Unresolved Staff Comments32   23
2.Properties32   52
3.Legal Proceedings32   52
4.Mine Safety Disclosures32   52
      52
PART II5.Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities33      
6.Selected Financial Data40  53
7.Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations40   54
7A.Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 49   55
8.Financial Statements and Supplementary Data49   75
9.Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure94   76
9A.Controls and Procedures94    77
9B.Other Information95    77
       77
PART III10.Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance96      
11.Executive Compensation101    72
12.Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters109    78
13.Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence113    86
14.Principal Accountant Fees and Services114    93
       94
PART IV15.Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules116      
       96
SIGNATURESSIGNATURES    
EXHIBIT INDEXEXHIBIT INDEX    
 
 
-i-

 
CautionarySpecial Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains or incorporates by reference "forward-looking statements" that are based upon current expectations within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., or VistaGen, intends that such statements be protected by the safe harbor created thereby. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and VistaGen’s actual results and the timing of events may differ significantly from those results discussed in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K includes forward-looking statements. Statements aboutAll statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K other than statements of historical fact, including statements regarding our currentfuture results of operations and financial position, our business strategy and plans, and our objectives for future plans, expectations and intentions, results, levels of activity, performance, goals or achievements or any other future events or developments constitute forward-lookingoperations, are forward- looking statements. The words “may”, “will”, “would”, “should”, “could”,“believe,” “may,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect”, “plan”, “intend”, “trend”, “indication”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “predict”, “likely” or “potential”, or the negative or other variations of these words or other comparable words or phrases, and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Discussions containing forward-lookingWe have based these forward- looking statements in this report may be found, among other places, under “Business”, “Risk Factors”largely on our current expectations and “Management’s Discussionprojections about future events and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates and assumptions we make in light of our experience and perception of historical trends current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy, short-term and long-term business operations and objectives, and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are appropriatesubject to a number of risks, uncertainties and reasonableassumptions, including those described in the circumstances.

Many factors could cause our actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements or future events or developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the factors which are discussed“Risk Factors” section. Moreover, we operate in greater detail in this report under the section entitled “Risk Factors”. However, these factors are not intended to represent a complete list of the factors that could affect us.  The purpose of the forward-looking statements is to provide the reader with a description of management’s expectations regarding, among other things, our financial performancevery competitive and research and development activities and may not be appropriate for other purposes.

Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the forward-looking statements contained in this report are made as of the date of this report, and we have no intention and undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. The forward-looking statements contained in this report are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.rapidly changing environment. New factorsrisks emerge from time to time, and ittime. It is not possible for usour management to predict which factors may arise. In addition,all risks, nor can we cannot assess the impact of each factorall factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the future events and trends discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

TheYou should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We are under no duty to update any of these forward-looking statements after the date of this report include, but are not limited to:Annual Report on Form 10-K or to conform these statements to actual results or revised expectations. If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward looking statements.
our plans to develop and use for drug rescue applications novel, clinically predictive heart and liver toxicology screening bioassay systems based on human heart and liver cells derived from our human pluripotent stem cell technology platform, which we refer to as Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tubetm;
our belief that our human heart and liver cell-based bioassay systems can be utilized to discover, assess, prioritize, and develop new small molecule drug candidates, or efficiently screen chemical compounds and drug candidates for potential therapeutic utility or toxicity;
our anticipation that recognition of the potential value of a new generation of in vitro bioassay systems based on cells derived from human pluripotent stem cell technology, as well as the potential value of  predictive toxicology for drug discovery, development and rescue, including our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tubetm platform, will increase in the pharmaceutical industry in the coming years;
our expectation that we will gain access to information, data and research quantity supplies of small molecule drug rescue candidates through publicly available information, collaborations with pharmaceutical companies or selective licensing and acquisition transactions;
our expectation that we be successful in using our human heart and liver cell-based bioassay systems to identify those factors which make a drug candidate toxic to the human heart or liver, or which cause drug metabolism complications;
our expectation that we will be able to develop and license or sell to pharmaceutical companies drug rescue variants that are effective and safer than the once-promising drug candidates discovered, developed and ultimately discontinued by pharmaceutical companies;
our anticipation that, to the extent we license or acquire a drug rescue candidate from a pharmaceutical company instead of accessing the candidate from publicly available information, our drug rescue collaborations will include terms addressing the ownership of the drug rescue variants we expect to generate during our collaborative drug rescue programs, as well as any underlying intellectual property;
our expectation that we will derive revenues from drug rescue collaborations, including research and development fees, technology access fees, license fees, development milestone payments and royalties from collaborator product sales;
our expectation that we will license or sell drug rescue variants developed by us, or on our behalf by our medicinal chemistry collaborators, to pharmaceutical companies;
our ability to produce mature, functional pluripotent stem cell-derived human liver cells, and our ability to develop a clinically predictive liver toxicity and drug metabolism bioassay system using such human liver cells, which we refer to as LiverSafe 3D™;
our expectation that we will leverage our stem cell biology expertise to develop customized cellular bioassay systems for drug discovery and development applications beyond predicting heart or liver toxicity of drug candidates, including stem cell therapy;
our expectations with respect to nonclinical stem cell therapy initiatives focused on pluripotent stem cell-derived blood, cartilage, heart, liver and pancreas cells; and
our expectation that we will complete Phase I clinical development of AV-101 in the United States in 2012.

 
-1-

 
Because the factors discussed in this annual report could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us, you should not place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, known and unknown, which could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Such risks and uncertainties relate, among other factors, to:PART I
 
our ability to identify, access and rescue (create a novel, safer chemical variant of) a once-promising small molecule drug candidate discovered and developed by a pharmaceutical company for a potential large market disease or condition but ultimately discontinued by such company due to safety concerns;
our ability to effectively predict toxicity and drug metabolism issues of small molecule drug candidates;
our internal validation study of our first clinically predictive toxicology screening bioassay system, CardioSafe 3Dtm for heart toxicity, has not been subject to peer review or third-party validation; Item 1.
whether the cellular bioassay systems based on our human pluripotent stem cell biology platform are more efficient or accurate at predicting the heart or liver toxicity of drug candidates than current nonclinical testing models;
our history of operating losses;
our ability to obtain substantial additional capital in the future to conduct operations, conduct and sponsor research and development activities, and develop a drug rescue variant pipeline;
our ability to obtain government grant funding;
our ability to find collaborators in the pharmaceutical industry to acquire our drug rescue variants generated by using our stem cell technology ;
our ability to license or acquire drug rescue candidates from pharmaceutical companies on terms and conditions acceptable to us;
our ability to compete against other companies and research institutions with greater financial and other resources;
pharmaceutical industry need, acceptance and productive application of our stem cell technology for drug rescue applications;
our ability to acquire or license potential drug rescue candidates from third-parties on terms and conditions acceptable to us;
our ability to secure adequate protection for our intellectual property, especially the intellectual property underlying our stem cell technology platform and the small molecule drug rescue variants we expect to be created through our collaboration with our medical chemistry partner;
our ability (or the ability of our collaborators) to obtain regulatory approval of drug rescue variants; and
our ability to attract and retain key personnel.Business
 
We were first incorporated in California on May 26, 1998.  We merged with Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd., a Nevada corporation (Excaliber), a publicly held company, on May 11, 2011, and shortly thereafter changed our name to “VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.”   Unless the context otherwise requires, the words “VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.” “VistaGen,” “we,” “the Company,” “us” and “our” refer to VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation.  “VistaGen California” refers to VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a California corporation and our wholly owned subsidiary.
We are a stem cell company headquartered in South San Francisco, California focused on drug rescue and regenerative medicine. We believe better cells lead to better medicine™ and that the key to making better cells is precisely controlling the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells, which are the building blocks of all cells of the human body. For over 15 years, our stem cell research, development teams and collaborators have focused on controlling the differentiation of pluripotent stem cells to produce multiple types of mature, functional, adult human cells, with emphasis on human heart and liver cells.
Our stem cell technology platform - Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™
Our stem cell technology platform, which we refer to as Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, is based on a combination of proprietary and exclusively licensed technologies for controlling the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into multiple types of mature, functional, adult human cells that we use, or plan to develop, to reproduce complex human biology and disease.  We are currently producing human heart cells and liver cells for our drug rescue applications. However, we also intend to advance, internally and through collaborative research projects, production of pluripotent stem cell-derived blood, bone, cartilage, and pancreatic beta-islet cells and explore ways to leverage our stem cell technology platform for regenerative medicine purposes. Our interest in the regenerative medicine arena is on developing novel human disease models for discovery of small molecule drugs and biologics that activate the endogenous growth and healing processes enabling the body to repair tissue damage caused by certain degenerative diseases.
CardioSafe 3D™
Using mature cardiomyocytes (heart cells) differentiated from human pluripotent stem cells, we have developed CardioSafe 3D, as a novel, in vitro bioassay system used to assess new drug candidates for potential cardiac toxicity before they are tested in humans. We believe CardioSafe 3D is capable of predicting the in vivo cardiac effects, both toxic and non-toxic, of small molecule drug candidates with greater speed and precision than the long-established, surrogate safety models most often used in drug development, including models using animal cells or live animals, and cellular assays using cadaver, immortalized or transformed cells. Our pluripotent stem cell derived cardiomyocytes (heart cells) and CardioSafe 3D are key components of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and drug rescue programs.
LiverSafe 3D™
Using mature, functional adult hepatocytes (liver cells) derived from human pluripotent stem cells, we are correlating LiverSafe 3D, our second novel stem cell technology-based bioassay system, with reported clinical results. We believe LiverSafe 3D will enable us to assess, early in development, new drug candidates for potential drug-induced liver toxicity and particularly metabolism issues that can result in serious adverse drug-drug interactions, before animal or human testing. We plan to use LiverSafe 3D, and the clinically predictive liver biology insight we believe it will provide us, to expand the scope of our commercial opportunities related to drug rescue.
Drug Rescue
We believe drug rescue, using our novel in vitro bioassay systems, CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D, the foundation of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, is the highest-value near term commercial application of the human cells we produce.  Detailed information is available to us in the public domain regarding the efficacy, pharmacology, formulation and toxicity of promising small molecule drug candidates developed by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies which have failed due to unexpected heart or liver toxicity. These failed but still promising drug candidates, which we refer to as Drug Rescue Candidates™, have already been optimized and other risks are detailed in this report in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors.tested by a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company and assessed for efficacy and commercial potential.
 
 
-2-

 
EXPLANATORY BACKGROUND INFORMATION

VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. (“VistaGen” orFailure of promising Drug Rescue Candidates due to unexpected human clinical toxicity highlights the “Company”)need for new paradigms to evaluate potential heart and liver toxicity early in drug development. While efforts of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to improve their prediction of such human clinical toxicity for new drug candidates is a biotechnology company focused on using proprietary human pluripotentongoing, the existence of Drug Rescue Candidates™ offers us an opportunity to use our novel stem cell technology forto take advantage of prior third-party investment in Drug Rescue Candidates with early signs of efficacy, by significantly reducing the toxicity that caused them to be terminated, and bring new, safer versions back into development protected by new intellectual property. We refer to the new, safer versions of Drug Rescue Candidates we intend to produce with our medicinal chemistry collaborator and validate internally in our bioassay systems as Drug Rescue Variants™.
Through stem cell technology-based drug rescue, our objective is to become a leading source of proprietary, small molecule drug candidates to the global pharmaceutical industry. We have designed our drug rescue model to leverage publicly available information and cell therapy.  VistaGen was incorporatedsubstantial prior investment by pharmaceutical companies and others in CaliforniaDrug Rescue Candidates. The key commercial objective of our drug rescue model is to generate revenue from license, development and commercialization arrangements involving Drug Rescue Variants. We anticipate that each validated lead Drug Rescue Variant will be suitable as a promising new drug development program, either internally or in collaboration with a strategic partner.
Our Drug Rescue Strategy
We believe the pre-existing public domain knowledge base supporting the therapeutic and commercial potential of our Drug Rescue Candidates will provide us with a valuable head start as we launch our drug rescue programs. Leveraging the substantial prior investments by global pharmaceutical companies and others in discovery, optimization and efficacy validation of Drug Rescue Candidates is an essential component of our drug rescue strategy.
Our current drug rescue emphasis is on May 26, 1998.

On October 6, 2005, Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd. (Excaliber), a publicly-held company (formerly OTCBB:EXCA), was incorporated under the lawsDrug Rescue Candidates discontinued prior to FDA market approval due to unexpected cardiac safety concerns. By using our CardioSafe 3D assay platform to enhance our understanding of the Statecardiac liability profile of NevadaDrug Rescue Candidates, biological insight not previously available when the Drug Rescue Candidate was originally discovered and developed, we believe we can demonstrate in vitro proof-of-concept as to market specialty gift basketsthe efficacy and safety of Drug Rescue Variants earlier in development and with substantially less investment in discovery, efficacy optimization and development than was required of the pharmaceutical companies prior to real estate and health care professionals and organizations throughtheir decision to terminate  the Internet.  Excaliber was not able to generate revenues from this concept and became inactive in 2007.

After assessing both the prospects associated with its original business plan and the strategic opportunities associated with a merger with a business seeking the perceived advantages of being a publicly held corporation, Excaliber’s Board of Directors agreed to pursue a strategic merger with VistaGen, as described in more detail below.Drug Rescue Candidates.
 
On May 11, 2011, Excaliber acquired all outstanding sharesThe key elements of VistaGen Common Stock for 6,836,452 shares of Excaliber Common Stock (the “Merger”), and assumed VistaGen’s pre-Merger obligations to contingently issue shares of Common Stock in accordance with stock option agreements, warrant agreements, and a convertible promissory note.  As part of the Merger, Excaliber repurchased 5,064,207 shares of its Common Stock from two stockholders for a nominal amount, leaving 784,500 shares of Excaliber Common Stock outstanding at the date of the Merger.  The 6,836,452 shares issued to VistaGen stockholders in connection with the Merger represented approximately ninety percent (90%) of the outstanding shares of Excaliber’s Common Stock after the Merger.  As a result of the Merger, Excaliber adopted VistaGen’s business plan and the business of VistaGen became the business of Excaliber. Shortly after the Merger:our CardioSafe 3D drug rescue strategy are as follows:

·Shawn K. Singh, J.D., Jon S. Saxe, J.D., H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D., Gregory A. Bonfiglio, J.D.,
identify potential Drug Rescue Candidates with heart safety issues utilizing drug discovery and Brian J. Underdown, Ph.D., each a prior director of VistaGen, were appointed as directors of Excaliber;
·  Stephanie Y. Jones and Matthew L. Jones resigned as officers and directors of Excaliber;
·  The following persons were appointed as officers of Excaliber;
o  Shawn K. Singh, J.D., Chief Executive Officer,
o  H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D., President, Chief Scientific Officer, and
o  A. Franklin Rice, MBA, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary;
·  Excaliber’s directors approved a two-for-one (2:1) forward stock split of Excaliber’s Common Stock;
·  Excaliber’s directors approved an increasedevelopment information available in the numberpublic domain through open source, licensed databases, and published patents, as well as through our strategic relationships with our drug rescue and scientific advisors and consultants, including Synterys, Inc. and Cato Research Ltd., our preferred provider of shares of Common Stock Excaliber is authorized to issue from 200 million to 400 million shares;
·  
Excaliber changed its name to “VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.”;contract medicinal chemistry and contract clinical development and regulatory services, respectively;
·Excaliber adopted VistaGen's fiscal year-end
leverage substantial prior research and development investments made by global pharmaceutical companies and others to analyze internally the therapeutic and commercial potential of March 31, with VistaGenDrug Rescue Candidates, as the accounting acquirer.important criteria for selection of Drug Rescue Candidates and potential lead Drug Rescue Variants;

VistaGen, as the accounting acquirer in the Merger, recorded the Merger as the issuance of stock for the net monetary assets of Excaliber, accompanied by a recapitalization.  This accounting for the transaction was identical to that resulting from a reverse acquisition, except that no goodwill or other intangible assets were recorded.  Since June 21, 2011, our Common Stock has traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol VSTA.
·
use CardioSafe 3D to enhance our understanding of the cardiac liability profile of Drug Rescue Candidates, important and more comprehensive biological insights not available when the Drug Rescue Candidates were originally discovered and developed by pharmaceutical companies;

·
leverage our internal knowledgebase about each Drug Rescue Candidate’s specific chemistry to design and produce a portfolio of novel potential lead Drug Rescue Variants for each Drug Rescue Candidate;
·
use CardioSafe 3D and pre-existing in vitro efficacy models to assess the efficacy and cardiac safety of potential Drug Rescue Variants and identify and validate a lead Drug Rescue Variant; and
·
internally develop validated lead Drug Rescue Variants or out-license them to a global pharmaceutical company in revenue-generating agreements providing for the full development, market approval and commercial sale.
 
-3-

 
PART IWe believe our exclusive focus on Drug Rescue Candidates with established therapeutic and commercial potential, and our ability to build on that valuable head start using our expertise in human biology, will help us to generate Drug Rescue Variants without incurring certain high costs and risks typically inherent in drug discovery and development. Although we plan to continue to identify Drug Rescue Candidates in the public domain, we may also seek to acquire rights to Drug Rescue Candidates not available to us in the public domain through in-licensing arrangements with third-parties.
 
Item 1.  BusinessStrategic Licensing of Drug Rescue Variants
 
We are a biotechnology company focused on using stem cell technology as a drug rescue product to generate new, safer variants (drug rescue variants) of once-promising small molecule drug candidates discovered, developed and ultimately discontinued by largebelieve many pharmaceutical companies dueare experiencing, and will continue to heart or liver toxicity concerns.  We thereby “rescue” their substantial prior investment inexperience, critical research and development.

We believedevelopment productivity issues, as measured by their lack of, or very low number of, FDA-approved products each year during the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is facing a drug discovery and development crisis. In 2011,past decade. For example, in 2013, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry invested over $49$51 billion in research and development and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)(CDER) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)FDA approved a total of 30only 39 novel drugs, known as New Molecular Entities (NMEs)(NMEs).  In 2013, CDER approved only 27 NMEs, thirteen of which NME approvals (48%) were received by only five pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer (two), GlaxoSmithKline (four), Johnson & Johnson (three), Roche (two) and Takeda (two). Despite thisremarkable levels of research and development investment by the global pharmaceutical industry as a whole, since 2001,2003, the FDA has only approved an average of slightly fewer than 24approximately 26 NMEs per year. WeIn addition, we believe many pharmaceutical companies with established products that are no longer patent protected are also experiencing substantial market pressure from generic competition.
As a result of research and development productivity issues, diminishing product pipelines and generic competition, we believe there is and will continue to be a critical need among pharmaceutical companies to license or acquire the high cost ofnew, safer Drug Rescue Variants we are focused on developing, including companies that originally discovered, developed and ultimately discontinued the Drug Rescue Candidates we select for our drug development and relatively low annual number of FDA-approved NMEs is attributable rescue programs.
Once we achieve proof-of-concept (POC) in large partvitro as to the costefficacy and safety of failure associated with unexpected hearta lead Drug Rescue Variant, we intend to announce the results of our internal POC studies and, at that time, consider whether we will seek to license that Drug Rescue Variant to a pharmaceutical company, including the company that developed the Drug Rescue Candidate, or liver toxicity.  In turn,further develop it internally on our own.  If we decide to license a lead Drug Rescue Variant to a pharmaceutical company, through a form of license arrangement we believe unexpected heart and liver toxicity often results from limitations of the major toxicological testing systems currently usedis generally accepted in the pharmaceutical industry, namely animals and cellular assays based on transformed cell lines and human cadaver cells. We believe better cells make better bioassay systems. And we believe we have better cells.

With our mature human heart cells derived from pluripotent stem cells, we have developed CardioSafe 3D™, a novel three-dimensional (3D) in vitro bioassay system for predicting in vivo cardiac effects, both toxic and non-toxic, of small molecule drug candidates long before they are tested in animals or humans. We are developing LiverSafe 3D™, a human liver cell-based bioassay system for assessing liver toxicity and drug metabolism.  Our goal is to use CardioSafe 3D™ and LiverSafe 3D™, for drug rescue to recapture substantial potential value associated withanticipate that the pharmaceutical industry’s prior investment in drug discoverycompany will be responsible for all subsequent development, manufacturing, regulatory approval, marketing and developmentsale of once-promising drug candidates ultimately discontinued duethe Drug Rescue Variant and that we will receive licensing revenue through payments to heart or liver toxicity or drug metabolism issues.

Drug rescue involvesus from the combination of human pluripotent stem cell technology with modern medicinal chemistry to generate new proprietary chemical variants (drug rescue variants) of once-promising small molecule drug candidates discovered and developed by pharmaceutical companies but discontinued before receiving FDA approval due to heart toxicity, liver toxicity or drug metabolism issues. With human heart cells and liver cells derived from pluripotent stem cells, we believe that CardioSafe 3D™ and, when developed, LiverSafe 3D™, will allow us to assesslicense upon signing the heart toxicity, liver toxicity and metabolism profile of new drug candidates with greater speed and precision than animal testing and traditional cellular assays currently used in the drug development process.  Applying the clinically predictive capabilities of CardioSafe 3D™ and, when developed, LiverSafe 3D™ and medicinal chemistry, we believe we can generate novel, proprietary, safer drug rescue variants of once-promising drug candidates originally discovered and developed by pharmaceutical companies, thereby  “rescuing” their substantial prior research and development.  We plan to license our drug rescue variants to pharmaceutical companies pursuant to development and marketing arrangements designed to generate revenue for us upon (i) transfer of our drug rescue variants to the pharmaceutical companies, (ii) theiragreement, achievement of key nonclinical and clinical development and regulatory milestones, and, (iii) theirif approved and marketed, upon commercial sales of drug rescue variants approved for marketing bysales.
Regenerative Medicine and Drug Discovery
Although we believe the FDAbest and other regulatory authorities. In addition, we are exploring opportunities to advance nonclinical development of potential cell therapy and regenerative medicine pilot programs focused on blood, cartilage, heart, liver and pancreas cells based on the proprietary differentiation and production capabilitiesmost valuable near term commercial application of our stem cell technology platform.platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube

, is for small molecule drug rescue, we also believe stem cell technology-based regenerative medicine has the potential to transform healthcare in the U.S. over the next decade by altering the fundamental mechanisms of disease.  We are interested in exploring ways to leverage our stem cell technology platform for regenerative medicine purposes, with emphasis on developing novel human disease models for discovery of small molecule drugs with regenerative and therapeutic potential. Our regenerative medicine focus will be based on our expertise in human biology, differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to develop functional adult human cells and tissues involved in human disease, including blood, bone, cartilage, heart, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells, and our expertise in formulating customized biological assays with the cells we produce. Among our key objectives will be to explore regenerative medicine opportunities through pilot nonclinical proof-of-concept studies, after which we intend to assess any potential opportunities for further development and commercialization of therapeutically and commercially promising regenerative medicine programs and novel, customized, disease-specific biological assays, either on our own or with strategic partners.
-4-

AV-101 for Neuropathic Pain, Epilepsy and Depression
With $8.8 million of grant funding awarded from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, we have successfully completed Phase 1 development of AV-101. AV-101, also known as “L-4-chlorokynurenine” and “4-Cl-KYN”, is an orally availableorally-available, non-sedating, small molecule prodrug candidate aimed at the multi-billion dollar neurological disease and disorders market. AV-101 is currently in Phase Ib development in the U.S. for treatment ofmarket, including neuropathic pain, a serious and chronic condition causing pain after an injury or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. Neuropathic pain affects approximately 1.8 million people insystem, epilepsy, depression and Parkinson’s disease. Our AV-101 IND application, on file with the U.S. alone. To date, we have been awarded over $8.3 million of grant funding from the NIH to support preclinical and Phase IFDA, covers clinical development for neuropathic pain.  However, we believe the Phase 1 AV-101 safety studies completed to date will support development of AV-101.  We believe AV-101 may also be a candidate for development as a therapeutic alternative formultiple indications, including epilepsy, depression epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease. We intend to seek potential opportunities for further clinical development and commercialization of AV-101 for neuropathic pain, epilepsy, depression and Parkinson’s disease, on our own or with strategic partners. In the event that we successfully complete one or more strategic partnering arrangements for AV-101, we plan to use the net proceeds from such an arrangement(s) to expand our stem cell technology-based drug rescue and regenerative medicine programs.

Scientific Background
Stem Cell Basics
 
Human stemStem cells are the building blocks of all cells of the human body.  They have the potential to develop into many different mature cell types.  Stem cells are defined by a minimum of two key characteristics: (i) their capacity to self-renew, or divide in a way that results in more stem cells; and (ii) their capacity to differentiate, or turn into mature, specialized cells that make up tissues and organs.  There are many different types of stem cells that come from different places in the body or are formed at different times throughout our lives, including pluripotent stem cells and adult or tissue-specific stem cells, which are limited to differentiating into the specific cell types of the tissues in which they reside. We focus exclusively on human body. pluripotent stem cells.
Human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) can differentiatebe differentiated into anyall of the more than 200 types of cells in the human body, can be expanded readily, and have diverse medical research, drug discovery, drug rescue, drug development and therapeutic applications. We believe pluripotent stem cellshPSCs can be used to develop numerous cell types, tissues and tissuescustomized biological assays that can mimic complex human biology, including heart and liver biology for our proposed drug rescue applications.rescue.

PluripotentHuman pluripotent stem cells are either embryonic stem cells (“ES Cells”(hESCs) or induced pluripotent stem cells (“iPS Cells”(iPSCs).  Both ES CellshESCs and iPS Cells caniPSCs have the capacity to be maintained and expanded in an undifferentiated (undeveloped) state indefinitely. We believe these features make them highly useful research and development tools and as a source of normal, functionally mature cell populationspopulations. We use these mature cells as the basis for creating bioassaysformulating our novel, customized bioassay systems to test potential toxicitythe safety and efficacy of new drug candidates andin vitro. These cells also have potential for cell therapy.

-4-

Table of Contentsdiverse regenerative medicine applications.
 
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (ES Cells)
 
ES CellsHuman embryonic stem cells are derived from excess embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in an in vitro fertilization (“IVF”(IVF) clinic and then donated for research purposes with the informed consent of the parental donors after a successful IVF procedure. ES CellsHuman embryonic stem cells are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman’s body. ES CellsHuman ESCs are isolated when the embryo is approximately 100 cells, thus longwell before organs, tissues or nerves have developed.

ES CellsHuman embryonic stem cells have the greatest and most documented potential to both self-renew (create large numbers of cells identical to themselves) and differentiate (develop) into any of the over 200 types of cells in the body. ES Cellsdifferentiate. They undergo increasingly restrictivetissue-restrictive developmental decisions during their differentiation. These “fate decisions” commit the ES CellshESCs to becoming only a certain typestype of mature, functional cells and ultimately tissues. At one of the first fate decision points, ES CellshESCs differentiate into epiblasts. Although epiblasts cannot self-renew, they can differentiate into the major tissues of the body. This epiblast stage can be used, for example, as the starting population of cells that develop into millions of blood, heart, muscle, liver and pancreasinsulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells, as well as neurons. In the next step, the presence or absence of certain growth factors, together with the differentiation signals resulting from the physical attributes of the cell culture techniques, induce the epiblasts to differentiate into neuroectoderm or mesendoderm cells. Neuroectoderm cells are committed to developing into cells of the skin and cells of the nervous system.systems. Mesendoderm cells are precursor cells that differentiate into mesoderm and endoderm. Mesoderm cells develop into muscle, bone and blood, among other cell types. Endoderm cells develop into the internal organs such as the heart, liver, pancreas and intestines, among other cell types.
 
-5-

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS Cells)Celli
 
Over the past several years, developments in stem cell research have made itIt is also possible to obtain pluripotent stem cellhPSC lines from individuals without the use of embryos. iPS CellsInduced pluripotent stem cells are adult cells, typically human skin or fat cells that have been genetically “reprogrammed”reprogrammed to behave like ES CellshESCs by being forced to express genes necessary for maintaining the pluripotential propertyproperties of ES Cells.hESCs. Although researchers are exploring non-viral methods, most iPS Cells areearly iPSCs were produced by using various viruses to activate and/or express three or four genes required for the immature pluripotential property similar to ES Cells.hESCs. It is not yet precisely known, however, how each gene actually functions to induce cellular pluripotency, nor whether each of the three or four genes is essential for this reprogramming. Although ES CellshESCs and iPS CellsiPSCs are believed to be similar in many respects, including their pluripotential ability to form all cells in the body and to self-renew, scientists do not yet know whether they differ in clinically significant ways or have the same ability to self-renew and make more of themselves.self-renew.

Although there are remaining questions in the field about the lifespan, clinical utility and safety of iPS Cells,iPSCs, we believe that the biology and differentiation capabilities of ES CellshESCs and iPS CellsiPSCs are likely to be comparable.comparable for drug rescue purposes. There are, however, specific situations in which we may prefer to use iPS technologiesone or the other type of hPSC.  For example, we may prefer to use iPSCs for potential drug discovery applications based on the relative ease of generating pluripotent stem cellsiPSCs from:
 
individuals with specific inheritable diseases and conditions that predispose the individual to respond differently to drugs; or
individuals with specific variations in genes that directly affect drug levels in the body or alter the manner or efficiency of their metabolism, breakdown and elimination of drugs.
·
individuals with specific inheritable diseases and conditions that predispose the individual to respond differently to drugs; or
·
individuals with specific variations in genes that directly affect drug levels in the body or alter the manner or efficiency of their metabolism, breakdown and/or elimination of drugs.
 
Because they can significantly affect the therapeutic and/or toxic effects of drugs, these genetic variations have an impact on drug developmentdiscovery and the ultimate success of the drug.development. We believe that iPSiPSC technologies may allow the rapid and efficient generation of pluripotent stem cellshPSCs from individuals with the desired specific genetic variation.variations. These stem cellshPSCs might then be used to develop stem cell-based bioassays,produce cells and formulate novel, customized biological assays to model specific diseases and genetic conditions for both efficacy and toxicity screening, which reflect the effects of these genetic variations, as well as for cell therapy applications.

Current Drug Development Process
The current drug development process is designed to assess whether a drug candidate is both safe and effective at treating the disease to which it is targeted. A major challenge in that process is that conventional animal and in vitro testing can, at best, only approximate human biology. A pharmaceutical company can spend millions of dollars to discover, optimize and validate the potential efficacy of a promising lead drug candidate and advance it through nonclinical development, only to see it fail due to unexpected heart or liver toxicity. The pharmaceutical company then often discontinues the development program for the once-promising drug candidate, despite the positive efficacy data indicating its potential therapeutic and commercial benefits. As a result, the pharmaceutical company’s significant prior investment may be lost.

It has been estimated that the drug discovery development and commercialization programs of major pharmaceutical companies have required an average investment of approximately $1 billion before a new drug candidate reaches the market. It is also estimated that about one-third of all potential new drugs candidates fail in preclinical or clinical trials due to safety concerns. In a 2004 white paper entitled “Stagnation or Innovation”, the FDA noted that even only a 10% improvement in predicting the failure of a drug due to toxicity before the drug enters clinical trials could, when averaged over a pharmaceutical company’s drug development efforts, avoid $100 million in development costs per marketed drug.

We believe there is an unmet need for human cell-based predictive toxicology screening assays that more closely approximate human biology than do current testing systems used in the pharmaceutical industry. By differentiating pluripotent stem cells into mature, human cells that can then be used as the basis for our customized in vitro toxicology screening bioassay systems, we have the potential to identify human toxicity of drug candidates early in the drug development process, resulting in efficient focusing of resources on those candidates with the highest probability of success. We believe this has the potential to substantially reduce development costs while enabling us to produce effective and safer drugs.

Our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM Platform for Drug Rescue
We are focused on leveraging (“rescuing”) substantial prior investment by pharmaceutical companies in discovery and development of new drug candidates that ultimately were discontinued due to toxicity concerns. By combining our stem cell technology platform, which we refer to as Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM, with medicinal chemistry and 3D “micro-organ” culture systems, we are focused on generating, together with our collaborators, new, safer, proprietary chemical variants of failed drug candidates previously discovered and developed by pharmaceutical companies. We refer to these chemical variants as “drug rescue variants”.  Our goal is to use our stem cell technology platform to generate drug rescue variants that retain the efficacy of a large pharmaceutical company’s once-promising drug candidate, but with reduced toxicity. We believe our drug rescue variants will offer to pharmaceutical companies a potential opportunity to rescue substantial value from their prior investment in once-promising drug candidates which they discontinued due to toxicity concerns.purposes.
 
Proprietary Pluripotent Stem Cell Differentiation Protocols
 
Through severalOver fifteen years of research, our co-founder,together with Dr. Gordon Keller, hasour co-founder and Chairman of our Scientific Advisory Board, we have developed proprietary differentiation protocols covering key conditions involved in the differentiation of a pluripotent stem cell.hPSCs into multiple types of mature human cells. The human cells generated by following these proprietary differentiation protocols are integral to our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMplatform.  We believe they support more clinically predictive clinically-predictive in vitro bioassay systems than animal testing or cellular assays currently used in drug discovery and development.  Our exclusivestrategic technology licenses withfrom National Jewish Health andin Denver, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicinein New York and the University Health Network in Toronto (UHN) relate to proprietary stem cell differentiation protocols developed by Dr. Keller and cover, among other things, the following:involve precisely-coordinated temporal and quantitative conditions and interaction of biological molecules, including:
 
specific growth and differentiation factors used in the tissue culture medium, applied in specific combinations, at critical concentrations, and at critical times unique to each desired cell type;

modified developmental genes and the experimentally controlled regulation of developmental genes, which is critical for determining what differentiation path a cell will take; and

biological markers characteristic of precursor cells, which are committed to becoming specific cells and tissues, and which can be used to identify, enrich and purify the desired mature cell type.
·
specific growth and differentiation factors used in the tissue culture medium, applied in specific combinations, at critical concentrations, and at critical times unique to each desired human cell type;
·
the experimentally controlled regulation of developmental genes, which is critical for determining what differentiation path a human cell will take; and
·
biological markers characteristic of precursor cells, which are committed to becoming specific human cells and tissues, and which can be used to identify, enrich and purify the desired mature human cell type.
 
We believe our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMplatform will allow us to assess the heart and liver toxicity profile of Drug Rescue Variants and other new small molecule drug candidates for a wide range of diseases and conditions with greater speed and precision than animal testing and cellular assaysnonclinical surrogate safety models most often currently used by pharmaceutical companies in the drug development.

Growth Factors that Direct and Stimulate the Differentiation Process
 
The proprietary and licensed technologies underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMplatform allow us to direct and stimulate the differentiation process of human pluripotent stem cells.hPSCs. As an example, for pluripotent ES Cells,hESCs, the epiblast is the first stage in differentiation. One biological factor that controls the first fate decision of the epiblast is the relative concentrations of serum growth factors and activin, a protein involved in early differentiation and many cell fate decisions. Eliminating serumSubstituting explicit amounts of defined growth factors in place of ill-defined animal serum, and adding the optimal amount of activin is an important step in inducing the reproducible development of functional cells and, in our view, is essential for the development of a robust, efficient, and reproducible model of human biological systemscellular differentiation suitable for drug rescue applications.rescue. The use of activin in these applications is core to many of the claims in the patent applications underlying our licensed hPSC technology. Replacing activin with continuous exposure to ill-defined and variable animal serum factors results in an inefficient and variable differentiation into cells of the human heart, liver, blood and cells of other internal organs. See “Intellectual Property – Mount SinaiIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Exclusive Licenses.”

In addition to activin, Dr. Keller’s studies have identified a number of other growth and serum-deriveddevelopmental factors that play important roles in the differentiation of ES Cells.hESCs. Some of the patents and patent applications underlying our licensed hPSC technology are directed to the use of a variety of specific growth factors that increase the efficiency (yield) and reproducibility of the pluripotent stem cellhPSC differentiation process. We have exclusive rights to certain patents and patent applications for the use ofwith claims relating to growth factor concentrations for ES CellhESC differentiation that we believe are core and essential for our drug rescue and development applications.development. See “Intellectual Property – Mount SinaiIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Exclusive Licenses” and “National Jewish Health Exclusive Licenses.”

 
Developmental Genes thatThat Direct and Stimulate the Stem Cell Differentiation Process
 
For the purpose of creating our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMplatform, we further control the differentiation process by controlling regulation of key developmental genes. By studying natural organ and tissue development, researchers have identified many genes that are critical to the normal differentiation, growth and functioning of tissues of the body. We engineer ES CellshESCs in a way that enables us to regulate genes that have been identified as critical to control and direct the normal development of specific types of cells. We can then mimic human biology in a way that allows us to turn on and off the expression of a selected gene by the addition of a specific compound to a culture medium. By adding specific compounds, we have the ability to influence the expression of key genes that are critically important to the normal biology of the cell.

Cell Purification Approaches
 
The proprietary protocols we have licensed and developed for our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMplatform also establish specific marker genes and proteins which can be used to identify, enrich, purify, and study important populations of intermediate precursor cells that have made specific fate decisions and are on a specific developmental pathway towards a certain type of functionally mature functional cell. These proprietary protocols enable a significant increase in the efficiency, reproducibility, and purity of final cell populations. For example, we are able to isolate millions of purified specific precursor cells which, together with a specific combination of growth factors, develop full culture wells of functional, beating human heart cells.cardiomyocytes. Due to their functionality and purity, we believe these cell cultures are ideal for supporting our drug rescue activities.rescue.

3D “Micro-Organ” Culture Systems
 
In addition to standard two-dimensional (“2D”(2D) cultures which work well for some cell types and cellular assays, the proprietary stem cellhPSC technologies underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMplatform enable us to grow large numbers of normal, non-transformed, human cells to produce novel in vitro 3D “micro-organ” culture systems. For example, for CardioSafe 3D,TM, we grow large numbers of normal, non-transformed, mature human heart cells in vitro in 3D micro-organ culture systems. The 3D micro-organ cultures induce the cells to grow, mature, and develop 3D cell networks and tissue structures. We believe these 3D cell networks and structures more accurately reflect the structures and biology inside the human body than traditional flat, 2D, single cell layers grown on plastic, that are widely used by pharmaceutical companies today. We believe that the more representative human biology afforded by the 3D system will yield responses to drug candidates that are more predictive of human drug responses.
 
Medicinal Chemistry
 
Medicinal chemistry involves designing, synthesizing, or modifying and developinga small molecule drugscompound or drug suitable for therapeutic use.clinical development. It is a highly interdisciplinary science combining organic chemistry, biochemistry, physical chemistry, computational chemistry, pharmacology, and statistics. The combination of medicinal chemistry with the proprietary and licensed stem cellhPSC technologies underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMplatform are core components of our drug rescue business model. Working with our strategic contract medicinal chemistry partner, Synterys, Inc., we are focused on using our stem cell biology to generate a pipeline of effective and safe drug rescue variantsDrug Rescue Variants of once-promising pharmaceutical company drug candidates in a more efficient and cost-effective manner than the processes currently used for drug development.
 
Application of Stem Cell Technology to Drug RescueCardioSafe 3D
 
By using CardioSafe 3DTM, we intend to identify and optimize a leadThe limitations of current preclinical drug rescue variant (generated in collaboration with our medicinal chemistry partner) with reduced heart toxicity comparedtesting systems used by pharmaceutical companies contribute to the once-promising pharmaceutical companyhigh failure rate of drug candidate.candidates. Unexpected cardiotoxicity is one of the top two major safety-related reasons for failure of both drugs and drug candidates.  Incorporating human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocyte (hPSC-CM) assays early in preclinical development offers the potential to improve clinical predictability, decrease rescue and development costs, and avoid adverse patient effects, late-stage clinical termination, and product recall from the market.
With our proprietary human pluripotent stem cell technology, we can generate fully-functional hPSC-CMs at a high level of purity (>95%), without genetic modification or antibiotic selection. This is important because genetic modification and antibiotic selection can distort the ratios of cardiac cell types and have a direct impact on the ultimate results and clinical predictivity of the assay. In addition to expressing all of the key ion channels of the human heart (calcium, potassium and sodium) and various cardiomyocytic markers of the human heart, our hPSC-CMs function reliably in all cardiac toxicity assays relevant to cardiac drug effects developed and tested to date.
Utilizing fully functional hPSC-CMs that underlie our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, we have validated our CardioSafe 3D assay system to screen for both cardiomyopathy (or direct cardiomyocyte cytotoxicity) and arrhythmogenesis (or development of irregular beating patterns). We believe each lead drug rescue variant will beCardioSafe 3D is sensitive, stable, reproducible and capable of generating data enabling a more accurate prediction of the in vivo cardiac effects of Drug Rescue Variants and other new drug candidate (to which we expect tocandidates than is possible with existing preclinical testing systems.

We have certain intellectual propertydeveloped and commercialization rights) that preserves the therapeutic potential of the original pharmaceutical company drug candidate, and thus retains its potential commercial value to a pharmaceutical company, but substantially reduces or eliminates its heart toxicity risks. We believe that focusing on failed drug candidates that generated positive efficacy data will allow us to leverage a pharmaceutical company’s prior investment in discovery and development of the original drug candidate to develop our new lead drug rescue variant. We anticipate that the positive efficacy data relating to the pharmaceutical company’s original drug candidate will give us and our medicinal chemistry partner a significant “head start” in our efforts to generate a lead drug rescue variant, resulting in faster, less expensive developmentvalidated two functional components of our CardioSafe 3D screening system to assess multiple different categories of cardiac toxicities. The first consists of a suite of five fluorescence or luminescence based high-throughput hPSC-CM assays. These five CardioSafe 3D assays measure drug-induced cardiomyopathy, including the following:

1.  cell viability;
2.  apoptosis;
3.  mitochondrial membrane depolarization;
4.  oxidative stress; and
5.  energy metabolism disruption.

These five CardioSafe3D biological assays were correlated to reported clinical results of reference compounds known to be cardiotoxic in humans versus compounds known to be safe in humans. These reference compounds were representative of eight different drug rescue variants than drug candidates discovered and developed using only conventional animal testing and cellular testing systems.classes, including:


1.  Ion channel blockers: amiodarone, nifedipine;
2.  hERG trafficking blockers: pentamidine, amoxapine;
3.  
α-1 adrenoreceptors: doxazosin;
4.  Protein and DNA synthesis inhibitors: emetine;
5.  DNA intercalating agents: doxorubicin;
6.  Antibiotics: ampicillin, cefazolin;
7.  NSAID: aspirin; and
8.  Kinase inhibitors: staurosporine
 
This suite of five CardioSafe 3DTM
We have used assays provided measurement of cardiac drug effects with high sensitivity that are consistent with the proprietary pluripotent stem cell technology underlyingexpected cardiac responses to each of these compounds. Based on our results, we believe our Human Clinical Trials inCardioSafe3D assays provide valuable and more comprehensive bio-analytical tools for both assessing the effects of pharmaceutical compounds on cardiac cytotoxicity and for elucidating the specific mechanisms of cardiac toxicity, thereby laying a Test TubeTM platform to develop CardioSafe 3DTM, a human heart cell-based toxicity screening system that we believe is stable, reproducible and capable of generating data to allowsolid foundation for our scientists to more accurately predict the in vivo cardiac effects, both toxic and non-toxic, of drug candidates. A single CardioSafe 3DTM assay is stable for many weeks and can be used for evaluating the heart toxicity of numerous drug candidates.rescue programs.

Our internal validation study was designed to test the abilityThe other component of our CardioSafe 3D assay system is a sensitive and reliable medium throughput multi-electrode array (MEATM to generate data to allow our scientists) assay developed to predict drug-induced alterations of electrophysiological function of the human heart.  We have validated in vivo (correlated with reported clinical results)cardiac effects this key component of drug candidates. The study included 10our CardioSafe3D assay system with twelve drugs, previously approved for human use by the FDA and one experimental research compound widely accepted for studying cardiac electrophysiological effects. We selected these drugs and the research compound because of theireach with known toxic or non-toxic cardiac effects on human hearts that we believe represent the testing characteristics we expect to encounter during our drug rescue programs. More specifically:in humans. These twelve validation compounds are as follows:
five of the FDA-approved drugs (astemizole, sotalol, cisapride, terfenadine and sertindole) were withdrawn from the market due to heart toxicity concerns;

the other five FDA-approved drugs (fexofenadine, nifedipine, verapamil, lidocaine and propranolol) are currently available in the U.S. market and demonstrate certain measurable clinical non-toxic cardiac effects, one of which (fexofenadine) is a non-cardiotoxic drug variant (similar in concept to our planned rescued drug variants) of terfenadine (one of the FDA-approved drugs withdrawn from the market due to heart safety concerns); and
1.One FDA-approved drug (aspirin) without cardiac liability to serve as a negative control;
2.Five FDA-approved drugs (astemizole, sotalol, cisapride, terfenadine and sertindole) that were withdrawn from the market due to heart toxicity concerns;
3.Five FDA-approved drugs (fexofenadine, nifedipine, verapamil, lidocaine and propranolol) that have certain measurable clinical non-toxic cardiac effects. Note: fexofenadine is a non-cardiotoxic drug variant of terfenadine; and
4.One research compound (E-4031) failed in Phase I human clinical study before being discontinued due to heart toxicity concerns.

the research compound (E-4031) failed in a small Phase I human clinical study before being discontinued due to heart toxicity concerns.
InWe have validated that our study analysis, we found that results obtained with CardioSafe 3DTM were MEA assay was reproducible and consistent with the known human cardiac effects of all 10 FDA-approved drugsthe twelve compounds studied, based on the mechanisms of action and dosage of the experimental research compound. Bycompounds. For instance, by using CardioSafe 3D,TM, we were also able to distinguish between the cardiac effects of terfenadine (SeldaneTM), withdrawn by the FDA due to cardiotoxicity, and the cardiac effects of the closelyclose structurally related fexofenadine (AllegraTM), the non-cardiotoxic chemical variant of terfenadine.terfenadine, which remains on the market. Our validation data suggest that our CardioSafe 3D assay system provides valuable and more comprehensive bio-analytical tools for preclinical cardiac safety screening of drug candidates, which we believe will contribute to the efficient identification of novel, safer Drug Rescue Variants in our drug rescue programs.

To further evaluate the potential of our CardioSafe 3D assay system to predict cardiac toxicity of drug candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, we have assessed cardiac effects induced by small molecule kinase inhibitors (KIs), which belong to a new category of drugs that have revolutionized cancer therapy due to decreased systemic toxicity and an increased tumor cell specific effect compared to classic cancer drugs.  Since 1998, the FDA has approved approximately thirty small molecule KIs for cancer therapy. However, many KIs have been implicated in causing serious adverse cardiac events in patients which were not identified during preclinical drug development.

In our CardioSafe 3D validation studies, CardioSafe 3D detected cardiac toxicities of well-known anti-cancer KIs, all of which were cardiac toxicities not previously identified during the pre-FDA approval development process for each compound studied. This important validation set of compounds is as follows:

1.  Inhibitors to growth factor receptors: sunitinib, axitinib, imatinib, dasatinib, sorafenib, erlotinib, Lapatinib, tyrphostin and AG1478;
2.  Inhibitors to the mTOR pathway: everolimus, temsirolimus;
3.  Inhibitors to cell cycle regulators: tozasertib, barasertib, alvocidib;
4.  Inhibitors to the PI3K pathway : perifosine, LY294002, XL765;
5.  Inhibitors to the MEK pathway: PD325901, AZD6264; and
6.  Inhibitors to the JAK and other pathways: lestaurtinib.

Our validation data indicate that CardioSafe 3D successfully detected cardiotoxicity induced by all of the representative compounds, concordant with now-reported adverse cardiac events from each of the different KI categories. Our CardioSafe 3D assay system is able to distinguish between cardiotoxic and safe compounds, and even between those which inhibit the same kinase pathways. For instance, both sunitinib and axitinib are the inhibitors to VEGFR, PDGFR and c-Kit pathways, and our CardioSafe 3D assays indicate that sunitinib is cardiotoxic and axitinib is safe, outcomes which are consistent with the reported clinical outcomes.
 

Furthermore, the cardiotoxicity profile of each KI studied provided clues as to the potential mechanism(s) causing the cardiac cytotoxicity of each compound. For example, cardiac cytotoxicity induced by perifosine showed apoptotic responses at lower concentrations, while imatinib was most active in the oxidative stress assays. In addition, no cardiac toxicity or alteration in electrophysiology was detected with drugs that do not have a cardiac liability, emphasizing the specificity of our CardioSafe 3D assay system. Having information on the pathways associated with the toxic effects of compounds provides important clues for novel medicinal chemistry approaches and compound modifications for our CardioSafe 3D drug rescue programs.

Our CardioSafe 3D assay system enables the sensitive measurement of drug effects with results obtained with CardioSafe 3DTM werethat are consistent with the cardiac effects of all five FDA-approved drugs that were later withdrawn from the market due to concerns of heart toxicity. With respectreported clinical responses to the results for sertindole,compounds. For example, our data indicated that sunitinib and dasatinib caused QT prolongation, arrhythmia, and/or altered contraction rates in hPSC-CMs, which are consistent with clinical observations.

We believe our CardioSafe 3D validation data demonstrate that TMCardioSafe indicated the same3D will improve clinical predictivity as an in vitro preclinical cardiac effects found in clinical testing that caused itsafety assay, helping not only to be withdrawn from the market. However, additional clinical studies have been conducted since the withdrawalidentify potential cardiac toxicities, but also to discover important potential mechanisms of sertindole that have indicated lower incidence of severe cardiac effects than those originally predicted when the drug was withdrawn. As of the date of this report, sertindole has been approved for limited use by humans in the U.S. for the treatment of schizophrenia, but the cardiac effects of sertindole are still being researched.
cardiotoxicity.  We believe the results of our CardioSafe 3DTM validation studystudies indicate that CardioSafe 3DTM may be effectively used to identify drug rescue variantsnovel, Drug Rescue Variants, with reduced heart toxicity bytoxicity. By providing more accurate, comprehensive and timely indications of alterations in electrophysiological activity as well as direct heart toxicity of drug candidates than animal models or cellular assay systems currently used by pharmaceutical companies.
We alsocompanies, we believe that the results of the studyour CardioSafe 3D validation studies support athe central premise of our drug rescue business model, which is thatmodel: by using our stem cell-derivedhPSC-derived human heart and liver cell bioassay systems at the front end of the drug development process, we have the opportunity to recaptureleverage substantial value from prior investment by pharmaceutical companies and others in drug discovery and developmentefficacy optimization of once-promising drug candidates that have been put on the shelfterminated prior to FDA approval due to unexpected heart or liver toxicity concerns. This internal validation study has not been subject to peer review or third party validation. See “Risk Factors”.
 
LiverSafe 3DTM3D
 
CurrentLiverSafe 3D is a powerful new in vitro hepatotoxicity assay system that goes a step beyond the current commercially available gold standard primary (human cadaver) hepatocyte assays.  By combining the flexibility of an in vitro, non-transformed human cell-based assay system with the renewable, reproducible sourcing of human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs), the functional hPSC-derived hepatocytes we produce for LiverSafe 3D can be maintained in a healthy state for much longer than the current gold standard hepatocyte assays, greatly enhancing the reliability of hepatotoxicity testing for our drug rescue programs.

Until now, reliable human cell-based liver cell cultures produce proteins produced byhepatotoxicity screening platforms have been difficult to establish for high throughput drug development with currently available primary hepatocyte systems.  Primary hepatocytes have a short lifespan in culture, during which time they rapidly lose their drug metabolizing capabilities and characteristicdevelop signs of immaturecellular stress.  Furthermore, these commercially available primary hepatocytes have significant batch-to-batch genetic variation that alters the function of drug metabolism genes and adult liver cells, including albumintheir critical enzyme activity levels due to the use of hepatocytes from different sources. Additionally, primary hepatocytes are derived from individuals with significant differences in health status, with unknown effects on hepatocyte function.  Consequently, it is difficult to maintain quantitative reproducibility using currently available primary hepatocyte assays, and liver-specific enzymes important for normal drug metabolism. In addition, these liver cells have biochemical pathwaysthis leads to limitations in the quality and subcellular structures that are characteristic of normal human liver cells. Although they express manyclinical predictiviy of the results and conclusions drawn from these assays.

The foregoing limitations have led many in the field to believe that hPSC-derived hepatocyte assays offer a better alternative to the current gold standard primary hepatocyte assays. This belief is mainly due to the fact that hepatocytes derived from the same hPSC line are genetically identical, normal, non-transformed (that is, not tumor-derived) human cells derived from hPSCs.  Importantly, hPSC-derived hepatocytes can be indefinitely propagated and frozen down into large, uniform, quality-controlled cell banks.  The challenge to using hPSC-derived hepatocytes has been differentiating the stem cells into mature adulthepatocytes that express a full complement of functional drug metabolizing enzymes, nuclear receptors, and transporters at least as well as primary hepatocytes.  While many groups have taken on this challenge in recent years, published reports indicate that current hPSC differentiation protocols yield immature hepatocytes, especially with respect to extremely low expression of certain key drug metabolizing enzymes, such as CYP3A4. CYP3A4 is a critical liver proteinsenzyme responsible for metabolizing approximately 50% of the FDA-approved drugs currently available on the market. It is an important and drug processing enzymes, they do not yet express certain essential enzymes at levels typically seenwell-accepted functional gene found almost exclusively in mature, adult liver cells.hepatocytes.  CYP3A4 is the key functional marker that we have used to optimize our hepatocyte differentiation cultures for LiverSafe 3D. We believe our optimized LiverSafe 3D assay system enables us to generate more mature hPSC-derived hepatocytes than are currently available from others in the field and that our LiverSafe 3D system provides the unique ability to specifically select for mature CYP3A4-expressing human hepatocytes.
 
Working with Dr. Keller, we anticipate that we will be able to produce pluripotent stem cell-derived normal, non-transformed, fully mature, human liver cells within nine months of the date of this report. We expect these mature liver cells to support development and application of LiverSafe 3DTM as our follow-on bioassay system suitable for use in predicting liver toxicity and metabolism of drug rescue candidates in a manner similar to the way we believe CardioSafe 3DTM can predict heart toxicity. This liver cell research project has been funded, in part, through a grant from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (“CIRM”). We anticipate that our future research and development will focus on the improvement of techniques and production of engineered human ES Cell and iPS Cell lines used to develop mature functional liver cells as a biological system for testing drugs and liver repair.

 
We developed LiverSafe 3D using hPSC differentiation protocols adapted from the laboratory of our co-founder, Dr. Gordon Keller, and our proprietary hPSC cell line, 3A4BLA.  This 3A4BLA cell line is a human embryonic stem cell (hESC) line that contains a humanized BLA functional “reporter” that targets the CYP3A4 gene in a manner resulting in the expression of BLA only in cells that also express CYP3A4. This allows us to visualize by fluorescence cells that express CYP3A4 based on expression of the BLA reporter.  By producing a cell line capable of tracking CYP3A4 expression, we have been able to optimize our hPSC differentiation protocols to increase expression of mature hepatocyte markers and drug metabolizing enzymes and to enrich for CYP3A4-expressing cells by cell sorting.  However, even in the absence of cell sorting, our LiverSafe 3D hepatocyte populations contain greater than 80% ALBUMIN-positive cells and greater than 40% CYP3A4-positive cells, with CYP3A4 mRNA expression reaching levels nearly 60-fold higher than side-by-side 38-week human fetal liver controls.  Our Drug Rescue Business ModelLiverSafe 3D hepatocytes secrete urea and ALBUMIN at levels that exceed commercially-available primary hepatocytes, and they also store both glycogen and lipids, characteristics that are required of functional, mature adult hepatocytes.  Importantly, expression of fetal liver markers decreases over the time course of differentiation of our LiverSafe 3D hepatocytes.  This decreased expression is expected and essential during maturation of hepatocytes, but it has rarely been reported by others in publications describing their hPSC-derived hepatocytes.  With the addition of cell sorting, our LiverSafe 3D hepatocyte populations can be highly enriched for CYP3A4-BLA-positive cells, with CYP3A4 message in the positive cell population reaching greater than 30% that of an adult human liver pool control.  To our knowledge, this level of CYP3A4 expression exceeds levels reported by others in the literature.

The most important capabilities of LiverSafe 3D relate to “Phase I” and “Phase II” drug metabolism, which are functional characteristics of mature adult hepatocytes.  We have validated these capabilities of LiverSafe 3D by demonstrating its ability to metabolize known substrates, such as testosterone, and its ability to respond properly to known inducers of Phase I-mediated CYP3A4 metabolism, such as rifampicin.  Moreover, our LiverSafe 3D hepatocytes demonstrate Phase II-mediated testosterone metabolism levels that exceed commercially available primary hepatocytes.  These functional characteristics of mature adult hepatocytes are critical to the development of a reliable and clinically predictive hepatotoxicity screening platform for our drug rescue programs.  We are currently focused on expanding our panel of validation assays and compounds to include more P450 substrates, inducers, and inhibitors, as well as adapting the cellular toxicity assays that have been developed for our CardioSafe 3D assay system to our LiverSafe 3D assay system and to apply specific hepatotoxic screening assays, such as ALBUMIN and urea secretion assays.

We believe LiverSafe 3D is a powerful, genetically identical, renewable, and reproducible hepatotoxicity assay system for drug rescue and development that provides great advantages over currently available primary hepatocyte assays.  We have demonstrated that our LiverSafe 3D hepatocyte populations, even in the absence of cell sorting, secrete adult hepatocyte levels of ALBUMIN and urea and contain greater than 40% CYP3A4-positive cells, historically difficult to achieve in hPSC differentiation cultures.  The proprietary 3A4BLA cell line component of LiverSafe 3D allows us the unique opportunity to enrich CYP3A4-positive cells, resulting in CYP3A4 expression reaching greater than 30% of an adult human liver pool, and to the best of our knowledge, a level higher than described in current literature.  Most importantly for drug rescue and development purposes, our hPSC-derived hepatocytes for LiverSafe 3D metabolize known substrates and respond to known inducers in a manner expected only of mature adult hepatocytes, paving the way for our final validation of LiverSafe 3D system as a novel hepatotoxicity assay system that can improve clinical predictivity, decrease the cost of drug rescue and development, reduce use of live animal studies, and improve drug safety.
AV-101
We have successfully completed Phase I development of AV-101, also known as “L-4-chlorokynurenine” or “4-Cl-KYN”. AV-101 is a prodrug candidate for the treatment of neuropathic pain, epilepsy and depression. Our AV-101 IND application, on file with the FDA, covers our Phase I clinical development for neuropathic pain.  However, we believe the safety studies done in Phase I development of AV-101 will support development of AV-101 for other indications, including epilepsy, depression and potentially other neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease.
The NIH awarded us $8.8 million of grant funding for our preclinical and Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101. During 2014, we plan to seek strategic partnering arrangements for further development and commercialization of AV-101 for neuropathic pain, epilepsy, depression and potentially neurodegenerative diseases related to aging.
AV-101 is an orally-available, non-sedating, pro-drug that is converted in the brain into an active metabolite, 7-chlorokynurenic acid (7-Cl-KYNA), which regulates the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. 7-Cl-KYNA is a synthetic analogue of kynurenic acid, a naturally occurring neural regulatory compound, and is one of the most potent and selective blockers of the regulatory GlyB-site of the NMDA receptor. In preclinical studies, AV-101 has very good oral bioavailability, is rapidly and efficiently transported across the blood-brain barrier, and is converted into 7-Cl-KYNA in the brain and spinal cord, preferentially, at the site of seizures and potential neural damage.
 
Beginning in mid-2012, we intend to initiate drug rescue programs focusedThe effect of AV-101 on heart toxicity using our CardioSafe 3DTM human heart cell-based bioassay system. We are focused only on once-promising drug candidates that have positive efficacy data indicating their potential therapeutic and commercial benefits but have been discontinued in development by a large pharmaceutical companychronic neuropathic pain due to heart toxicity. The initial goal of our drug rescue program for each drug rescue candidate will be to designinflammation and generate, with our medicinal chemistry collaborator, a portfolio of drug rescue variants. We plan to use CardioSafe 3DTM to identify a lead drug rescue variant that demonstrates an improved therapeutic indexnerve damage was assessed in rats by using the Chung nerve ligation model. AV-101 effects were compared to either saline and MK-801, or gabapentin (NeurontinTM) as positive controls. Similar to the pharmaceutical company’s original drug candidate (that is, equal or improved efficacytherapeutic effects seen in the acute formalin and thermal pain models, AV-101 had a positive effect on chronic neuropathic pain in the Chung model that were greater than two standard deviations of the control, with no adverse behavioral observations. As expected, MK-801 and gabapentin also demonstrated reduced heart toxicity). We intend to validate that each lead drug rescue variant demonstrates reduced heart toxicitypain readouts in the Chung model. The effects observed by AV-101 in both CardioSafe 3DTMthe acute and inchronic neuropathic pain model systems was dose dependent, and was not associated with any side effects at the same nonclinical testing model thatrange of doses administered. Preclinical AV-101 data demonstrated the pharmaceutical company used to determine heart toxicity for its original drug candidate. We anticipate that the resultspotential clinical utility of these confirmatory nonclinical safety studies will be drug rescue collaboration milestones demonstrating to a pharmaceutical company the improvement of our lead drug rescue variant compared to its original once-promising drug candidate.AV-101 as an analgesic.
 
Our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM Platform for Stem Cell Therapy
Although we believe the best near term use of pluripotent stem cell technology is in the context of drug rescue, we believe the therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem cells for cell therapy and other applications will be significant in the long term.

Working with Dr. Keller and UHN, we are exploring several potential nonclinical proof-of-concept pilot studies with respect to iPS Cell-based cell therapy programs, including blood, cartilage, heart, liver and pancreas cells.

Strategic Transactions and Relationships
 
Strategic collaborations are a cornerstone of our corporate development strategy. We believe that our strategic outsourcing and sponsoringsponsorship of application-focused research gives us flexible access to medicinal chemistry, hPSC research and development, manufacturing, clinical development and regulatory expertise at a lower overall cost than attempting to developdeveloping and maintaining such expertise internally, at least over the twelve-month period following the date of this report.internally. In particular, we collaborate with the types of third parties identified below for the following functions:
 
academic research institutions, such as UHN, for stem cell research collaborations;
·
academic research institutions, such as Duke University and UHN, for hPSC technology research and development;
·
contract medicinal chemistry companies, such as Synterys, Inc., to analyze Drug Rescue Candidates and design, produce and analyze Drug Rescue Variants; and
·
contract clinical development and regulatory organizations (CROs), such as Cato Research, Ltd., for regulatory expertise and clinical development support.
 
CROs, such as Cato Research Ltd., for regulatory and drug development expertise and to identify and assess potential drug rescue candidates; and
medicinal chemistry companies, such as Synterys, Inc., to analyze drug rescue candidates and generate drug rescue variants.

McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University Health Network
 
The University Health Network (“UHN”(UHN) in Ontario, Canada consistsis a major landmark in Canada’s healthcare system.  UHN is one of Toronto General Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital and Princess Margaret Hospital. The scope ofthe world’s largest research and complexity of cases at UHN has made it an international source for discovery, education and patient care. UHN has the largest hospital-based research program in Canada,hospitals, with major research in transplantation, cardiology, neurosciences, oncology, surgical innovation, infectious diseases and genomic medicine.  UHN’sProviding care to the community for more than two centuries, UHN brings together the talent and resources needed to achieve global impact and provide exemplary patient care, research and education.
The McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine (UHN’s “McEwen Centre”(McEwen Centre) is thea world-renowned center for stem cell biology and regenerative medicine and a world-class stem cell research affiliatefacility affiliated with UHN.  Dr. Gordon Keller, our co-founder and Chairman of UHN.our Scientific Advisory Board, is Director of the McEwen Centre.  Dr. Keller’s lab is one of the world leaders in successfully applying principles from the study of developmental biology of many animal systems to the differentiation of pluripotent stem cell systems, resulting in reproducible, high-yield production of human heart, liver, blood and vascular cells. The results and procedures developed in Dr. Keller’s lab are often quoted and used by academic scientists worldwide.

In September 2007, we entered into a long-term sponsored stem cell research and development collaboration with UHN. In December 2010, we extended the collaboration to September 2017. The primary goal of this ten-year collaboration is to leverage the stem cell research, technology and expertise of our co-founder, Dr. Gordon Keller the Director of UHN’s McEwen Centre, to develop and commercialize industry-leading human pluripotent stem cell differentiation technology and bioassay systems for drug rescue and development and regenerative cell therapy applications. This sponsored research collaboration builds on our existing strategic licenses from NJHNational Jewish Health and MSSMthe Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai to certain pluripotent stem cell technologies developed by Dr. Keller, and is directed to multiplediverse human pluripotent stem cell-based research projects, including, advancing use of human pluripotent stem cell-derived heartas expanded and liveramended, strategic projects related to screen new drugs for potential heart and liver toxicity and for potential cell therapy applications involving blood, cartilage, heart,  liver and pancreas cells. In April 2011, we further expanded the scope of the collaboration to include potential cell therapy applications of iPS Cells and cells derived from iPS Cells, create additional options to fund research and development with respect to future research projects relating to therapeutic applications of iPS Cells and certain cells derived from iPS Cells and extend the date that we shall have to exercise our options under the agreement.  In October 2011, we amended the collaboration agreement to identify five key programs that will further support our core drug rescue initiatives and potential cell therapy applications.  Under the terms of October 2011 amendment, we are committed to make monthly payments of $50,000 from October 2011 through September 2012 to fund these programs.regenerative medicine. See “Sponsored Research Collaborations and Intellectual Property Rights – University Health Network, McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Toronto, Ontario”, “Intellectual Property – National Jewish Health Exclusive Licenses” and “Intellectual Property – Mount SinaiIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Exclusive Licenses.”

 
CatoCardiac Safety Research and Cato BioVentures
Cato Research
Cato Research is a contract research and development organization (“CRO”), with international resources dedicated to helping a network of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies navigate the regulatory approval process in order to bring new biologics, drugs, and medical devices to markets throughout the world. Cato Research has in-house capabilities to assist its sponsors with aspects of the drug development process, including, regulatory strategy, nonclinical and toxicology development, clinical development, data processing, data management, statistical analysis, regulatory applications, including INDs and NDAs, chemistry, manufacturing, and control programs, cGCP, cGLP and cGMP audit and compliance activities, and due diligence review of emerging technologies. Cato Research’s senior management team, including co-founders Allen Cato, M.D., Ph.D. and Lynda Sutton, has over 20 years of experience interacting with the FDA and international regulatory agencies and a successful track record of product approvals.

Cato BioVenturesConsortium
 
Cato Holding Company, doing businessWe have joined the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium (CERC) as Cato BioVentures (“Cato BioVentures”an Associate Member.  The CSRC, which is sponsored in part by the FDA, was launched in 2006 through an FDA Critical Path Initiative Memorandum of Understanding with Duke University to support research into the evaluation of cardiac safety of medical products. CSRC supports research by engaging stakeholders from industry, academia, and government to share data and expertise regarding several areas of cardiac safety evaluation, including novel stem cell-based approaches, from preclinical through post-market periods.
Cardiac Safety Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute – FDA’s CIPA Initiative
We have also joined the Cardiac Safety Technical Committee, Cardiac Stem Cell Working Group, and Proarrhythmia Working Group of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) to help advance, among other goals, the FDA’s Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CIPA) initiative, which is focused on developing innovative preclinical systems for cardiac safety assessment during drug development.  HESI is a global branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), whose members include most of the world’s largest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
The goal of the FDA’s CIPA initiative is to develop a new paradigm for cardiac safety evaluation of new drugs that provides a more comprehensive assessment of proarrhythmic potential by (i) evaluating effects of multiple cardiac ionic currents beyond hERG and ICH S7B (inward and outward currents), (ii) providing more complete, accurate assessment of proarrhythmic effects on human cardiac electrophysiology, and (iii) focusing on Torsades de Pointes proarrhythmia rather than surrogate QT prolongation alone.
Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine
The Toronto-based Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine (CCRM) is a not-for-profit, public-private consortium funded by the venture capital affiliateGovernment of Cato Research. For overCanada, six Ontario-based institutional partners and more than 20 years, Cato BioVenturescompanies representing the key sectors of the regenerative medicine industry.  CCRM supports the development of foundational technologies that accelerate the commercialization of stem cell- and Cato Research have collaborated with biotechnologybiomaterials-based products and pharmaceuticaltherapies.
In December 2012, we formalized our membership in the CCRM’s Industry Consortium. Other members of CCRM’s Industry Consortium include such leading global companies to advance a portfolio of platform technologiesas Pfizer, GE Healthcare and product development programs. Cato BioVentures offers its biotechnology and pharmaceuticalLonza. The industry collaborators immediateleaders that comprise the CCRM consortium benefit from proprietary access to certain licensing opportunities, academic rates on fee-for-service contracts at CCRM and opportunities to participate in large collaborative projects, among other advantages. Our CCRM membership reflects our strong association with CCRM and its core programs and objectives, both directly and through our strategic relationships with Dr. Gordon Keller and UHN. We believe our long-term sponsored research agreement with Dr. Keller, UHN and UHN’s McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine offers a solid foundation and unique opportunities for expanding the wide rangecommercial applications of CRO services and expertise available from Cato Research, generally on a non-cash or partial-cash basis. Through strategic CRO service agreements with Cato Research, Cato BioVentures invests in therapeutics and medical devices, as well as platform technologies such as our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform whichby building multi-party collaborations with CCRM and members of its principalsIndustry Consortium.  We believe are capable of improvingthese collaborations have the drug development processpotential to transform medicine and the researchaccelerate significant advances in human health and development productivity of a pharmaceutical company. Cato BioVentures often invests in a “bridge mode” to provide companies non-cash access to key CRO services in a mannerwellness that stem cell technologies and at a time that can extend the investee’s internal development capabilities and financial runway in order to achieve key value-added developmental and regulatory milestones.regenerative medicine promise.

Our Relationship with Cato Research and Cato BioVentures
 
Cato Research currently serves as the primary CRO providing strategic development and regulatory expertise and services with respect to our development of AV-101. See “Business – AV-101.”  Cato BioVentures is among our largest institutional investors. A significant portion of the VistaGen securities in Cato BioVentures’ equity portfolio was acquired through its investment of CRO Service CapitalTM (that is, CRO services from Cato Research rendered to us on a strategic, non-cash basis) for development of AV-101.

As a result of a number of factors, including:
the access Cato Research has to drug rescue candidates from its biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry network;
Cato BioVentures’ equity interest in VistaGen; and
Cato BioVentures’ business model which involves partnering with innovators in exchange for an equity interest and product participation rights,
we anticipate that our relationship with Cato BioVentures and Cato Research may provide us with unique strategic access to potential candidates for our drug rescue programs. We further anticipate that this relationship will permit us to leverage the CRO resources of Cato Research and financial community relationships of Cato BioVentures to assist our efforts to develop lead drug rescue variants internally, should we elect to do so.

United States National Institutes of Health
Since our inception in 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health ("NIH") has awarded us a total of $11.3 million in non-dilutive research and development grants, including $2.3 million to support research and development of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™ platform and, as described below, a total of $8.8 million for nonclinical and Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101 (also referred to in scientific literature as “4-Cl-KYN”).  AV-101, our lead small molecule drug candidate, is currently in Phase 1b clinical development in the U.S.


NIH awarded us $4.2 million in funding for development of AV-101 on June 22, 2009.  The NIH increased this award amount to $4.6 million on July 19, 2010, under the Department of Health and Human Services Small Business Innovation Research ("SBIR") Program. The funded development project is entitled "Clinical Development of 4-Cl-KYN to Treat Pain" and is in response to a grant application and request for funding submitted to NIH by us on April 7, 2008, in which a detailed description of a development plan for AV-101 and related budget is provided.  The development plan provides that we submit AV-101 to a systematic series of safety tests in human subjects under regulations governed by the FDA. As provided under terms and conditions of the NIH grant award, and as a federal grantee, we are required to adhere to certain federal cost accounting regulations, including limiting the submission of requests for periodic progress payments from the NIH to a reimbursement of actual costs incurred not to exceed a total of $4.6 million, and to completing the specified research plan by June 30, 2012. Other than limiting requests for progress payments to actual costs incurred, and having those costs verified annually by independent auditors, the funding is non-contingent and we retain all intellectual property rights. Prior to the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, we received and completed similar SBIR grant awards from the NIH totaling approximately $4.2 million for nonclinical development of AV-101.

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine — Stem Cell Initiative (Proposition 71)
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (“CIRM”) funds stem cell research at academic research institutions and companies throughout California. CIRM was established in 2004 with the passage of Stem Cell Initiative (Proposition 71) by California voters. The Stem Cell Initiative authorized $3.0 billion in funding for stem cell research in California, including research involving ES Cells, iPS Cells and adult stem cells. As a stem cell company based in California since 1998, we are eligible to apply for and receive grant funding under the Stem Cell Initiative. To date, as more particularly described below, we have been awarded approximately $1.0 million of non-dilutive grant funding from CIRM for stem cell research and development related to liver cells. This research and development focused on the improvement of techniques and the production of engineered human ES Cell lines used to develop mature functional liver cells as a biological system for testing drugs.
CIRM issued us a grant award of $971,558 on April 1, 2009 in response to our grant application submitted to CIRM titled "Development of an hES Cell-Base Assay System for Hepatocyte Differentiation Studies and Predictive Toxicology Drug Screening" on July 9, 2008, in which a detailed stem cell research proposal was presented. The research plan provided that our scientific personnel conduct certain experiments in our laboratories in South San Francisco, California, according to protocols approved in advance by CIRM. The period of funded research period began April 1, 2009 and extended through September 30, 2011, with payments made in advance by CIRM in the amount of $121,444 per quarter starting April 1, 2009. Annual scientific and financial reports to CIRM were required with a final scientific results report due October 1, 2011, and a final financial report due January 1, 2012. At the time of the award in 2009, funding was contingent upon the availability of funds in the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Fund in the California State Treasury. Inventions made under CIRM funding (if any) are owned by the State of California, and if we choose to exclusively license such invention, then our licensing revenue (if any) from the use of such licensed invention shall be subject to royalties equal to 25% of net revenue in excess of $500,000 per year, and revenue from commercial sales of products generated from the use of such license shall be subject to royalties in the range of 2% to 5% of commercial sales. All such royalty obligations are subject to aggregate maximums of three (3) times the amount of CIRM grant fund received leading to such invention.

NuPotential, Inc.
In January 2011, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH awarded NuPotential, Inc. and VistaGen a grant of $499,765 to accelerate development of safer approaches to generate patient-specific iPS Cells for regenerative medicine, drug discovery and drug rescue.
Most approaches to produce human iPS Cells use retroviruses to activate and/or express multiple key genes, including an oncogene that is associated with production of cancer cells.  The use of retroviruses and oncogenes are potentially problematic for clinical applications involving cells derived from iPS Cells due to the significant increased risk of inducing a cancer transformation.  NuPotential’s innovative cell programming technology involves the use of proprietary small molecule-based cell reprogramming processes for generating patient-specific iPS Cells instead of commonly-used retroviruses or cancer-inducing oncogenes.  NuPotential’s cell reprogramming technology could represent an improvement in the safety profile of iPS Cells.

The NIH grant is currently supporting further development of patient-specific iPS Cell programming processes by NuPotential, as well as our iPS Cell differentiation protocols and processes focused on the validation and use of the iPS Cells for cell therapy applications and in clinically-relevant bioassays for small molecule drug discovery and drug rescue.  We anticipate that these patient-specific iPS Cells may play a key role in our cell therapy initiatives focused on heart and liver disease and cartilage-repair.

Duke University

In November 2011, we entered into a strategic collaboration with Duke University, one of the premier academic research institutions in the U.S., aimed at combining our complementary expertise in cardiac stem cell technology, electrophysiology and tissue engineering. The initial goal of the collaboration is to explore the potential development of novel, engineered, stem cell-derived cardiac tissues to expand the scope of our drug rescue capabilities focused on heart toxicity. We expect that this collaboration, employing our human stem cell-derived heart cells combined with Duke’s technology relating to cardiac electrophysiology and cardiac tissue engineering, will permit us to use micro-patterned cardiac tissue to expand the approaches available to us in our drug rescue programs to quantify drug effects on functional human cardiac tissue.
In May 2013, we announced that our scientists together with researchers at Duke University combined our human stem cell-derived heart cells with Duke’s innovative tissue engineering and cardiac electrophysiology technologies to grow what is being called a “heart patch,” which mimics the natural functions of native human heart tissue.  We believe this is the closest man-made approximation of natural human heart muscle to date.  This heart patch technology is being developed to aid in a better understanding of the biology critical to cardiac tissue engineering, for applications in regenerative cell therapy for heart disease, and as predictive in vitro assays for drug rescue and development. We believe the developed contractile forces and other functional properties of these cardiac tissues are remarkable and are significantly higher than any previous reports. The achievement of successfully growing a human heart muscle from cardiomyocytes derived from human pluripotent stem cells expands the scope of our drug rescue capabilities and reflects the advanced nature and potential of our collaboration with Duke University.
Achieving this capability represents a potentially significant breakthrough in heart cell-based therapies and in testing new medicines for potential heart toxicity and potential therapeutic benefits impacting heart disease.
The following are among several key development points from the study:
·The optimized 3D environment of a cardiac tissue patch yields advanced levels of structural and functional maturation of human cardiomyocytes that produce expected responses to drugs;
·Human cardiomyocyte maturation in an optimized 3D patch environment is enhanced relative to that found in industry standard 2D cultures;
·No genetic modifications were used to produce, purify, or mature cardiomyocytes, suggesting potential for future therapeutic applications;
·Cardiac tissue patches generated using VistaGen’s cardiomyocytes exhibited 2.2-180 fold higher contractile force generation compared to previous studies;
·Based on a force per cardiomyocyte metric, cardiac tissue engineering methodology that used VistaGen’s cardiomyocytes exhibited 4-700-fold higher efficiency than previously reported; and
·
Cardiac tissue patches generated using VistaGen’s cardiomyocytes exhibited velocities of electrical signal propagation 5-fold higher compared to previous reports in human engineered cardiac tissues.
Cato Research and Cato BioVentures
Cato Research
Cato Research is a contract research and development organization (CRO), with international resources dedicated to helping biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies navigate the regulatory approval process in order to bring new biologics, drugs and medical devices to markets throughout the world. Cato Research has in-house capabilities to assist its sponsors with aspects of the drug development process including regulatory strategy, nonclinical and toxicology development, clinical development, data processing, data management, statistical analysis, regulatory applications, including INDs and NDAs, chemistry, manufacturing, and control programs, cGCP, cGLP and cGMP audit and compliance activities, and due diligence review of emerging technologies. Cato Research’s senior management team, including co-founders Allen Cato, M.D., Ph.D. and Lynda Sutton, has over 25 years of experience interacting with the FDA and international regulatory agencies and a successful track record of product approvals.  Should we elect to advance development of Drug Rescue Variants internally rather than license or sell them at an early-stage to pharmaceutical companies or others, we believe our long term strategic relationship with Cato Research provides us with real time access to the global connections, insight and knowledge necessary to effectively plan, execute and manage successful nonclinical and clinical development programs throughout the world without incurring the substantial expenses typically associated with establishing and maintaining a wide range of drug development capabilities in-house.
Cato BioVentures
Cato Holding Company, doing business as Cato BioVentures (Cato BioVentures), is the venture capital affiliate of Cato Research. Through strategic CRO service agreements with Cato Research, Cato BioVentures invests in therapeutics and medical devices, as well as platform technologies such as our stem cell technology-based Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, which its principals believe, based on their experience as management of Cato Research, are capable of transforming the traditional drug development process and the research and development productivity of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
Our Relationship with Cato Research and Cato BioVentures
Cato Research is our primary CRO for development of AV-101. Cato BioVentures is among our largest, long-term institutional investors.
As a result of the access Cato Research has to potential Drug Rescue Candidates from its biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry network, as well as Cato BioVentures’ strategic long term equity interest in VistaGen, we believe that our relationships with Cato BioVentures and Cato Research may provide us with unique opportunities relating to our drug rescue efforts that will permit us to leverage both their industry connections and the CRO resources of Cato Research, either on a contract research basis or in exchange for economic participation rights, should we develop Drug Rescue Variants internally on our own rather than out-license them to strategic partners.
United States National Institutes of Health
Since our inception in 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded us $11.3 million in non-dilutive research and development grants, including $2.3 million to support research and development of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and $8.8 million for nonclinical and Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101, our small molecule drug candidate which has successfully completed Phase 1 clinical development in the U.S. for neuropathic pain and other potential diseases and conditions, including epilepsy and depression.
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) funds stem cell research at academic research institutions and companies throughout California. CIRM was established in 2004 with the passage of Stem Cell Initiative (Proposition 71) by California voters. As a stem cell company based in California since 1998, we are eligible to apply for and receive grant funding under the Stem Cell Initiative. To date we have been awarded approximately $1.0 million of non-dilutive grant funding from CIRM for stem cell research and development related to stem cell-derived human liver cells. This funded research and development focused on the improvement of techniques and the production of engineered human ES Cell lines used to develop mature functional human liver cells as a biological system for testing drugs.
Celsis In Vitro Technologies
In March 2013, we entered into a strategic collaboration with Celsis In Vitro Technologies (Celsis IVT), a premier global provider of specialized in vitro products for drug metabolism, drug-drug interaction and toxicity screening, focused on characterizing and functionally benchmarking our human liver cell platform, LiverSafe 3D with Celsis IVT products for studying and predicting drug metabolism.  We intend to utilize Celsis IVT’s experience and expertise in in vitro drug metabolism to help validate LiverSafe 3DTM. We anticipate that Celsis IVT will not only validate our human liver cells in traditional pharmaceutical metabolism assays, but also will determine genetic variations in our human pluripotent stem cell lines that are important to drug development. In addition, we plan to utilize Celsis IVT’s large inventory of cryopreserved primary human liver cells, currently used throughout the pharmaceutical industry for traditional and high-throughput liver toxicology and other bioassays, as reference controls with which to monitor and benchmark the functional properties of LiverSafe 3D.
Collaborating with Celsis IVT scientists, we are focused on the following four key objectives:
·Optimize techniques to handle and maintain primary human cryopreserved primary liver cells as reference controls for various drug development assays;
·Develop a stable supply of characterized and validated human cryopreserved primary liver cells to serve as internal controls and provide benchmark comparisons for the characterization of our pluripotent stem cell-derived liver cells;
·Characterize our human pluripotent stem cell-derived liver cells using many of the same industry-standardized assays used to characterize primary human liver cells; and
·Produce a joint publication of the characterization of our pluripotent stem cell-derived human liver cells.
As an industry leader in the development of in vitro primary hepatocyte technology, we believe Celsis IVT has extensive resources to aid us in the benchmarking LiverSafe 3D to industry standards. We anticipate this collaboration will lead to the further validation of LiverSafe 3D for predicting liver toxicity and drug metabolism issues before costly human clinical trials.
Synterys, Inc.

In December 2011, we entered into a strategic medicinal chemistry collaboration agreement with Synterys, Inc. (“Synterys”(Synterys), a leading medicinal chemistry and collaborative drug discovery company. We believe this important collaboration will further our stem cell technology-based drug rescue initiatives with the support of Synterys’ leading-edge medicinal chemistry expertise.  In addition to providing flexible, real-time contract medicinal chemistry services in support of our projected drug rescue programs, we anticipate potential collaborative opportunities with Synterys wherein we may jointly identify and develop novel drug rescue opportunities and advance them in preclinical development.

Vala Sciences, Inc.

In October 2011, we entered into a strategic drug screening collaboration arrangement with Vala Sciences, Inc. (“Vala”), a biotechnology company developing and selling next-generation cell image-based instruments, reagents and analysis software tools.  The goal of the collaboration is to advance drug safety screening methodologies in the most clinically relevant human in vitro bioassay systems currently available to researchers.  Through the collaboration, Vala will use its Kinetic Image Cytometer platform to demonstrate both the suitability and utility of our human pluripotent stem cell derived-cardiomyocytes for screening new drug candidates for potential cardiotoxicity over conventional in vitro screening systems and animal models.  Cardiomyocytes are the muscle cells of the heart that provide the force necessary to pump blood throughout the body, and, as such, are the targets of most of the drug toxicities that directly affect the heart. Many of these drug toxicities result in either arrhythmia (irregular, often fatal, beating of the heart) or reduced ability of the heart to pump the blood necessary to maintain normal health and vigor.   Accurate, sensitive and reproducible measurement of electrophysiological responses of stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes to new drug candidates is a key element of our CardioSafe 3DDrug Rescue Variants™ drug rescue programs..

AV-101
 
We are currently working with Cato Research and other drug development service providers to develop AV-101, also known as “L-4-chlorokynurenine” and “4-Cl-KYN”. AV-101 is a prodrug candidate for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Our AV-101 IND application on file at the FDA covers our initial Phase I clinical development of the drug candidate for neuropathic pain.  Neuropathic pain is a serious and chronic condition causing pain after an injury or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. The neuropathic pain market is large, including approximately 1.8 million people in the U.S. alone.

We believe the safety studies done in the initial Phase I clinical study of AV-101 will support development of AV-101 for other indications, including epilepsy and neurodegenerative diseases, such as Huntington’s and Parkinson’s. To date, the NIH has provided us with grant funding for substantially all of our AV-101 development expenses, including $8.2 million for preclinical and clinical development. We successfully completed our initial Phase I safety study of AV-101 for neuropathic pain in December 2010.  We expect to complete our second AV-101 Phase I safety study during 2012.

AV-101 is an orally available prodrug that is converted in the brain into an active metabolite, 7-chlorokynurenic acid (“7-Cl-KYNA”), which regulates the N-methyl-D-aspartate (“NMDA”) receptors. 7-Cl-KYNA is a synthetic analogue of kynurenic acid, a naturally occurring neural regulatory compound, and is one of the most potent and selective blockers of the regulatory GlyB-site of the NMDA receptor. In preclinical studies, AV-101 has very good oral bioavailability, is rapidly and efficiently transported across the blood-brain barrier, and is converted into 7-Cl-KYNA in the brain and spinal cord, preferentially, at the site of seizures and potential neural damage.

The effect of AV-101 on chronic neuropathic pain due to inflammation and nerve damage was assessed in rats by using the Chung nerve ligation model. AV-101 effects were compared to either saline and MK-801, or gabapentin (NeurontinTM) as positive controls. Similarly to the therapeutic effects seen in the acute formalin and thermal pain models, AV-101 had a positive effect on chronic neuropathic pain in the Chung model that were greater than two (2) standard deviations of the control, with no adverse behavioral observations. As expected, MK-801 and gabapentin also demonstrated reduced pain readouts in the Chung model. The effects observed by AV-101 in both the acute and chronic neuropathic pain model systems was dose dependent, and was not associated with any side effects at the range of doses administered. Preclinical AV-101 data demonstrated the potential clinical utility of AV-101 as an analgesic.

Intellectual Property
 
Intellectual Property Rights Underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM Platform
 
We have established our intellectual property rights to the technology underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform through a combination of exclusive and non-exclusive licenses, patent, and trade secret laws. To our knowledge, we are the first stem cell company focused primarily on stem cell technology-based drug rescue. We have assembled an intellectual property portfolio around the use of pluripotent stem cell technologies in drug discovery and development and with specific application to drug rescue. The differentiation protocols we have licensed direct the differentiation of pluripotent stem cells through:
 
·
a combination of growth factors (molecules that stimulate the growth of cells);
modified developmental genes; and
precise selection of immature cell populations for further growth and development.
 
·
the experimentally controlled regulation of developmental genes, which is critical for determining what differentiation path a human cell will take; and
·
precise selection of immature cell populations for further growth and development.
By influencing key branch points in the cellular differentiation process, our pluripotent stem cell technologies can produce fully-differentiated, non-transformed, highly functional human cells in vitro in an efficient, highly pure and reproducible process.

As of the date of this report, we either own or have licensed 3843 issued U.S. patents and 1912 U.S. patent applications and certain foreign counterparts relating to the stem cell technologies that underlie our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform. Our material rights and obligations with respect to these patents and patent applications are summarized below:

Licenses
 
National Jewish Health (NJH) Exclusive LicensesLicense
 
We have exclusive licenses to seven issued U.S. patents held by NJH.NJH, certain of which expire in November 2014.  No foreign counterparts to these U.S. patents and patent application have been obtained. These U.S. patents contain claims covering composition of matter relating to specific populations of cells and precursors, methods to produce such cells, and applications of such cells for ES Cell-derived immature pluripotent precursors of all the cells of the mesoderm and endoderm lineages. Among other cell types, this covers cells of the heart, liver, pancreas, blood, connective tissues, vascular system, gut and lung cells.

Under this license agreement, we mustmay become required to pay to NJH 1% of our total revenues up to $30 million in each calendar year and 0.5% of all revenues for amounts greater than $30 million, with minimum annual payments of $25,000. Additionally, we aremay become obligated under the agreement to make certain royalty payments on sales of products based on NJH’s patents or the sublicensing of such technology. The royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which would reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments and fees paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. This agreement remains in force for the life of the patents so long as neither party elects to terminate the agreement upon the other party’s uncured breach or default of an obligation under the agreement. We also have the right to terminate the agreement at any time without cause.

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine(MSSM) Exclusive LicensesLicense
 
We have an exclusive, field restricted, license to two U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications, and their foreign counterparts filed by MSSM. Foreign counterparts have been filed in Australia (two), Canada (two), Europe (two), Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Two of the U.S. applications have been issued and the foreign counterparts in Australia and Singapore have been issued, while the two counterpartsa counterpart in Europe areis pending. These patent applications have claims covering composition of matter relating to specific populations of cells and precursors, methods to produce such cells, and applications of such cells, including:
 
the use of certain growth factors to generate mesoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the heart, blood system, connective tissues, and vascular system) from human ES Cells;
·
the use of certain growth factors to generate mesoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the heart, blood system, connective tissues, and vascular system) from hESCs;
·
the use of certain growth factors to generate endoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the liver, pancreas, lungs, gut, intestines, thymus, thyroid gland, bladder, and parts of the auditory system) from hESCs; and
·
applications of cells derived from mesoderm and endoderm precursors, especially those relating to drug discovery and testing for applications in the field of in vitro drug discovery and development applications.
 
the use of certain growth factors to generate endoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the liver, pancreas, lungs, gut, intestines, thymus, thyroid gland, bladder, and parts of the auditory system) from human ES Cells; and
applications of cells derived from mesoderm and endoderm precursors, especially those relating to drug discovery and testing for applications in the field of in vitro drug discovery and development applications.
This license agreement requires us to pay annual license and patent prosecution and maintenance fees a patent issue fee and royalty payments based on product sales and services that are covered by the MSSM patent applications, as well as for any revenues received from sublicensing. Any drug candidates that we develop, including any Drug Rescue Variants, will only require royalty payments to the extent they require the practice of the licensed technology. To the extent we incur royalty payment obligations from other business activities, the royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments or fees paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. The license agreement will remain in force for the life of the patents so long as neither party terminates the agreement for cause (i) due to a material breach or default in performance of any provision of the agreement that is not cured within 60 days or (ii) in the case of failure to pay amounts due within 30 days.
 
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”)(WARF) Non-Exclusive License
 
We have non-exclusive licenses to 28over 30 issued stem cell-related U.S. patents, 14 stem cell-related U.S. patent applications, of which two have been allowed, and certain foreign counterparts held by WARF, for applications in the field of in vitro drug discovery and development. Foreign counterparts have been filed in Australia, Canada, Europe, China, India, Hong Kong, Israel, Brazil, South Korea, India, Mexico, and New Zealand. The subject matter of these patents includes specific human ES CellhESC lines and composition of matter and use claims relating to human ES CellshESCs important to drug discovery, and drug rescue screening. We have rights to:
 
use the technology for internal research and drug development;
provide discovery and screening services to third parties; and
market and sell research products (that is, cellular assays incorporating the licensed technology).
·
use the technology for internal research and drug development;
·
provide discovery and screening services to third parties; and
·
market and sell research products (that is, cellular assays incorporating the licensed technology).
 
This license agreement requires us to make royalty payments based on product sales and services that incorporate the licensed technology. We do not believe that any drug rescue candidates to be developed by us will incorporate the licensed technology and, therefore, no royalty payments will be payable. Nevertheless, there is a minimum royalty of $20,000 per calendar year. There are also milestone fees related to the discovery of therapeutic molecules, though no royalties are owed on such molecules. The royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. The agreement remains in force for the life of the patents so long as we pay all monies due and do not breach any covenants, and such breach or default is uncured for 90 days. We may also terminate the agreement at any time upon 60 days’ notice. There are no reach through royalties on customer-owned small molecule or biologic drug products developed using the licensed technologies.

Our Patents
 
We have filed two U.S. patent applications on liver stem cells and their applications in drug development relating to toxicity testing; one patent has issued and a second patent application is pending.testing, both of which have issued. Of the related international filings, European, Canadian and Korean patents were issued. The European patent has been validated in 11 European countries. We have filed a U.S. patent application, with foreign counterpart filing in Canada and Europe, directed to methods for producing human pluripotent stem cell-derived endocrine cells of the pancreas, with a specific focus on beta-islet cells, the cells that produce insulin, and their uses in diabetes drug discovery and screening. In addition, we have filed an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) on a novel, non-viral, approach to produce iPS Cells.

The material patents currently related to the generation of human heart and liver cells for use in connection with our drug rescue activities are set forth below:

Territory Patent No. General Subject Matter Expiration
US  7,763,466 Method to produce endoderm cells May 20, 2025
US  7,955,849 Method of enriching population of mesoderm cells May 19, 2023
US8,143,009Toxicity typing using liver stem cellsJune 2023
US8,512,957Toxicity typing using liver stem cellsJune 2021

With respect to AV-101, we have filed three new U.S. patent applications.
Trade Secrets
 
We rely, in part, on trade secrets for protection of some of our intellectual property. We attempt to protect trade secrets by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, employees and consultants. Our employees and consultants also sign agreements requiring that they assign to us their interests in patents and copyrights arising from their work for us.

 
Sponsored Research Collaborations and Intellectual Property Rights
 
University Health Network, McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Toronto, Ontario
 
We are currently sponsoringhave a long-term strategic stem cell research bycollaboration with our co-founder, Dr. Gordon Keller, Director of the UHN’s McEwen Centre, focused on, among other things, developing improved methods for differentiation of cardiomyocytes (heart cells) from pluripotent stem cells, and their uses asin biological assay systems for drug discovery and drug rescue, as well as cell therapy.development. Pursuant to our sponsored research collaboration agreement with UHN, we have the right to acquire exclusive worldwide rights to any inventions arising from these studies we sponsor, under pre-negotiated license terms. Such pre-negotiated terms provide for royalty payments based on product sales that incorporate the licensed technology and milestone payments based on the achievement of certain events. Any drug rescue candidatesDrug Rescue Variants that we develop will not incorporate the licensed technology and, therefore, will not require any royalty payments. To the extent we incur royalty payment obligations from other business activities, the royalty payments will be subject to anti-stacking provisions, which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. These licenses will remain in force for so long as we have an obligation to make royalty or milestone payments to UHN, but may be terminated earlier upon mutual consent, by us at any time, or by UHN for our breach of any material provision of the license agreement that is not cured within 90 days. We also have the exclusive option to sponsor research for similar cartilage, liver, pancreas and blood cell projects with similar licensing rights.

The sponsored research collaboration agreement with UHN, as amended, has a term of ten years, ending on September 18, 2017. Our 2012/2013 sponsored research project budget under the agreement ended on September 30, 2013. We are currently in discussions with Dr. Keller and UHN regarding the scope of our future sponsored research project budget under the agreement, and we anticipate finalizing such budget within the near term. The ten-year term of the agreement is subject to renewal upon mutual agreement of the parties. The agreement may be terminated earlier upon a material breach by either party that is not cured within 30 days. UHN may elect to terminate the agreement if we become insolvent or if any license granted pursuant to the agreement is prematurely terminated. We have the option to terminate the agreement if Dr. Keller stops conducting his research or ceases to work for UHN.

UHN License for Stem Cell Culture Technology
In April 2012, we licensed breakthrough stem cell culture technology from UHN’s McEwen Centre.  We intend to utilize the licensed technology to develop hematopoietic precursor stem cells from human pluripotent stem cells, with the goal of developing drug screening and cell therapy applications for human blood system disorders. The breakthrough technology is included in a new United States patent application.  We believe this stem cell technology dramatically advances our ability to produce and purify this important blood stem cell precursor for both in vitro drug screening and in vivo cell therapy applications.  In addition to defining new cell culture methods for our use, the technology describes the surface characteristics of stem cell-derived adult hematopoietic stem cells. Most groups study embryonic blood development from stem cells, but, for the first time, we are now able to not only purify the stem cell-derived precursor of all adult hematopoietic cells, but also pinpoint the precise timing when adult blood cell differentiation takes place in these cultures.  We believe these early cells have the potential to be the precursors of the ultimate adult, bone marrow-repopulating hematopoietic stem cells to repopulate the blood and immune system when transplanted into patients prepared for bone marrow transplantation. These cells have important potential therapeutic applications for the restoration of healthy blood and immune systems in individuals undergoing transplantation therapies for cancer, organ grafts, HIV infections or for acquired or genetic blood and immune deficiencies.
AV-101-Related Intellectual Property
 
We have exclusive licenses to issued U.S. patents related to the use and function of AV-101, and various CNS-activecentral nervous system (CNS)-active molecules related to AV-101. These patents are held by the University of Maryland, Baltimore, the Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. and Aventis, Inc.  The principle U.S. method of use patent related to AV101AV-101 expired in February 2011. Foreign counterparts to that U.S. patent expired in February 2012.  OurHowever, in 2013 and through the date of this report, we have filed three new U.S. patent applications relating to AV-101.  In addition, among the key components of our commercial protection strategy with respect to AV-101 involvesis the New Drug Product Exclusivity provided by the FDA under section 505(c)(3)(E) and 505(j)(5)(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”(FDCA).  The FDA’s New Drug Product Exclusivity is available for new chemical entities (“NCEs”(NCEs) such as AV-101, which, by definition, are innovative and have not been approved previously by the FDA, either alone or in combination.  The FDA’s New Drug Product Exclusivity protection provides the holder of an FDA-approved new drug application (“NDA”(NDA) five (5) years of protection from new competition in the U.S. marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved new drug product.  This protection precludes FDA approval of certain generic drug applications under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, as well certain abbreviated new drug applications (“ANDAs”)(ANDAs), during the five (5)-yearfive-year exclusivity period, except that such applications may be submitted after four (4) years if they contain a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

Under the terms of theour license agreement, we may be obligated to make royalty payments on 2% of net sales of products using the unexpired patent rights, if any, including products containing compounds covered by the patent rights. Additionally, we may be required to pay a 1% royalty on net sales of combination products that use unexpired patent rights, if any, or contain compounds covered by the patent rights. Consequently, future sales of AV-101 may be subject to a 2% royalty obligation. There are no license, milestone or maintenance fees under the agreement. The agreement remains in force until the later of: (i) the expiration or invalidation of the last patent right; and (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of the first product that uses the patent rights or contains a compound covered by the patent rights. This agreement may also be terminated earlier at the election of the licensor upon our failure to pay any monies due, our failure to provide updates and reports to the licensor, our failure to provide the necessary financial and other resources required to develop the products, or our failure to cure within 90 days any breach of any provision of the agreement. We may also terminate the agreement at any time upon 90 days’ written notice so long as we make all payments due through the effective date of termination.

Research and Development

Our research and development expense was approximately $2.5 million and $3.4 million for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, or approximately 49% of our operating expenses for each of the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013. Our research and development expense consists of both internal and external expenses incurred in sponsored stem cell research and drug development activities, costs associated with the development of AV-101 and costs related to the licensing, application and prosecution of our intellectual property.
Competition
 
We believe that our human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC) technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM, isthe hPSC-derived human cells we produce, and the customized human cell-based assay systems we have formulated and developed are capable of being competitive in the diverse and rapidly growing markets for pluripotentglobal stem cell technology-basedand regenerative medicine markets, including markets involving the sale of hPSC-derived cells to third-parties for their in vitro drug discovery and safety testing, contract predictive toxicology drug screening services for third parties, internal drug discovery, development and rescue as well asof new molecular entities (NMEs), and regenerative medicine, including in vivo cell therapy research and development. A representative list of such biopharmaceutical companies pursuing one or more of these potential applications of adult and/or pluripotent stem cell technology includes the following: Acea Biosciences, Advanced Cell Technology, Athersys, BioTime, Cellectis Bioresearch, Cellular Dynamics, Cellerant Therapeutics, Cytori Therapeutics, HemoGenix, International Stem Cell, NeoStem, Neuralstem, Organovo Holdings, PluriStem Therapeutics, Stem Cells, and Stemina BioMarker Discovery.  Pharmaceutical companies and other established corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare Life Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Life Technologies, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Holdings and others have been and are expected to continue pursuing internally various stem cell-related research and development programs. We anticipate that acceptance and use of hPSC technology for drug development and regenerative medicine will continue to occur and increase at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the future.
We believe the best and most valuable near term commercial applications. We have elected to focus a substantial portionapplication of our resources on stem cell technology-basedHuman Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform is internal production of NMEs, which we refer to as Drug Rescue Variants, through small molecule drug rescue.


We believe that the stem cell technologies underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform and our primary focus on opportunities to produce small molecule NMEs through drug rescue opportunities provide us substantial competitive advantages associated with application of human biology at the front end of the drug development process, long before animal and human testing. Although we believe that our model for the application of human pluripotent stem cell technology for drug rescue is novel, significant competition may arise or otherwise increase considerably as the acceptance and use of stem cellhPSC technology, the sale of hPSC-derived human heart and liver cells, and the availability of hPSC-related contract predictive toxicology screening services, for drug discovery, development and rescue, as well as cell therapy orand regenerative medicine, continuescontinue to become more widespread throughout the academic research community and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

Competition In addition, significant competition may arise from those academic research institutions, contract research organizations, and biotechnologybiopharmaceutical companies that seek to developcurrently producing or capable of producing, currently using or capable of using, hPSC-derived heart cells and liver cells for third-party sales, contract screening or cell therapy productsresearch and development, that elect or their customers elect to sell in vitro heart cell, liver celltransform their current business operations to include internal drug rescue and other cellular assays and cell populations, including stem cell-based assays and stem cell-derived cells for predictive toxicity screening, including Advanced Cell Technology, Athersys, BioTime, Cellectis, Cellular Dynamics, California Stem Cell, Inc., Cellerant Therapeutics, Cellzdirect, Cambrex, Cytori, HemoGenix, International Stem Cell, iPierian , Neuralstem, Organovo Holdings, PluriStem, Stem Cells, Inc. and Stemina BioMarker Discovery, Inc., and possibly others. Pharmaceutical companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche among others, may also develop their own stem cell-based research programs. We anticipate that acceptance and usedevelopment of pluripotent stem cell technology, including our Human Clinical Trialssmall molecule NMEs in a Test TubeTM platform, will increase at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the future, providing us with diverse strategic partnering opportunities.manner similar to our drug rescue model.

With respect to AV-101, we believe that a range of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have programs to develop small molecule drug candidates for the treatment of neuropathic pain, epilepsy, depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions and diseases, including Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer. We expect that AV-101 will have to compete with a variety of therapeutic products and procedures.  With respect to each Drug Rescue Variant we are able to produce, we anticipate that a range of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies will have programs to develop small molecule drug candidates or biologics for the treatment of the diseases or conditions targeted by each such Drug Rescue Variant.

Government Regulation
 
United States
 
With respect to our stem cell research and development in the U.S., the U.S. government has established requirements and procedures relating to the isolation and derivation of certain stem cell lines and the availability of federal funds for research and development programs involving those lines. All of the stem cell lines that we are using were either isolated under procedures that meet U.S. government requirements and are approved for funding from the U.S. government, or were isolated under procedures that meet U.S. government requirements and are approved for use by regulatory bodies associated with the CIRM.requirements.

With respect to drug development, government authorities at the federal, state and local levels in the U.S. and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, pricing and export and import of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. In the U.S., pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices are subject to rigorous FDA regulation. Federal and state statutes and regulations in the United States govern, among other things, the testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, export, record keeping, approval, marketing, advertising and promotion of our potential drug rescue variants. The information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain approval to market a new drug varies depending on whether the drug is a new product whose safety and effectiveness has not previously been demonstrated in humans, or a drug whose active ingredient(s) and certain other properties are the same as those of a previously approved drug. Product development and approval within this regulatory framework takes a number of years and involves significant uncertainty combined with the expenditure of substantial resources.
Companies seeking FDA approval to sell a new prescription drug in the United States must test it in various ways. Currently, first are laboratory and animal tests. Next are tests in humans to see if the drug candidate is safe and effective when used to treat or diagnose a disease. After testing the drug candidate, the company developing it then sends the FDA an application called a New Drug Application (NDA). Some drug candidates are made out of biologic materials, including human cells, such as the human cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells. Instead of an NDA, new biologic drug candidates are approved using a Biologics License Application (BLA). Whether an NDA or a BLA, the application includes:
·
the drug candidate’s test results;
·
manufacturing information to demonstrate the company developing the drug candidate can properly manufacture it; and
·
the proposed label for the drug candidate, which provides necessary information about the drug candidate, including uses for which it has been shown to be effective, possible risks, and how to use it.
If a review by FDA physicians and scientists shows the drug candidate's benefits outweigh its known risks and the drug candidate can be manufactured in a way that ensures a quality product, the drug candidate is approved and can be marketed in the United States.

New drug and biological product development and approval takes many years, involves the expenditure of substantial resources and is uncertain to succeed. Many new drug and biological candidates appear promising in early stages of development but ultimately do not reach the market because they cannot meet FDA or other regulatory requirements. In addition, the current regulatory framework may change through regulatory, legislative or judicial actions or that additional regulations will not arise during development that may affect approval, delay the submission or review of an application.
The activities required before a new drug or biological candidate may be approved for marketing in the U.S. begin with nonclinical testing, which includes laboratory evaluation and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product as formulated. Results of nonclinical studies are summarized in an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA. Human clinical trials may begin 30 days following submission of an IND application, unless the FDA requires additional time to review the application or raise questions.
Clinical testing involves the administration of the new drug or biological candidate to healthy human volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator, usually a physician, pursuant to an FDA-reviewed protocol. Each clinical study is conducted under the auspices of an institutional review board (IRB) at each of the institutions at which the study will be conducted. A clinical plan, or “protocol,” accompanied by the approval of an IRB, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application prior to commencement of each clinical trial. Human clinical trials are conducted typically in three sequential phases. Phase I trials primarily consist of testing the product’s safety in a small number of patients or healthy volunteers. In Phase II trials, the safety and efficacy of the biological candidate is evaluated in a specific patient population. Phase III trials typically involve additional testing for safety and clinical efficacy in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed sites. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuance of a nonclinical or clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, particularly if safety concerns exist.
All procedures we use to obtain clinical samples, and the procedures we use to isolate hESCs, are consistent with the informed consent and ethical guidelines promulgated by either the U.S. National Academy of Science, the International Society of Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), or the NIH. These procedures and documentation have been reviewed by an external Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee, and all cell lines we use have been approved under one or more of these guidelines.
The U.S. government and its agencies on July 7, 2009 published guidelines for the ethical derivation of hESCs required for receiving federal funding for hESC research. Should we seek NIH funding for our stem cell research and development, our request would involve the use of hESC lines that meet the NIH guidelines for NIH funding. In the U.S., the President’s Council on Bioethics monitors stem cell research, and may make recommendations from time to time that could place restrictions on the scope of research using human embryonic or fetal tissue. Although numerous states in the U.S. are considering, or have in place, legislation relating to stem cell research, including California whose voters approved Proposition 71 to provide up to $3 billion of state funding for stem cell research in California, it is not yet clear what affect, if any, state actions may have on our ability to commercialize stem cell technologies.
Canada
 
In Canada, stem cell research and development is governed by two policy documents and by one legislative statute: the Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research (the “Guidelines”Guidelines) issued by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; the Tri-Council Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (the “TCPS”TCPS); and the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (the “Act”Act). The Guidelines and the TCPS govern stem cell research conducted by, or under the auspices of, institutions funded by the federal government. Should we seek funding from Canadian government agencies or should we conduct research under the auspices of an institution so funded, we may have to ensure the compliance of such research with the ethical rules prescribed by the Guidelines and the TCPS.

The Act subjects all research conducted in Canada involving the human embryo, including ES CellhESC derivation (but not the stem cells once derived), to a licensing process overseen by a federal licensing agency.  However, as of the date of this report, the provisions of the Act regarding the licensing of ES CellhESC derivation were not in forceforce.

We are not currently conducting stem cell research in Canada.  We are, however, sponsoring pluripotent stem cell research by Dr. Gordon Keller at UHN’s McEwen Centre.  We anticipate conducting pluripotent stem cell research (with both ES CellshESCs and iPS Cells)hiPSCs), in collaboration with Dr. Keller and ishis research team, at UHN during 2012 byond2014 and beyond pursuant to our long term sponsored research collaboration with Dr. Keller and UHN.  Should the provisions of the Act come into force, we may have to apply for a license for all ES CellhESC research we may sponsor or conduct in Canada and ensure compliance of such research with the provisions of the Act.

 
Foreign
 
In addition to regulations in the U.S., we may be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products outside of the U.S. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Subsidiaries and Inter-Corporate Relationships
 
VistaGen Therapeutics,Therapeutics. Inc., a California corporation, is our wholly-owned subsidiary and has the following two wholly-owned subsidiaries: VistaStem Canada Inc., a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario, intended to facilitate our stem cell-based research and development and drug rescue activities in Ontario, Canada including our collaboration with Dr. Keller and UHN;UHN should we elect to expand our U.S. operations into Canada; and Artemis Neuroscience, Inc., a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Maryland and focused on the clinical development of AV-101. The operations of VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a California corporation, and each of its two wholly-owned subsidiaries are managed by our senior management team based in South San Francisco, California.
 
Employees
We have ten full-time employees, four of whom have doctorate degrees. Seven full-time employees work in research and development and laboratory support services and three full-time employees work in general and administrative roles. Staffing for all other functional areas is achieved through strategic relationships with service providers and consultants, each of whom provides services on an as-needed basis, including human resources and payroll, accounting and public company reporting, information technology, facilities, legal, stock plan administration, investor relations and web site maintenance, regulatory affairs, and FDA program management.  In addition, we currently conduct some of our research and development efforts through sponsored research relationships with stem cell scientists at academic research institutions in the U.S. and Canada, including Dr. Keller’s laboratories at UHN. See “Business – Strategic Transactions and Relationships.”
None of our employees is represented by a labor union or is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our current relationship with all of our employees is good.
Environmental Regulation
Our business does not require us to comply with any particular environmental regulations.
Item 1A1A..  Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and related notes, before deciding whether to purchase shares of our common stock. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Risks Related to Our Financial PositionBusiness and NeedStrategy
We are a development stage biotechnology company with no approved products and limited experience developing new drug, biological and/or regenerative medicine candidates, including conducting clinical trials and other areas required for Additional Capitalthe successful development and commercialization of therapeutic products, which makes it difficult to assess our future viability.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception.  We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

are a development stage biotechnology company. Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses.  Our accumulated loss was $54.8generated approximately $16.4 million of revenues from strategic collaborations and $42.6 million,grant awards.  However, we currently have no approved products and our stockholders’ deficit was $5.7 milliongenerate no revenues, and $32.9 million as of March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

To date, we have generated approximately $16.2 millionnot yet fully demonstrated an ability to overcome many of revenue from grant awardsthe fundamental risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by development stage companies in new and rapidly evolving fields of technology, particularly biotechnology. To execute our business plan successfully, we will need to accomplish the following fundamental objectives, either on our own or with strategic collaborations.  We have financed our operations primarily through private placements of our securities.  We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development. We expect to incur significant expenses and significant operating losses for the foreseeable future.  The net losses we incur may fluctuate from quarter to quarter.  We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:collaborators:

·Continue our research and development of our stem cell technology platform;
produce product candidates;
·Seek to rescue once-promising drug candidates discontinued in development by pharmaceutical companies due to heart or liver toxicity;
develop and obtain required regulatory approvals for commercialization of products we produce;
·Acquire or in-license products or technologies;
maintain, leverage and expand our intellectual property portfolio;
·Maintain, expand
establish and protect our intellectual property portfolio;maintain sales, distribution and marketing capabilities;
·Hire additional scientific
gain market acceptance for our products; and technical personnel; and
·Add operational, financialobtain adequate capital resources and management information systemsmanage our spending as costs and personnelexpenses increase due to support our drug rescue activitiesresearch, production, development, regulatory approval and regulatory compliance requirements relating to being a reporting company.commercialization of product candidates.

To become
Moreover, we and remain profitable we must developany future strategic partner will need to receive regulatory approval for any new drug candidate, including each Drug Rescue Variant, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product before it may be marketed and commercialize, either directly or, more likely, through collaborative arrangements with pharmaceutical companies, a product or products with significant market potential.  Thisdistributed. Such regulatory approval will require, among numerous other things, completing carefully controlled and well-designed clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of each new product candidate. This process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. As a company, we have limited experience developing new drug candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, biological candidates or regenerative medicine products, including conducting clinical trials and in other areas required for the successful development and commercialization of therapeutic products. Such trials will require additional financial and management resources, third-party collaborators with the requisite clinical experience or reliance on third party clinical investigators, contract research organizations and independent consultants. Relying on third parties may force us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including nonclinical testing and clinical trialsencounter delays that are outside of our drug rescue variants, obtaining marketing approval forcontrol, which could materially harm our business.

If we are unsuccessful in accomplishing these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which wefundamental objectives, or our prospective pharmaceutical partners may obtain marketing approval.  We and our collaborators may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability.  If we do achieve profitability,encounter delays in the regulatory approval process beyond our control, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become or remain profitable would decrease the value of the company and could impair our ability todevelop product candidates, raise capital, maintain our research, development and drug rescue efforts, expand our business or continue our operations.  A decline in the value of the company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.
 
 
WeOur future success is highly dependent upon our ability to produce product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, using stem cell technology, human cells derived from stem cells, our proprietary human cell-based bioassay systemsand medicinal chemistry, and we cannot provide any assurance that we will needsuccessfully produce Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates, or that, if produced, any of our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates will be developed and commercialized.
Research programs designed to identify and produce product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, require substantial additional funding.  If wetechnical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research, drug rescueultimately identified and development programs.

We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we launch and continueproduced. In particular, our drug rescue programs.  Furthermore, we will incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.  Accordingly, we will needprograms may initially show promise in identifying potential Drug Rescue Variants, yet fail to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. These funds, if available, may be from oneyield lead Drug Rescue Variants suitable for preclinical, clinical development or more public or private stock offerings, issuance of promissory notes, borrowings under bank or lease lines of credit, grants awards or other sources. Any additional financing may not be available on a timely basis on terms acceptable to us, or at all. Our ability to obtain such financing may be impaired by current economic conditions and/or a lack of liquidity incommercialization for many reasons, including the credit or stock markets. Such financing, if available, may also be dilutive to stockholders or may require us to grant a lender a security interest in our assets. The amount of money we will need will depend on many factors, including:following:
·
our research methodology may not be successful in identifying potential Drug Rescue Candidates;
 
revenues, if any, generated from collaborations with pharmaceutical companies involving the development or licensing of customized cellular bioassays or our drug rescue variants;
·
competitors may develop alternatives that render our Drug Rescue Variants obsolete;
 
expenses we incur in developing and licensing our drug rescue variants;
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate it is unlikely to be effective or otherwise does not meet applicable regulatory criteria;
 
the commercial success of our research and development efforts; and
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may not be capable of being produced in commercial quantities at an acceptable cost, or at all; or
 
the emergence of competing scientific and technological developments and the extent to which we acquire or in-license other products and technologies.
If we are unable to secure additional funding or adequate funds are not available, we may have to discontinue operations, delay, reduce or eliminate research and development programs, including drug rescue programs, license to third parties the rights to commercialize products or technologies that we would otherwise seek to commercialize, or any combination of these activities. Any of these results would materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations, and there can be no assurance that any of these results will result in cash flows that will be sufficient to fund our current or future operating needs.

We do not have any committed sources of additional capital. Additional financing through strategic collaborations, public or private equity financings, capital lease transactions or other financing sources may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. The receptivity of the public and private equity markets to proposed financings is substantially affected by the general economic, market and political climate and by other factors which are unpredictable and over which we have no control. Additional equity financings, if we obtain them, could result in significant dilution to our stockholders. Further, in the event that additional funds are obtained through arrangements with collaborators, these arrangements will likely require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies, product candidates or proposed products that we would otherwise seek to develop and commercialize ourselves. If sufficient capital is not available, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate one or more of our programs. Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we cannot continue to obtain grant funding from government entities or private research foundations or research, drug rescue and development funding from pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, or if we fail to replace these sources of funding, our ability to continue operations will be harmed.
Historically we have funded a substantial portion of our operating expenses from U.S. government and private grant funding and funding from pharmaceutical companies with which we have collaborative relationships. In order to fund a substantial portion of future operations, particularly future operations related to our proposed drug rescue activities and development of AV-101, we will need to apply for and receive additional grant funding from governments and governmental organizations such as NIH, the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, however, we may not secure any additional funding from any governmental organization or private research foundation or otherwise. We cannot assure you that we will continue to receive grant funding. If grant funds are no longer available or the funds no longer meet our needs, some of our current and future operations may be delayed or terminated. In addition, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected if we are unable to obtain grants or replace these sources of funding.

Our independent auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
Our consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2012 included in Item 8 of this Report on Form 10-K, have been prepared assuming that we will continue to operate as a going concern. The report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our consolidated financial statements includes an explanatory paragraph discussing conditions that raise a substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
Risks Related to Identification, Access, and Development of Our Drug Rescue Variants
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may not be accepted as safe and effective by regulatory authorities, patients, the medical community or third-party payors.
 
Our future success depends heavily on our ability to use stem cell technology, human cells derived from stem cells, proprietary human cell-based bioassay systems, especially CardioSafe 3D, and medicinal chemistry to produce Drug Rescue Variants and, develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize lead Drug Rescue Variants, on our own or in strategic collaborations, which may never occur. We havecurrently generate no revenues, and we may never developed a drug rescue variant and cannot be certain that we will be able to do so in the future.  Our prospective customers, the pharmaceutical companies of the world, may not perceive value in our effortsdevelop or otherwise may choose not to collaborate with us.commercialize a marketable drug.

Our abilityWe have limited operating history with respect to develop a drug rescue variant is highly dependent upon the accuracyidentification and efficiencyassessment of ourpotential Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTMDrug Rescue Candidates platform, particularly our CardioSafe 3D™ bioassay system. We haveand no operating history with respect to the developmentproduction of drug rescue variantsDrug Rescue Variants, and cannot be certain we willmay never be able to develop drug rescue variants in the future. There areproduce a number of factors that may impact our ability to develop a drug rescue variant, including:Drug Rescue Variant
Our ability to identify and access the potential for drug rescue of once-promising drug candidates that pharmaceutical companies have discontinued in development due to heart or liver toxicity concerns. If we cannot identify once-promising large market drug candidates that can be rescued in an efficient and cost-effective manner, our business will be adversely affected.  And, we may choose to focus our resources on a potential drug rescue candidate the rescue of which ultimately proves to be unsuccessful.. If we are unable to identify and access suitable drug candidatesDrug Rescue Candidates for our drug rescue programs, including AV-101, or produce suitable lead Drug Rescue Variants for license to and preclinical and clinical development by pharmaceutical companies and others, we willmay not be able to obtain productsufficient revenues in future periods, which likely willwould result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price. There are a number of factors, in addition to the utility of CardioSafe 3D, that may impact our ability to identify and assess Drug Rescue Candidates and produce, develop and commercialize Drug Rescue Variants, independently or with strategic partners, including:
 
·
our ability to identify potential Drug Rescue Candidates in the public domain, obtain sufficient quantities of them, and assess them using our assay systems;
To
·
if we seek to rescue Drug Rescue Candidates that are not available to us in the public domain, the extent to which third parties may be willing to license or sell Drug Rescue Candidates to us on commercially reasonable terms;
·
our medicinal chemistry collaborator’s ability to design and produce proprietary Drug Rescue Variants based on the novel biology and structure-function insight we provide using CardioSafe 3D or LiverSafe 3D; and
·
financial resources available to us to develop and commercialize lead Drug Rescue Variants internally, or, if we license them to strategic partners, the resources such partners choose to dedicate to development and commercialization of any Drug Rescue Variants licensed from us.
Even if we do produce a Drug Rescue Variant, we can give no assurance that we will be able to develop and commercialize it as a marketable drug, on our own or in a strategic collaboration. Before we generate any revenues from product sales, we must produce additional product candidates through drug rescue and we or our potential strategic collaborator must complete preclinical and clinical development of one or more of our product candidates, conduct human subject research, submit clinical and manufacturing data to the extent we elect to attempt to rescue once-promising but discontinued drug candidatesFDA, qualify a third party contract manufacturer, receive regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, satisfy the FDA that our contract manufacturer is capable of manufacturing the product in compliance with cGMP, build a commercial organization, make substantial investments and undertake significant marketing efforts ourselves or in partnership with others. We are not otherwisepermitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.
We have not previously submitted a biologics license application, or BLA, or a new drug application or NDA, to the FDA, or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, if approved.

We or our potential collaborator may also seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, the European Union and potentially in additional foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, to obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.
Our CardioSafe 3D internal validation studies have not been subjectedto extensive external peer review or validation.
Our proprietary internal studies conducted to validate the utility of CardioSafe 3D for drug rescue, including our ability to use it to predict the cardiac effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of Drug Rescue Candidates, have not been subjected to extensive external peer review or validation. It is possible, therefore, that the results we have obtained from our successful internal validation studies may not be replicable by external peer reviewers. We are currently focused on identifying and assessing Drug Rescue Candidates available in the public domain.  However, should we seek to license or acquire Drug Rescue Candidates from third-parties, and such third-parties cannot replicate our results or do not have confidence in the capabilities of CardioSafe 3D, it may be difficult for researchus to acquire from them certain Drug Rescue Candidates which might be of interest to us. Even if such results can be replicated by external peer reviewers or other third-parties, they may nevertheless conclude that their current screening models are better than our CardioSafe 3D and development basedthat a license to the Drug Rescue Candidate we seek from them is not warranted. Our drug rescue business model is predicated on our ability to identify and, if information is not otherwise available in the public domain, our abilityobtain licenses from third-parties to negotiateDrug Rescue Candidates of interest to us.  If third-party licenses with pharmaceutical companiesare required, and if we cannot obtain such licenses to drug candidates that the pharmaceutical companies have discontinued in development due to hearton reasonable terms, or liver toxicity concerns. Because we are screening a range of drug rescue candidates, including compounds with proprietary rights held by third parties, for their potential as drug rescue candidates, the growth ofat all, our business may depend, in significant part,be adversely affected.

If CardioSafe3Dfails to predict accurately and efficiently the cardiac effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants, then our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

Our success is highly dependent on our ability to acquireuse CardioSafe3D to identify and predict, accurately and efficiently, the potential toxic and nontoxic cardiac effects of Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants. If CardioSafe3D is not capable of providing physiologically relevant and clinically predictive  information regarding human cardiac biology, our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

We have not yet fully validated LiverSafe 3D for potential drug rescue applications, and we may never do so.
We have successfully developed proprietary protocols for controlling the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to produce functional, mature, adult liver cells. However, we have not yet fully validated our ability to use the human liver cells we produce for LiverSafe 3D to predict important biological effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of reference drugs, Drug Rescue Candidates or in-licenseDrug Rescue Variants on the human liver, including drug-induced liver injury and adverse drug-drug interactions. Furthermore, we may never be able to do so, which could adversely affect our business and the potential applications of LiverSafe 3D for drug rescue and regenerative medicine.
CardioSafe 3D, and, when validated, LiverSafe 3D may not be meaningfully more predictive of the behavior of human cells than existing methods.

The success of our drug rescue business is highly dependent, in the first instance, upon CardioSafe 3D, and, in the second instance, when validated, LiverSafe 3D, being more accurate, efficient and clinically predictive than long-established surrogate safety models, including animal cells and live animals, and immortalized, primary and transformed cells, currently used by pharmaceutical companies and others. We cannot give assurance that CardioSafe 3D, and, when validated, LiverSafe 3D, will be more efficient or accurate at predicting the heart or liver safety of new drug candidates than the testing models currently used. If CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D fail to provide a meaningful difference compared to existing or new models in predicting the behavior of human heart and liver cells, respectively, their utility for drug rescue will be limited and our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

We may invest in producing Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be no demand.

To generate revenue from our drug rescue activities, we must produce Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be demand within the healthcare marketplace, and, if we intend to out-license a particular Drug Rescue Variant for development and commercialization prior to market approval, then also among pharmaceutical companies and other potential strategic collaborators. However, we may produce Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be no or limited demand in the healthcare market and/or among pharmaceutical companies and others. If we misinterpret market conditions, underestimate development costs and/or seek to rescue the wrong Drug Rescue Candidates, we may fail to generate sufficient revenue or other value, on our own or in collaboration with others, to justify our investments, and our drug rescue business may be adversely affected.

We may experience difficulty in producing human cells and our future stem cell technology research and development efforts may not be successful within the timeline anticipated, if at all.

Our human pluripotent stem cell technology is new and technically complex, and the time and resources necessary to develop new cell types and customized bioassay systems are difficult to predict in advance. We intend to devote significant personnel and financial resources to research and development activities designed to expand, in the case of drug rescue, and explore, in the case of regenerative medicine, potential applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform. In particular, we are planning to conduct development programs related to producing and using functional, mature adult liver cells to validate LiverSafe 3D as a novel bioassay system for drug rescue, as well as exploratory nonclinical regenerative medicine programs involving blood, bone, cartilage, heart, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells. Although we and our collaborators have developed proprietary protocols for the production of multiple differentiated cell types, we may encounter difficulties in differentiating particular cell types, even when following these compounds.  Pharmaceutical companiesproprietary protocols. These difficulties may result in delays in production of certain cells, assessment of certain Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants, and performance of certain exploratory nonclinical regenerative medicine studies. In the past, our stem cell research and development projects have been significantly delayed when we encountered unanticipated difficulties in differentiating human pluripotent stem cells into heart, liver and pancreatic cells. Although we have overcome such difficulties in the past, we may have similar delays in the future, and we may not be able to overcome them or obtain any benefits from our future stem cell technology research and development activities. Any delay or failure by us, for example, to produce functional, mature blood, bone, cartilage, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells could have a substantial adverse effect on our potential drug rescue and regenerative medicine business opportunities and results of operations.

If we are unable to keep up with rapid technological changes in our field, we will be unable to operate profitably.

We are engaged in activities in the life sciences field, which is characterized by rapid technological changes, frequent new product introductions, changing needs and preferences, emerging competition, and evolving industry standards. If we fail to anticipate or respond adequately to technological developments, our business, revenue, financial condition and operating results could suffer materially. Although we believe we are the first stem cell technology company focused primarily on drug rescue, we anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as competitors develop or access new or improved bioassay systems and explore and enter the drug rescue market with new technologies. Competitors may have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, sales and marketing resources and may be able to respond more quickly and effectively than we can to new opportunities. In light of these advantages, even if our technology is effective in producing Drug Rescue Variants, potential development partners might prefer new drug candidates available from others or develop their own new drug candidates in lieu of licensing or purchasing our Drug Rescue Variants. We may not be reluctantable to reactivatecompete effectively against these organizations. Our failure to compete effectively could materially and out-license rightsadversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing product candidates before, or more successfully, than we do.

Our future success depends on our ability to usdemonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to discontinued drugthe design, development programs involving potential drug rescueand commercialization of Drug Rescue Variants. Our competitors may succeed in developing product candidates especially those programs involving substantial prior investmentfor the same indications we are pursuing before we do, obtaining regulatory approval for competing products or gaining acceptance of their products within the same markets that we are targeting for our Drug Rescue Variants. If, either on our own or in collaboration with a strategic partner, we are not "first to market" with one of our Drug Rescue Variants, our competitive position could be compromised because it may be more difficult for us or our partner to obtain marketing approval for our Drug Rescue Variant and loss bysuccessfully market it as a second competitor.  We expect any Drug Rescue Variants that we commercialize, either independently or in collaboration, will compete with products from other companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.  
Many of our competitors have substantially greater research and development and commercial infrastructures and financial, technical and personnel resources than we have. We will not be able to compete successfully unless we:

·
design, develop, produce and commercialize, either on our own or with collaborators, Drug Rescue Variants that are superior to other products in development or in the market;
·
attract qualified scientific, medical, sales and marketing and commercial personnel or collaborators;
·
obtain patent and/or other proprietary protection for our Drug Rescue Variants; and
·
obtain, either on our own or in collaboration with strategic partners, required regulatory approvals for our Drug Rescue Variants.
Established competitors may invest heavily to quickly discover and develop novel compounds that could make our Drug Rescue Variants obsolete. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

Other companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations are conducting research, seeking patent protection and establishing collaborative arrangements for research, development and marketing of assays similar to ours and Drug Rescue Variants we may produce. These companies and institutions also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, obtaining collaborators and licensees, as well as discontinued programsin acquiring technologies complementary to our programs.

As a result of the foregoing, our competitors may develop more effective or more affordable products, or achieve earlier patent protection or product commercialization than we will. Most significantly, competitive products may render any technologies and Drug Rescue Variants that have been superseded by current programs regarded bywe develop obsolete, which would negatively impact our business and ability to sustain operations.

With respect to drug rescue, the pharmaceutical companies as more advanced than the programs they discontinued. The licensing and acquisition of proprietary small molecule compounds, even compounds that have failed in development due to heart or liver safety concerns, is a highly competitive area, and a number of more established companies aremay also pursuingpursue strategies to license, or acquire, rescue and develop small molecule compounds that we may consider attractive as drug rescue candidates.to be Drug Rescue Candidates. These established companies have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to sell or licenseDrug Rescue Candidate rights to us. We have nolimited experience in negotiating these licenses to drug candidates and there can be no assurances that we will be able to acquire or obtain licenses to discontinued drug rescue candidatesDrug Rescue Candidates in the future, on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.all, should we elect to pursue such third-party licenses. If we are unable to acquire or obtain licenses to drug candidatesDrug Rescue Candidates we seek, to rescue, our business may be adversely affected.
Our medicinal chemistry collaborators’ ability to design and produce drug rescue variants that are structurally related to the drug candidate that was discontinued in development due to heart or liver toxicity. If our medicinal chemistry collaborator is unsuccessful for any reason in designing and producing drug rescue variants, our business will be adversely affected.
Our ability to execute our drug rescue programs in a timely and cost-effective manner. If our drug rescue programs are less efficient and more expensive than we expect, our business will be adversely affected.
Our ability to rescue (develop drug rescue variants) and license our drug rescue variants to pharmaceutical companies. The time necessary to rescue any individual pharmaceutical product is long and can be uncertain. Only a small number of research and development programs ultimately result in commercially successful drugs. We cannot assure you that toxicity results indicated by our drug rescue testing models are indicative of results that would be achieved in future animal studies, in in vitro testing or in human clinical studies, all or some of which will be required in order to obtain regulatory approval of our drug rescue variants.
Our internal validation study of CardioSafe 3DTMhas not been subject to peer review or third party validation.
 
Our internal validation study, conducted to validate the ability of our CardioSafe 3DTM bioassay system to predict the cardiac effects of prospective drug rescue candidates referred to under “Business – Application of Stem Cell Technology to Drug Rescue – CardioSafe 3D TM”, has not been subject to peer review or third party validation. It is possible that the results we obtained from our internal validation study may not be able to be replicated by third parties. If we elect to license drug rescue candidates from pharmaceutical companies rather than accessing information available in the public domain, and such pharmaceutical companies cannot replicate our results, it will be difficult to negotiate and obtain licenses from such pharmaceutical companies to drug candidates we may seek to rescue. Even if such results can be replicated, pharmaceutical companies may nevertheless conclude that their current drug testing models are better than our novel human heart cell-based testing model, CardioSafe 3DTM, and that it does not merit a license to the drug candidate we seek to rescue. Our business model is predicated on our ability to identify and, if information is not otherwise available in the public domain, obtain licenses from pharmaceutical companies to promising drug rescue candidates. If licenses are required, and if we cannot obtain licenses to suitable drug rescue candidates, our business will be adversely affected.

 
We cannot say with certainty that our in vitro toxicological testing systems, including CardioSafe 3DTM, will be more efficient or accurate at predicting the toxicity of new drug candidatesRestrictions on research and drug rescue variants than the nonclinical testing models currently used by pharmaceutical companies.
The success of our drug rescue model is dependent upon thedevelopment involving human cell-based toxicology screening bioassay systems we develop being more accurate, efficientembryonic stem cells and clinically predictive than current animalpolitical commentary regarding such research and cellular testing models. The accuracy and efficiency of our human cell-based bioassay systems is central to our ability to rescue drugs. If our bioassay systems are less accurate and less efficient than current animal and cellular testing models, our business will be adversely affected.

We have a history of losses and anticipate future losses, and continued lossesdevelopment could impair our ability to sustain operations.
We have incurred operating losses every year since our operations began in July 1998. As of March 31, 2012, our accumulated deficit since inception was approximately $54.8 million. Losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in connection with ourconduct or sponsor certain potential collaborative research and development activities and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to incur additional operating losses and, as our research and development efforts, and drug rescue- and stem cell therapy-related activities continue, we expect our operating losses to increase.

Substantially all of our revenues to date have been from research support payments under collaboration agreements, government and private foundation grants, and revenues from stem cell technology licensing arrangements. Our near-term revenues are highly dependent on our ability to produce drug rescue variants and enter into license agreements with pharmaceutical companies with respect to the development and commercialization of our drug rescue variants.  Although we also expect to generate revenue from stem cell technology-based drug discovery, development and rescue collaborations with pharmaceutical companies, as well as strategic predictive toxicology screening collaborations, we can provide no assurance that such collaborations will occur in a timely manner, if at all, or, if they do occur, that we will generate material revenue from them. In the event that we are unable to generate projected revenues related to drug rescue licenses, predictive toxicology screening collaborations, government grants and/or stem cell technology-based drug discovery, development and rescue collaboration, we will need to modify our operating plan to the extent necessary to make up for the revenue shortfall which would harm our business and prospects. We may not be successful in entering into any new strategic collaboration or license agreement that results in material or timely revenues. We do not expect that the revenues generated from these arrangements will be sufficient alone to continue or expand our stem cell research, drug rescue, drug development and stem cell therapy activities and otherwise sustain our operations. In addition, in order to fund a substantial portion of future operations, we will need to secure additional capital.

We also expect to experience negative cash flows for the foreseeable future as we finance our operating losses and capital expenditures. This will result in decreases in our working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity, which may not be offset by future funding. We will need to generate significant revenues to achieve profitability. We may not be able to generate these revenues, and we may never achieve profitability. Our failure to achieve profitability could negatively impact the value of our stock. Even if we do become profitable, we cannot assure you that we would be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

If we cannot enter into and successfully manage a sufficient number of strategic drug discovery, development and rescue collaborations with pharmaceutical companies, our ability to develop drug rescue candidates for our drug pipeline and to fund our future operations will be harmed.
A future element of our drug rescue business model is to enter into strategic stem cell technology-based drug discovery, development and rescue collaborations with established pharmaceutical companies to finance or otherwise assist in the rescue, development, marketing and manufacture of drugs developed utilizing our stem cell-based bioassay systems for screening heart toxicity, liver toxicity and drug metabolism. Our goal in such collaborations will be to derive a recurring stream of revenues from research and development payments, license fees, milestone payments and royalties. Our prospects, therefore, will depend in large part upon our ability to attract and retain collaborators and to generate customized cellular bioassays and/or rescue drug candidates that meet the requirements of our prospective collaborators. In addition, our collaborators will generally have the right to abandon research projects and terminate applicable agreements, including funding obligations, prior to or upon the expiration of the agreed-upon research terms. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in establishing multiple future collaborations on acceptable terms or at all, that current or future collaborations will not terminate funding before completion of projects, that our existing or future collaborative arrangements will result in successful product commercialization or that we will derive any revenues from such arrangements. To the extent that we are unable to maintain existing or establish new strategic collaborations with pharmaceutical companies, it would require substantial additional capital for us to undertake research, development and commercialization activities on our own.


In varying degrees for each of the drug candidates we may seek to rescue and develop, we expect to rely on our pharmaceutical company collaborators to develop, conduct Investigational New Drug-enabling and human clinical trials on, obtain regulatory approvals for, manufacture, market and/or commercialize drug rescue variants we license to such collaborators. Such collaborators’ diligence and dedication of resources in conducting these activities will depend on, among other things, their own competitive, marketing and strategic considerations, including the relative advantages of competitive products. The failure of our collaborators to conduct their collaborative activities relating to our drug rescue variants successfully and diligently would have a material adverse effect on us.

Some of our competitors or pharmaceutical companies may develop technologies that are superior to or more cost-effective than ours, which may impact the commercial viability of our technologies and which may significantly damage our ability to sustain operations.
The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are intensely competitive. Other pluripotent stem cell biology-based bioassay systems and drug candidates that could compete directly with the bioassay technologies and product candidates that we seek to discover, develop and commercialize currently exist or are being developed by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and by academic and other research organizations.

Many of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies developing and marketing these competing products and technologies have significantly greater financial resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing and distribution. Pharmaceuticals companies with whom we seek to collaborate may develop their own competing internal programs.

Small companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations are conducting research, seeking patent protection and establishing collaborative arrangements for research, clinical development and marketing of products similar to ours. These companies and institutions compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, obtaining collaborators and licensees, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to our programs.

In addition to the above factors, we expect to face competition in the areas of evaluation of product efficacy and safety, the timing and scope of regulatory consents, availability of resources, reimbursement coverage, price and patent position, including potentially dominant patent positions of others.

As a result of the foregoing, our competitors may develop more effective or more affordable products, or achieve earlier patent protection or product commercialization than we do. Most significantly, competitive products may render any technologies and product candidates that we develop obsolete, which would negatively impact our business and ability to sustain operations.

Restrictions on the use of Embryonic Stem Cells (“ES Cells”), political commentary and the ethical and social implications of research involving ES Cells could prevent us from developing or gaining acceptance for commercially viable products based upon such stem cellsprograms and adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock.common stock.
 
Some of our most important ongoing and planned research and development programs involve the use of ES Cells.human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Some believe the use of ES CellshESCs gives rise to ethical and social issues regarding the appropriate use of these cells. Our research related to ES Cellsdifferentiation of hESCs may become the subject of adverse commentary or publicity, which could significantly harm the market price of our Common Stock.

common stock. Although now substantially less than in years past, certain political and religious groups in the United States and elsewhere voice opposition to ES CellhESC technology and practices. All procedures we use to obtain clinical samples and the procedures we use to isolate ES Cells are consistent with the informed consent and ethical guidelines promulgated by the U.S. National Academy of Science, the International Society of Stem Cell Research (“ISSCR”), and the NIH. These procedures and documentation have been reviewed by an external Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee, and all cell lines we use have been approved under these guidelines. We use stem cellshESCs derived from human embryosexcess fertilized eggs that have been created for clinical use in in vitro fertilization (“IVF”(IVF) procedures but thatand have been donated for research purposes with appropriatethe informed consent for research useof the donors after a successful IVF procedure because they are no longer desired or suitable for IVF. ManyCertain academic research institutions including some of our scientific collaborators, have adopted policies regarding the ethical use of human embryonic tissue. These policies may have the effect of limiting the scope of future collaborative research conducted using ES Cells,opportunities with such institutions, thereby potentially impairing our ability to conduct certain research and development in this field.field that we believe is necessary to expand the drug rescue capabilities of our technology.

The U.S. government and its agencies on July 7, 2009 published guidelines for the ethical derivation of human ES Cells required for receiving federal funding for ES Cell research. All of the ES Cell lines we use meet these guidelines for NIH funding. In the U.S., the President’s Council on Bioethics monitors stem cell research, and may make recommendations from time to time that could place restrictions on the scope of research using human embryonic or fetal tissue. Although numerous states in the U.S. are considering, or have in place, legislation relating to stem cell research, including California whose voters approved Proposition 71 to provide up to $3 billion of state funding for stem cell research in California, it is not yet clear what affect, if any, state actions may have on our ability to commercialize stem cell technologies. The use of embryonic or fetal tissue in research (including the derivation of ES Cells)hESCs) in other countries is regulated by the government, and varies widely from country to country. These regulations may affect our ability to commercialize ES Cell-based bioassay systems.

Government-imposed restrictions with respect to use of ES CellshESCs in research and development could have a material adverse effect on us by harming our ability to establish critical collaborations, delaying or preventing progress in our research and development, and causing a decrease in the market interest in our stock. These potential ethical concerns do not apply to iPS Cellsinduced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), or our plans to pursue pilot nonclinical regenerative medicine studies involving human cells derived from iPSCs, because their derivation does not involve the use of embryonic tissues.
 
We have assumed that the biological capabilities of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (“iPS Cells”)induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and ES Cells for in vitro bioassay systemshESCs are likely to be comparable. If it is discovered that this assumption is incorrect, our ability to developexploratory research and development activities focused on potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform could be harmed.
 
We use both ES CellshESCs and iPS Cells as the basisiPSCs for the continuingdrug rescue purposes. However, we anticipate that our future exploratory research and development focused on potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform. platform primarily will involve iPSCs. With respect to iPS Cells,iPSCs, we believe scientists are still unsuresomewhat uncertain about the clinical utility, life span, and safety of such cells, and whether such cells differ in any clinically significant ways from ES Cells.hESCs. If we discover that iPS CellsiPSCs will not be useful for whatever reason for potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform, we could be limited to using only ES Cells. This couldthis would negatively affect our ability to explore expansion of our platform, including, in particular, where it would be preferable to use iPSCs to reproduce rather than approximate the effects of certain specific genetic variations.

If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully produce, develop trials and commercialize our Drug Rescue Variants.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific and technical personnel. We are highly dependent upon our senior management, as well as other employees, consultants and scientific collaborators. As of June 1, 2014, we had 10 full-time employees, which may make us more reliant on our individual employees than companies with a greater number of employees. Although none of our key scientific personnel or members of our senior management has informed us that he or she intends to resign or retire in the near future, the loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of potential expansions and applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform particularly in circumstances where it would be preferable to produce iPS Cells to reflect the effects of desired specific genetic variations.
Risks Related to the Regulation of Biological Products
Some of our products, including our or our prospective collaborators’ potential cell therapy products, may be subject to biological product regulations. During their clinical development, biological products are regulated pursuant to Investigational New Drug (“IND”) requirements. Product development and approval takes a number of years, involves the expenditure of substantial resources and is uncertain. Many biological products that appear promising ultimately do not reach the market because they cannot meet FDA or other regulatory requirements. In addition, there can be no assurance that the current regulatory framework will not change through regulatory, legislative or judicial actions or that additional regulation will not arise during our product development that may affect approval, delay the submission or review of an application, if required, or require additional expenditures by us.

The activities required before a new biological product may be approved for marketing in the U.S. primarily begin with preclinical testing, which includes laboratory evaluation and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product as formulated. Results of preclinical studies are summarized in an IND application to the FDA. Human clinical trials may begin 30 days following submission of an IND application, unless the FDA requires additional time to review the application or raise questions.

Clinical testing involves the administration of the drug or biological product to healthy human volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator, usually a physician, pursuant to an FDA-reviewed protocol. Each clinical study is conducted under the auspices of an institutional review board (“IRB”) at each of the institutions at which the study will be conducted. A clinical plan, or “protocol,” accompanied by the approval of an IRB, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application prior to commencement of each clinical trial. Human clinical trials are conducted typically in three sequential phases. Phase I trials consist of, primarily, testing the product’s safety in a small number of patients or healthy volunteers. In Phase II, the safety and efficacy of the product candidate is evaluated in a specific patient population. Phase III trials typically involve additional testing for safety and clinical efficacy in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed sites. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuance of a preclinical or clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, particularly if safety concerns exist.

A company seeking FDA approval to market a biological product must file a Biologics License Application (“BLA”). In addition to reports of the preclinical and human clinical trials conducted under the IND application, the BLA includes evidence of the product’s safety, purity, potency and efficacy, as well as manufacturing, product identification and other information. Submission of a BLA does not assure FDA approval for marketing. The application review process generally takes one to three years to complete, although reviews of drugs and biological products for life-threatening diseases may be accelerated or expedited. However, the process may take substantially longer.

The FDA requires at least one and often two properly conducted, adequate and well-controlled clinical studies demonstrating efficacy with sufficient levels of statistical assurance. However, additional information may be required. Notwithstanding the submission of such data, the FDA ultimately may decide that the BLA does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval and not approve the application. The FDA may impose post-approval obligations, such as additional clinical tests following BLA approval to confirm safety and efficacy (Phase IV human clinical trials). The FDA may, in some circumstances, also impose restrictions on the use of the biological product that may be difficult and expensive to administer. Further, the FDA requires reporting of certain safety and other information that becomes known to a manufacturer of an approved biological product. Product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Prior to approving an application, the FDA will inspect the prospective manufacturer to ensure that the manufacturer conforms to the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) regulations that apply to biologics. To comply with the cGMP regulations, manufacturers must expend time, money and effort in product recordkeeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities in the U.S. and abroad in order to assure compliance with applicable cGMP requirements. Our failure to comply with the FDA’s cGMP regulations or other FDA regulatory requirements could have a significant adverse effect on us.

After a product is approved for a given indication in a BLA, subsequent new indications or dosage levels for the same product are reviewed by the FDA via the filing and approval of a BLA supplement. The BLA supplement is more focused than the BLA and deals primarily with safety and effectiveness data related to the new indication or dosage. Applicants are required to comply with certain post-approval obligations, such as compliance with cGMPs.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we fail to meet our obligations under license agreements, we may lose our rights to key technologies on which our business depends.
Our business depends on several critical technologies that are based in part on patents licensed from third parties. Those third-party license agreements impose obligations on us, such as payment obligations and obligations to diligently pursue development of commercial products under the licensed patents. If a licensor believes that we have failed to meet our obligations under a license agreement, the licensor could seek to limit or terminate our license rights, which could lead to costly and time-consuming litigation and, potentially, a loss of the licensed rights. During the period of any such litigation our ability to carry out the development and commercialization of potential products could be significantly and negatively affected. If our license rights were restricted or ultimately lost, our ability to continue our business based on the affected technology would be severely adversely affected.

If we elect to rescue drug candidates under license arrangements with pharmaceutical companies or other third parties, it is uncertain what ownership rights, if any, we will obtain over intellectual property we derive from such licenses to lead drug rescue variants we develop.
If, instead of identifying drug rescue candidates based on information available in the public domain, we elect to negotiate and obtain licenses from pharmaceutical companies to drug rescue candidates that these companies have discontinued in development because of heart or liver toxicity, there can be no assurances that we will obtain ownership rights over intellectual property we derive from our licenses to the drug rescue candidates or rights to drug rescue variants we develop as safe  and effective alternatives to original drug rescue candidates. If we are unable to obtain ownership rights over intellectual property related to drug rescue variants or economic rights relating to the successful development and commercialization of such drug rescue variants, our business will be adversely affected.

If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection or other commercial protection for AV-101 or our pluripotent stem cell technologies, the value of AV-101 and our stem cell technologies and product candidates will be harmed.
Commercial protectionproduction of AV-101 andDrug Rescue Variants or disrupt our proprietary pluripotent stem cell technologies is critically important to our business. Our success will depend in large part on our ability to obtain and enforce our patents and maintain trade secrets, both in the U.S. and in other countries.

Additional patents may not be granted, and our existing U.S. and foreign patents might not provide us with commercial benefit or might be infringed upon, invalidated or circumvented by others. In addition, the availability of patents in foreign markets, and the nature of any protection against competition that may be afforded by those patents, is often difficult to predict and vary significantly from country to country. We, our licensors, or our licensees may choose not to seek, or may be unable to obtain, patent protection in a country that could potentially be an important market for AV-101 and our stem cell technologies.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, including ours, are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and technical questions. In particular, legal principles for biotechnology patents in the U.S. and in other countries are evolving, and the extent to which we will be able to obtain patent coverage to protect our technology, or enforce issued patents, is uncertain.

For example, the European Patent Convention prohibits the granting of European patents for inventions that concern “uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes”. The European Patent Office is presently interpreting this prohibition broadly, and is applying it to reject patent claims that pertain to human embryonic stem cells. However, this broad interpretation is being challenged through the European Patent Office appeals system. As a result, we do not yet know whether or to what extent we will be able to obtain European patent protection for our proprietary ES Cell-based technology and systems.

Publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature tends to lag behind actual discoveries by at least several months and sometimes several years. Therefore, the persons or entities that we or our licensors name as inventors in our patents and patent applications may not have been the first to invent the inventions disclosed in the patent applications or patents, or the first to file patent applications for these inventions. As a result, we may not be able to obtain patents for discoveries that we otherwise would consider patentable and that we consider to be extremely significant to our future success.

Where several parties seek U.S. patent protection for the same technology, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“U.S. PTO”) may declare an interference proceeding in order to ascertain the party to which the patent should be issued. Patent interferences are typically complex, highly contested legal proceedings, subject to appeal. They are usually expensive and prolonged, and can cause significant delay in the issuance of patents. Moreover, parties that receive an adverse decision in interference can lose patent rights. Our pending patent applications, or our issued patents, may be drawn into interference proceedings, which may delay or prevent the issuance of patents or result in the loss of issued patent rights. If more groups become engaged in scientific research related to ES Cells, the number of patent filings by such groups and therefore the risk of our patents or applications being drawn into interference proceedings may increase. The interference process can also be used to challenge a patent that has been issued to another party.

Outside of the U.S., certain jurisdictions, such as Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, permit oppositions to be filed against the granting of patents. Because our intent is to commercialize our products internationally, securing both proprietary protection and freedom to operate outside of the U.S. is important to our business.

Patent opposition proceedings are not currently available in the U.S. patent system, but legislation is pending to introduce them. However, issued U.S. patents can be re-examined by the U.S. PTO at the request of a third party. Patents owned or licensed by us may therefore be subject to re-examination. As in any legal proceeding, the outcome of patent re-examinations is uncertain, and a decision adverse to our interests could result in the loss of valuable patent rights.

Successful challenges to our patents through interference, opposition or re-examination proceedings could result in a loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction(s). As more groups become engaged in scientific research and product development areas of hES Cells, the risk of our patents being challenged through patent interferences, oppositions, re-examinations or other means will likely increase. If we institute such proceedings against the patents of other parties and we are unsuccessful, we may be subject to litigation, or otherwise prevented from commercializing potential products in the relevant jurisdiction, or may be required to obtain licenses to those patents or develop or obtain alternative technologies, any of which could harm our business.

Furthermore, if such challenges to our patent rights are not resolved promptly in our favor, our existing business relationships may be jeopardized and we could be delayed or prevented from entering into new collaborations or from commercializing certain products, which could materially harm our business.

The confidentiality agreements that are designed to protect our trade secrets could be breached, and we might not have adequate remedies for the breach. Additionally, our trade secrets and proprietary know-how might otherwise become known or be independently discovered by others, all of which could materially harm our business.

We may have to engage in costly litigation to enforce or protect our proprietary technology, particularly our pluripotent stem cell technology and bioassay systems, or to defend challenges to our proprietary technology by our competitors, which may harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow.
Litigation may be necessary to protect our proprietary rights, especially our rights to our pluripotent stem cell technology and bioassay systems. Such litigation is expensive and would divert material resources and the time and attention of our management. We cannot be certain that we will have the required resources to pursue litigation or otherwise to protect our proprietary rights. In the event that we are unsuccessful in obtaining and enforcing patents, our business would be negatively impacted. Further, our patents may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and our patent rights may not provide proprietary protection or competitive advantages to us.

Patent litigation may also be necessary to enforce patents issued or licensed to us or to determine the scope and validity of our proprietary rights or the proprietary rights of others. We may not be successful in any patent litigation. An adverse outcome in a patent litigation, patent opposition, patent interference, or any other proceeding in a court or patent office could subject our business to significant liabilities to other parties, require disputed rights to be licensed from other parties or require us to cease using the disputed technology, any of which could severely harm our business.

We may be subject to litigation that will be costly to defend or pursue and uncertain in its outcome.
Our business may bring us into conflict with our licensees, licensors, or others with whom we have contractual or other business relationships, or with our competitors or others whose interests differ from ours. If we are unable to resolve such conflicts on terms that are satisfactory to all parties, we may become involved in litigation brought by or against us. Any such litigation is likely to be expensive and may require a significant amount of management’s time and attention, at the expense of other aspects of our business. The outcome of litigation is always uncertain, and in some cases could include judgments against us that require us to pay damages, enjoin us from certain activities, or otherwise affect our legal or contractual rights, which could have a significant adverse effect on our business.

Much of the information and know-how that is critical to our business is not patentable and we may not be able to prevent others from obtaining this information and establishing competitive enterprises.
We rely, in significant part, on trade secrets to protect our proprietary technologies, especially in circumstances that we believe patent protection is not appropriate or available. We attempt to protect our proprietary technologies in part by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, collaborators and contractors. We cannot assure you that these agreements will not be breached, that we would have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors, any of which would harm our business significantly.

We may be subject to infringement claims that are costly to defend, and which may limit our ability to use disputed technologies and prevents us from pursuing research and development or commercialization of potential products.
Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing patents and the proprietary rights of others. Our technologies may infringe on the patents or proprietary rights of others. In addition, we may become aware of discoveries and technology controlled by third parties that are advantageous to our programs. In the event our technologies infringe the rights of others or we require the use of discoveries and technologies controlled by third parties, we may be prevented from pursuing research, development or commercialization of potential products or may be required to obtain licenses to those patents or other proprietary rights or develop or obtain alternative technologies. We have obtained licenses from several universities and companies for technologies that we anticipate incorporating into our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubeTM platform, and are in negotiation for licenses to other technologies. We may not be able to obtain a license to patented technology on commercially favorable terms, or at all. If we do not obtain a necessary license, we may need to redesign our technologies or obtain rights to alternate technologies, the research and adoption of which could cause delays in product development. In cases where we are unable to license necessary technologies, we could be prevented from developing certain potential products. Our failure to obtain alternative technologies or a license to any technology that we may require to research, develop or commercialize our product candidates would significantly and negatively affect our business.administrative functions.

Risks Related to Development, Clinical TestingAlthough we have not historically experienced unique difficulties attracting and Regulatory Approval of Drug Candidates
We have limitedretaining qualified employees, we could experience as a corporation conducting clinical trials, orsuch problems in other areas requiredthe future. For example, competition for qualified personnel in the successful commercializationbiotechnology and marketing of drug candidates.
pharmaceuticals field is intense. We will need to receive regulatory approval for any product candidate before it may be marketed and distributed. Such approval will require, among other things, completing carefully controlled and well-designed clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of each product candidate. This process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. As a company,hire additional personnel as we have limited experience in conducting clinical trials. Such trials will require additional financial and management resources, collaborators with the requisite clinical experience or reliance on third party clinical investigators, contract research organizations and consultants. Relying on third parties may force us to encounter delays that are outside ofexpand our control, which could materially harm our business.

We also do not currently have marketing and distribution capabilities for product candidates. Developing an internal sales and distribution capability would be an expensive and time-consuming process. We may enter into agreements with collaborators or third parties that would be responsible for marketing and distribution. However, these collaborators or third parties may not be capable of successfully selling any of our product candidates.

Because we and our collaborators must complete lengthy and complex development and regulatory approval processes required to market drug products in the U.S. and other countries, we cannot predict whether or when we or our collaborators will be permitted to commercialize our drug or biologic candidates or drug or biologic  candidates to which we have commercial rights.
Federal, state and local governments in the U.S. and governments in other countries have significant regulations in place that govern many of our activities and may prevent us from creating commercially viable products derived from our drug rescue and cell therapy programs.

The regulatory process, particularly for drug and biologic candidates, is uncertain, can take many years and requires the expenditure of substantial resources. Any drug or biologic candidate that we or our collaborators develop must receive all relevant regulatory agency approvals before it may be marketed in the U.S. or other countries. Biological drugs and non-biological drugs are rigorously regulated. In particular, human pharmaceutical therapeutic product candidates are subject to rigorous preclinical and clinical testing and other requirements by the FDA in the U.S. and similar health authorities in other countries in order to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Because any drug and biologic candidates we develop are expected to involve the application of new technologies or are based upon new therapeutic approaches, they may be subject to substantial additional review by various government regulatory authorities, and, as a result, the process of obtaining regulatory approvals for them may proceed more slowly than for drug or biologic candidates based upon more conventional technologies. We may never obtain regulatory approval to market our drug or biologic candidates.

Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities is susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory agency approvals. In addition, delays or rejections may be encountered as a result of changes in regulatory agency policy during the period of product development and/or the period of review of any application for regulatory agency approval for a drug or biologic candidate. Delays in obtaining regulatory agency approvals could significantly harm the marketing of any product that we or our collaborators develop, impose costly procedures upon our activities or the activities of our collaborators, diminish any competitive advantages that we or our collaborators may attain, or adversely affect our ability to receive royalties and generate revenues and profits.

If we obtain regulatory agency approval for a new drug or biologic product, this approval may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which it can be marketed that could limit the potential commercial use of the product. Additionally, approved products and their manufacturers are subject to continual review, and discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or its manufacturer may result in restrictions on the product or manufacturer, including withdrawal of the product from the market. The sale by us or our collaborators of any commercially viable product will be subject to government regulation from several standpoints, including the processes of manufacturing, advertising and promoting, selling and marketing, labeling and distribution. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements can result in severe civil and criminal penalties, including but not limited to product recall or seizure, injunction against product manufacture, distribution, sales and marketing and criminal prosecution. The imposition of any of these penalties could significantly impair our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Entry into clinical trials with one or more drug or biologic candidates may not result in any commercially viable products.
We may never generate revenues from product sales because of a variety of risks inherent in our business, including the following risks:
clinical trials may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our drug rescue variants or stem cell therapies;
completion of clinical trials may be delayed, or costs of clinical trials may exceed anticipated amounts;
we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our drug rescue variants or biologics, or may experience delays in obtaining such approval;
we may not be able to manufacture our drug rescue variants economically on a commercial scale;
we and any licensees of ours may not be able to successfully market our drug rescue variants;
physicians may not prescribe our products, or patients or third party payors may not accept our drug rescue variants or stem cell therapies;
others may have proprietary rights which prevent us from marketing our drug rescue variants or stem cell therapies; and
competitors may sell similar, superior or lower-cost products.
To be successful, our drug rescue variants and stem cell therapies must be accepted by the healthcare community, which can be very slow to adopt or unreceptive to new technologies and products.
Our drug rescue variants and stem cell therapies, if approved for marketing, may not achieve market acceptance because hospitals, physicians, patients or the medical community in general may decide not to accept and utilize these products. The drug rescue variants and stem cell therapies that we are attempting to develop may represent substantial departures from established treatment methods and will compete with a number of conventional drugs and therapies manufactured and marketed by major pharmaceutical companies. The degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:
our establishment and demonstration to the medical community of the clinical efficacy and safety of our drug rescue variants and stem cell therapies;
our ability to create product candidates that are superior to alternatives currently on the market;
our ability to establish in the medical community the potential advantage of our treatments over alternative treatment methods; and
reimbursement policies of government and third-party payors.
If the healthcare community does not accept our developed drug rescue variants or stem cell therapies for any of the foregoing reasons, or for any other reason, our business would be materially harmed.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties
Our reliance on the activities of our non-employee advisors, consultants, research institutions and scientific contractors, whose activities are not wholly within our control, may lead to delays in development of our product candidates.
We rely upon and have relationships with scientific consultants at academic and other institutions, some of whom conduct research at our request, and other advisors, including former pharmaceutical company executives, contractors and consultants with expertise in drug discovery, drug development, medicinal chemistry, regulatory strategy, corporate development or other matters. These parties are not our employees and may have commitments to, or consulting or advisory contracts with, other entities that may limit their availability to us. We have limited control over the activities of our advisors, consultants and contractors and, except as otherwise required by our collaboration and consulting agreements, can expect only limited amounts of their time to be dedicated to our activities.

In addition, we have formed, and anticipate forming additional, sponsored research collaborations with academic and other research institutions throughout the world. We are highly dependent on these sponsored research collaborations for the development of our intellectual property. These research facilities may have commitments to other commercial and non-commercial entities. There can also be no assurances that any intellectual property will be created from our sponsored research collaborations and, even if it is created, that the intellectual property will have any value or application to our business. We have limited control over the operations of these laboratories and can expect only limited amounts of their time to be dedicated to our research goals.

If any third party with whom we have or enter into a relationship is unable or refuses to contribute to projects on which we need their help, our ability to advance our technologies and develop our product candidates could be significantly harmed.

Our drug rescue business model involves reliance on collaborations with other companies.
Our business model contemplates making arrangements with third parties:
to identify and access failed drug candidates to rescue and develop;
to license drug rescue variants that we develop; and
to perform stem cell research and development and supply services, such as medicinal chemistry, that is our key to our future success.

Our strategy is to develop our strategic “drug rescue ecosystem” by entering into arrangements with corporate and academic collaborators, licensors, licensees and others for the research, development and clinical testing. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to maintain our current collaborations or establish additional collaborations on favorable terms, if at all, or that our current or future collaborative arrangements will be successful.

Should any collaborator fail to develop or commercialize successfully any drug or biologic candidate to which it has rights, or any of the collaborator’s drug or biologic candidate to which we may have rights, our business may be adversely affected. In addition, while we believe that collaborators will have sufficient economic motivation to continue their funding, there can be no assurance that any of these collaborations will be continued or result in successfully commercialized product candidates. Failure of a collaborator to continue funding any particular program, or our inability to provide our collaborator with required funding, could delay or halt the development or commercialization of any technology or product candidates arising out of such programs. In addition, there can be no assurance that the collaborators will not pursue alternative technologies, change strategy, re-allocate resources, terminate our agreement, develop alternative product candidates either on their own or in collaboration with others, including our competitors.

If a conflict of interest arises between us and one or more of our collaborators, they may act in their own self-interest and not in our interest or in the interest of our shareholders. Some of our collaborators are conducting, and any of our future collaborators may conduct, multiple product candidate development efforts within the disease area that is the subject of collaboration with us.

Given these risks, our current and future collaborative efforts with third parties may not be successful. Failure of these efforts could require us to devote additional internal resources to the activities currently performed, or to be performed, by third parties, to seek alternative third-party collaborators, or to delay product candidate development or commercialization, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions or results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Operations
We depend on key scientific and management personnel and collaborators for the implementation of our business plan, the loss of whom would slow our ability to conduct research and develop and impair our ability to compete.
Our future success depends to a significant extent on the skills, experience and efforts of our executive officers and key employees on our scientific staff. Competition for personnel, especially scientific personnel, is intense and we may be unable to retain our current personnel, attract or assimilate other highly qualified management and scientific personnel in the future. The loss of any or all of these individuals would result in a significant loss in the knowledge and experience that we, as an organization, possess and could harm our business and might significantly delay or prevent the achievement of research, development or business objectives. Our management and key employees can terminate their employment with us at any time.

We also rely on consultants, advisors and strategic collaborators, especially our strategic collaboration with Dr. Gordon Keller, who assists us in formulating our stem cell research and development strategies. We face intense competition for qualified individuals from numerous pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic and other research institutions.activities. We may not be able to attract and retain these individualsquality personnel on acceptable terms. Failure to do so could materially harm our business.

Although the current term of our sponsored research collaboration agreement with UHN and our co-founder, Dr. Gordon Keller, does not expire until September 2017, there can be no assurances that we will be able to renew or extend the agreement beyond 2017 on mutually agreeable terms. Additionally, there can be no assurances that we will receive any invention notices or secure a license to any intellectual property resulting from such sponsored research.

We will need to hire additional highly specialized, skilled personnel to achieve our business plan. Our inability to hire qualified personnel in a timely manner will harm our business.

Our ability to execute on our business plan will largely depend on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals with specialized training in the field of stem cell research and drug candidate screening. Our future success depends on our ability to identify, hire and retain these highly skilled personnel during our early stages of development. Competition in our industry for qualified employees with the specialized training we require is intense. In addition, our compensation arrangements may not always be successful in attracting the new employees we require. Our ability to execute our drug rescue business model effectively depends on our ability to attract these new employees.

 
In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development strategy, including our drug rescue strategy. Our activities involve hazardous materials,consultants and improper handlingadvisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance our proposed CardioSafe 3D drug rescue programs, produce and develop Drug Rescue Variants, and develop and validate LiverSafe 3D, we will need to expand our research and development capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. Our future financial performance and our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our research and development efforts effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and technical personnel. The hiring, training and integration of new employees may be more difficult, costly and/or time-consuming for us because we have fewer resources than a larger organization. We may not be able to accomplish these materialstasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing the Company.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

If we produce and develop Drug Rescue Variants or regenerative medicine products, either on our own or in collaboration with others, we will face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the required clinical testing of such product candidates, and will face an even greater risk if we or our collaborators commercialize any such products. For example, we may be sued if any Drug Rescue Variant or regenerative medicine product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

·
decreased demand for our Drug Rescue Variants or other products that we may develop;
·
injury to our reputation;
·
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
·
costs to defend the related litigation;
·
a diversion of management's time and our resources;
·
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
·
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
·
loss of revenue;
·
the inability to commercialize our product candidates; and
·a decline in our stock price.
Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. Although we maintain liability insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our employeesinsurance or agentsthat is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

To the extent we enter into licensing or collaboration agreements to develop and commercialize our product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, our dependence on such relationships may adversely affect our business.

We may enter into strategic partnerships in the future, including collaborations with other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, to enhance and accelerate the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our strategy to produce, develop and commercialize our product candidates, including any Drug Rescue Variants, may depend on our ability to enter into such agreements with third-party collaborators. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners. Supporting diligence activities conducted by potential collaborators and negotiating the financial and other terms of a collaboration agreement are long and complex processes with uncertain results. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and/or third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Even if we are successful in entering into one or more strategic collaboration agreements with third-parties, such collaborations may involve greater uncertainty for us, as we may have less control over certain aspects of our collaborative programs than we do over our proprietary internal development and commercialization programs. We may determine that continuing a collaborative arrangement under the terms provided is not in our best interest, and we may terminate the collaboration. Our collaborators could also delay or terminate their agreements, and our products subject to collaborative arrangements may never be successfully commercialized.

Further, our future collaborators may develop alternative products or pursue alternative technologies either on their own or in collaboration with others, including our competitors, and the priorities or focus of our collaborators may shift such that our programs receive less attention or resources than we would like, or they may be terminated altogether. Any such actions by our collaborators may adversely affect our business prospects and ability to earn revenues. In addition, we could have disputes with our future collaborators, such as the interpretation of terms in our agreements. Any such disagreements could lead to delays in the development or commercialization of potential products or could result in time-consuming and expensive litigation or arbitration, which may not be resolved in our favor.

Even with respect to certain other products that we intend to commercialize ourselves, we may enter into agreements with collaborators to share in the burden of conducting preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing our product candidates or products. In addition, our ability to apply our proprietary technologies to develop proprietary compounds will depend on our ability to establish and maintain licensing arrangements or other collaborative arrangements with the holders of proprietary rights to such compounds. We may not be able to establish such arrangements on favorable terms or at all, and our future collaborative arrangements may not be successful.

We cannot provide any assurance that our future collaborations will not terminate development before achievement of revenue-generating milestones or market approval, that our future collaborative arrangements will result in successful development and commercialization of Drug Rescue Variants, or that we will derive any revenues from such future arrangements. The failure of any collaborator to conduct, successfully and diligently, their collaborative activities relating to the product candidate we license or sell to them would have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, to the extent that we are unable to license or sell our Drug Rescue Variants to pharmaceutical companies or others, we would require substantial additional capital to undertake development and commercialization activities for any such product candidate on our own, and that substantial additional capital may not be available to us on a timely basis, on reasonable terms, or at all.
Our and our collaborators’ relationships with customers and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to significant legalcriminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Our or our future collaborator’s arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial penalties.arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we or they obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

·the federal healthcare anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;
 
Our research
·the federal False Claims Act imposes criminal and civil penalties, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government and also includes provisions allowing for private, civil whistleblower or "qui tam" actions;
·
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program. HIPAA and HITECH also regulate the use and disclosure of identifiable health information by health care providers, health plans and health care clearinghouses, and impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of identifiable health information as well as requiring notification of regulatory breaches. HIPAA and HITECH violations may prompt civil and criminal enforcement actions as well as enforcement by state attorneys general;
·the federal false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;
·the federal transparency requirements under the Health Care Reform Law requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report to the Department of Health and Human Services information related to physician payments and other transfers of value and physician ownership and investment interests;
·analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures; and
·analogous anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and healthcare laws and regulations in foreign countries.
Efforts to ensure that our and development activitiesour future collaborators’ business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our or their business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our or their operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the controlled usecurtailment or restructuring of hazardous materials, chemicalsour operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we or our collaborators expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and various radioactive compounds. Assafety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a consequence, wematerial adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of bio-hazardoushazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

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

In addition, we may incur significantsubstantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations and may be adversely affected by the cost of complianceimpair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations.regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

AlthoughTo the extent our research and development activities involve using induced pluripotent stem cells, we believewill be subject to complex and evolving laws and regulations regarding privacy and informed consent. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and could result in claims, changes to our research and development programs and objectives, increased cost of operations or otherwise harm the Company.

To the extent that our safety procedureswe pursue research and development activities involving iPSCs, we will be subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States and abroad that involve matters central to such research and development activities, including obligations to seek informed consent from donors for using, handling, storingthe use of their blood and disposing of hazardous materials comply with the standards prescribed byother tissue to produce, or have produced for us, iPSCs, as well as state and federal regulations,laws that protect the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. In the eventprivacy of such an accident,donors. United States federal and state or federal authorities could curtail our useand foreign laws and regulations are constantly evolving and can be subject to significant change. If we engage in iPSC-related research and development activities in countries other than the United States, we may become subject to foreign laws and regulations relating to human subjects research and other laws and regulations that are often more restrictive than those in the United States. In addition, both the application and interpretation of these materialslaws and we could be liable for any civil damages that result, the cost of which could be substantial. Further, any failure by us to control the use, disposal, removal or storage, or to adequately restrict the discharge, or assistregulations are often uncertain, particularly in the cleanup, of hazardous chemicalsrapidly evolving stem cell technology sector in which we operate. These laws and regulations can be costly to comply with and can delay or hazardous, infectious or toxic substances couldimpede our research and development activities, result in negative publicity, increase our operating costs, require significant management time and attention and subject us to significant liabilities,claims or other remedies, including jointfines or demands that we modify or cease existing business practices.
Legal, social and several liability underethical concerns surrounding the use of iPSCs, biological materials and genetic information could impair our operations.

To the extent that our future research and development activities involve the use of iPSCs and the manipulation of human tissue and genetic information, the information we derive from such iPSC-related research and development activities could be used in a variety of applications, which may have underlying legal, social and ethical concerns, including the genetic engineering or modification of human cells, testing for genetic predisposition for certain statutes. Any such liabilitymedical conditions and stem cell banking. Governmental authorities could, exceedfor safety, social or other purposes, call for limits on or impose regulations on the use of iPSCs and genetic testing or the manufacture or use of certain biological materials involved in our resourcesiPSC-related research and development programs. Such concerns or governmental restrictions could limit our future research and development activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, an accident

Our human cell-based bioassay systems and human cells we derive from human pluripotent stem cells, although not currently subject to regulation by the FDA or other regulatory agencies as biological products or drugs, could damagebecome subject to regulation in the future.

Our human cells and human cell-based bioassay systems, including CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D, are not currently sold, for research or any other purpose, to biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, government research institutions, academic and nonprofit research institutions, medical research organizations or stem cell banks, and they are not therapeutic procedures. As a result, they are not subject to regulation as biological products or drugs by the FDA or comparable agencies in other countries. However, if, in the future, we seek to include cells we derive from human pluripotent stem cells in therapeutic applications or product candidates, such applications and/or product candidates would be subject to the FDA’s pre- and post-market regulations. For example, if we seek to develop and market human cells we produce for use in performing cell therapy or for other regenerative medicine applications, such as tissue engineering or organ replacement, we would first need to obtain FDA pre-market clearance or approval. Obtaining such clearance or approval from the FDA is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain, generally requiring many years to obtain, and requiring detailed and comprehensive scientific and clinical data. Notwithstanding the time and expense, these efforts may not result in FDA approval or clearance. Even if we were to obtain regulatory approval or clearance, it may not be for the uses that we believe are important or commercially attractive.

We intend to rely on third-party contract manufacturers to produce our researchproduct candidate supplies and we intend to rely on such third-party manufacturers to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidates we develop on our own. Any failure by a third-party manufacturer to produce for us supplies of product candidates we elect to develop on our own may delay or impair our ability to initiate or complete clinical trials, commercialize our product candidates, or continue to sell any products we commercialize.

We do not currently own or operate any manufacturing facilities, and operations.

Additional federal, statewe lack sufficient internal staff to produce product candidate supplies ourselves. As a result, we plan to work with third-party contract manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates for future preclinical and local lawsclinical testing and regulations affecting us may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costscommercialization. If we are unable to comply with these laws and regulations and substantial finesarrange for such a third-party manufacturing source, or penalties iffail to do so on commercially reasonable terms or on a timely basis, we violate any of these laws or regulations.

Weour potential strategic partner may not be able to successfully produce, develop, and market our product candidates or may be delayed in doing so.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we or our potential collaborators would not be subject if we or they manufactured product candidates ourselves or themselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control (including a failure to synthesize and manufacture our product candidates in accordance with our product specifications), the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us, or misappropriation of proprietary formulas or protocols. We will be, and our potential strategic partners may be, dependent, on the ability of these third-party manufacturers to produce adequate supplies of drug product to support development programs and future commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that all product candidates be manufactured according to cGMP and similar foreign standards. Any failure by our or our collaborators’ third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of product candidates in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for trial initiation or maintain sufficient insurancemarketing of any product candidates we may produce, including Drug Rescue Variants. In addition, such failure could be the basis for action by the FDA to withdraw approvals for product candidates previously granted and for other regulatory action, including recall or seizure, fines, imposition of operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production or injunctions.
We have limited staffing. We will, and our potential strategic partners may, rely on contract manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for required studies. There may be a small number of suppliers for certain capital equipment and materials that we or our collaborators use to manufacture our product candidates. Such suppliers may not sell these materials to our manufacturers at the times we or they need them or on commercially reasonable termsterms. We will not have any control over the process or with adequate coverage against potential liabilities in ordertiming of the acquisition of these materials by our manufacturers. Although we and our collaborators generally will not begin a required study unless we or they believe a sufficient supply of a product candidate exists to protect ourselves against product liability claims.
Our business exposes us to potential product liability risks that are inherentcomplete the study, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate or the material components thereof for an ongoing study due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of the studies, product testing manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products and testing technologies. We may become subjectpotential regulatory approval. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase these materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product liability claims ifcandidates, the usecommercial launch of our potential products is alleged to have injured subjects or patients. This risk exists for product candidates testedcould be delayed or there could be a shortage in human clinical trials as well as potential products that are sold commercially. supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates.

In addition, we or our potential strategic partner may need to optimize the manufacturing processes for a particular drug substance and/or drug product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, weso that certain product candidates may be produced in sufficient quantities of adequate quality, and at an acceptable cost, to support required development activities and commercialization. Contract manufacturers may not be able to obtainadequately demonstrate that an optimized product candidate is comparable to a previously manufactured product candidate which could cause significant delays and increased costs to our or maintainour collaborators’ development programs. Our manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our product liability insurancecandidates at a cost or in quantities or in a timely manner necessary to develop and commercialize them. If we successfully commercialize any of our drugs, we may be required to establish or access large-scale commercial manufacturing capabilities. In addition, assuming that our drug development pipeline increases and matures, we will have a greater need for clinical trial and commercial manufacturing capacity. To meet our projected needs for commercial manufacturing, third party manufactures with whom we work will need to increase their scale of production or we will need to secure alternate suppliers.

If, in the future, on acceptable termswe are unable to enter into licensing or with adequate coverage against potential liabilities that couldcollaboration agreements for the sales, marketing and distribution of our Drug Rescue Variants and other product candidates, such as AV-101, we may not be successful in commercializing our Drug Rescue Variants and other product candidates.

We currently have a material adverse effectrelatively small number of employees and do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure, and we, including our executive officers, do not have any significant sales, marketing or distribution experience. We will be opportunistic in seeking to collaborate with others to develop and commercialize Drug Rescue Variants and future products if and when they are developed and approved.  If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services for our products, the resulting revenues or the profitability from these revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we had sold, marketed and distributed our products ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell, market and distribute our business.products effectively.  If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Our business is subject to the risks of earthquakes, fire, floods and other natural catastrophic events, and to interruption by man-made problems such as computer viruses or terrorism.
 
Our corporate headquarters are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region known for seismic activity. A significant natural disaster, such as an earthquake, fire or a flood, could harm our business. In addition, our servers are vulnerable to computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering with our computer systems. In addition, acts of terrorism or war could cause disruptions in our business or the economy as a whole.

We may select and develop product candidates that fail.
We may select for development and expend considerable resources including time and money on product candidates that fail to complete trials, obtain regulatory approval or achieve sufficient sales, if any, to be profitable.
Additional Risks
Our principal institutional stockholders and our President and Chief Scientific Officer own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exercise significant influence.
Our co-founder, President and Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Ralph Snodgrass, and our principal institutional stockholders and their affiliates own a significant percentage of our outstanding capital stock. Accordingly, these stockholders may be able to determine the composition of a majority of our Board of Directors, retain the voting power to approve certain matters requiring stockholder approval, and continue to have significant influence over our affairs. This concentration of ownership could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in our control. See Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters,” for further information about the ownership of our capital stock by our executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders.

 
When we require future capital, we may not be able to secure additional funding in order to expand our operations and develop new products.
We expect to seek additional funds from public and private stock offerings, issuance of promissory notes or debentures, borrowings under lease lines of credit, or other sources. This additional financing may not be available on a timely basis on terms acceptable to us, or at all. Additional financing may be dilutive to stockholders or may require us to grant a lender a security interest in our assets. The amount of money we will need will depend on many factors, including:
    •           revenues generated, if any;
    •           development expenses incurred;
    •           the commercial success of our drug rescue and other research and development efforts; and
    •           the emergence of competing scientific and technological developments.
If adequate funds are not available, we may have to delay or reduce the scope of our drug rescue and development of our product candidates and technologies or license to third parties the rights to commercialize products or technologies that we would otherwise seek to commercialize ourselves. We may also have to reduce collaboration efforts, including sponsored research collaborations. Any of these results would materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The market price of our common stock has been volatile and may fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, some of which are beyond our control and may be unrelated to our performance.

We anticipate that the market price of our common stock, will fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, some of which are unpredictable, beyond our control and are unrelated to our performance, including specific factors such as the announcement of new products or product enhancements by us or our competitors, developments concerning intellectual property rights and regulatory approvals, quarterly variations in our and our competitors’ results of operations, changes in earnings estimates or recommendations by any securities analysts, developments in our industry, strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings, new laws or regulations or new interpretations of existing laws or regulations applicable to our business, the public’s reaction to our press releases, our other public announcements and our filings with the SEC, changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance, interpretations or principles, our inability to raise additional capital as needed, substantial sales of common stock underlying warrants or preferred stock, sales of common stock or other securities by us or our management team, and general market conditions and other factors, including factors unrelated to our own operating performance or the condition or prospects of the biotechnology industry.

Further, the stock market in general, and securities of micro-cap and small-cap companies in particular, frequently experience extreme price and volume fluctuations. Continued broad 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. You should also be aware that price volatility is likely to be worse if the trading volume of our common stock is low.

There may not ever be an active market for our common stock.
Although our common stock is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, our public float is very limited and trading of our common stock may be extremely sporadic. For example, several days may pass before any shares are traded. There can be no assurance that an active market for our common stock will develop. Accordingly, investors must bear the economic risk of an investment in our common stock for an indefinite period of time.

Because we became a public company by means of a strategic reverse merger, we may not be able to attract the attention of investors or major brokerage firms.
Because we became a public company by means of a strategic reverse merger transaction in May 2011 rather than through a traditional initial public offering involving an investment banking or brokerage firm, securities analysts or major brokerage firms may not provide coverage of us because there may be limited incentive to recommend the purchase of our common stock.

Because we became a public company as a result of a reverse merger with a public shell, unknown liabilities may adversely affect our financial condition.

We became a public company by means of a strategic reverse merger with a public shell. While management conducted extensive due diligence prior to consummating our strategic reverse merger, in the event the public shell contained undisclosed liabilities, and management was unable to address or otherwise offset such liabilities, such liabilities may materially, and adversely affect our financial condition.  As a result of the risks associated with unknown liabilities, potential investors may be unsure or unwilling to invest in the Company.

We will incur significant costs to ensure compliance with corporate governance, federal securities law and accounting requirements.

Since becoming a public company by means of a strategic reverse merger in 2011, we arehave been subject to the periodicreporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), which requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition, and the rules and regulations implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, each of which imposes additional reporting and other requirements of the federal securities laws, rules and regulations.obligations on public companies.  We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to comply with suchthese public company reporting requirements, including accounting and related auditingaudit costs, andlegal costs to comply with corporate governance requirements and other costs of operating as a public company. These legal and financial compliance costs will continue to require us to divert a significant amount of money that we could otherwise use to achieve our research and development and other strategic objectives.

The filing and internal control reporting requirements imposed by federal securities laws, rules and regulations are rigorous and we may not be able to continue to meet them, resulting in a possible decline in the price of our common stock and our inability to obtain future financing. Certain of these requirements may require us to carry out activities we have not done previously and complying with such requirements may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Any failure to comply or adequately comply with federal securities laws, rules or regulations could subject us to fines or regulatory actions, which may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We will continue to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, however this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be adversely affected.
Risks Related to Production, Development, and Regulatory Approval of Product Candidates
Even if we are able to begin clinical trails for a Drug Rescue Variant, we may encounter considerable delays and/or expend considerable resources without producing a marketable product capable of generating revenue.

We may never generate revenues from sales of a Drug Rescue Variant or any other product because of a variety of risks inherent in our business, including the following:
·
clinical trials may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any Drug Rescue Variant, other new drug candidate, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product candidate;
·
completion of nonclinical or clinical trials may be delayed, or costs of nonclinical or clinical trials may exceed anticipated amounts;
·
we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of any Drug Rescue Variant, other new drug candidate, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product candidate; or we may experience delays in obtaining any such approval;
·
we may not be able to manufacture, or have manufactured for us, Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates economically, timely and on a commercial scale;
·
we and any licensees of ours may not be able to successfully market Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates;
·
physicians may not prescribe our products, or patients or third party payors may not accept our Drug Rescue Variants, other drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates;
·
others may have proprietary rights which prevent us from marketing our Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates; and
·
competitors may sell similar, superior or lower-cost products.
In the event we are able to begin a clinical trial of a Drug Rescue Variant, our or our collaborator’s future clinical trials may be delayed or halted for many reasons, including:

·
delays or failure reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), contract research organizations (CROs), and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

·
failure of third-party contractors, such as CROs and CMOs, or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner;

·
delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or institutional review boards (IRBs) in order to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;

·
inability to manufacture, or obtain from third parties, a supply of drug product sufficient to complete preclinical studies and clinical trials;

·
the FDA requiring alterations to study designs, preclinical strategy or manufacturing plans;

·
delays in patient enrollment, and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials, or high drop-out rates of patients;

·
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocols or dropping out of a trial and/or the inability to add new clinical trial sites;

·
difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data;

·
poor effectiveness of our product candidates during clinical trials;

·
safety issues, including serious adverse events associated with our product candidates and patients' exposure to unacceptable health risks;

·
receipt by a competitor of marketing approval for a product targeting an indication that one of our product candidates targets, such that we are not "first to market" with our product candidate;

·
governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines; or

·
varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies.
We or our collaborator could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, our collaborator, the IRBs of the institutions in which a trial is being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for a trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, if we or our collaborators are able to complete a clinical trial of a product candidate, the results of such trial may not be adequate to support marketing approval. For any such trial, if the FDA disagrees with the choice of primary endpoint or the results for the primary endpoint are not robust or significant relative to control, are subject to confounding factors, or are not adequately supported by other study endpoints, including overall survival or complete response rate, the FDA may refuse to approve a Biologics License Application (BLA) or New Drug Application (NDA). The FDA may require additional clinical trials as a condition for approving our product candidates.

Clinical testing involves the administration of the new drug or biological candidate to healthy human volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator, usually a physician, pursuant to an FDA-reviewed protocol. Each clinical study is conducted under the auspices of an institutional review board (IRB) at each of the institutions at which the study will be conducted. A clinical plan, or “protocol,” accompanied by the approval of an IRB, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application prior to commencement of each clinical trial. Human clinical trials are conducted typically in three sequential phases. Phase I trials primarily consist of testing the product’s safety in a small number of patients or healthy volunteers. In Phase II trials, the safety and efficacy of the biological candidate is evaluated in a specific patient population. Phase III trials typically involve additional testing for safety and clinical efficacy in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed sites. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuance of a nonclinical or clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, particularly if safety concerns exist.

Our or our collaborator’s future clinical trials can be delayed or halted for many reasons, including:

·
delays or failure reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), contract research organizations (CROs), and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
·
failure of third-party contractors, such as CROs and CMOs, or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner;
·
delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or IRBs in order to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;
·
inability to manufacture, or obtain from third parties, a supply of drug product sufficient to complete preclinical studies and clinical trials;
·
the FDA requiring alterations to study designs, preclinical strategy or manufacturing plans;
·
delays in patient enrollment, and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials, or high drop-out rates of patients;
·
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocols or dropping out of a trial and/or the inability to add new clinical trial sites;
·
difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data;
·
poor effectiveness of our product candidates during clinical trials;
·
safety issues, including serious adverse events associated with our product candidates and patients' exposure to unacceptable health risks;
·
receipt by a competitor of marketing approval for a product targeting an indication that one of our product candidates targets, such that we are not "first to market" with our product candidate;
·
governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines; or
·varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies.
We or our collaborator could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, our collaborator, the IRBs of the institutions in which a trial is being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for a trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, if we or our collaborators are able to complete a clinical trial of a product candidate, the results of such trial may not be adequate to support marketing approval. For any such trial, if the FDA disagrees with the choice of primary endpoint or the results for the primary endpoint are not robust or significant relative to control, are subject to confounding factors, or are not adequately supported by other study endpoints, including overall survival or complete response rate, the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA or NDA. The FDA may require additional clinical trials as a condition for approving our product candidates.
If we or our collaborator experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenues from any of our product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs and slow our product candidate development and approval process. Delays in completing clinical trials could also allow our competitors to obtain marketing approval before we do or shorten the patent protection period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.
Results of earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials.

The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to adverse safety profiles or lack of efficacy, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Similarly, our future clinical trial results may not be successful for these or other reasons.

This drug candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in planned clinical trials compared to completed clinical trials. As product candidates are developed through preclinical to early and late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing and methods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for later stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes do carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives.
For example, the results of planned clinical trials may be adversely affected if we or our collaborator seek to optimize and scale-up production of a product candidate. In such case, we will need to demonstrate comparability between the newly manufactured drug substance and/or drug product relative to the previously manufactured drug substance and/or drug product. Demonstrating comparability may cause us to incur additional costs or delay initiation or completion of our clinical trials, including the need to initiate a dose escalation study and, if unsuccessful, could require us to complete additional preclinical or clinical studies of our product candidates.

If we or our potential strategic partners experience delays in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials involving our product candidates, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We or our potential strategic partners may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we or they are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians' and patients' perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we or our collaborators may be investigating. If we or they fail to enroll and maintain the number of patients for which the clinical trial was designed, the statistical power of that clinical trial may be reduced, which would make it harder to demonstrate that the product candidate being tested is safe and effective. Additionally, enrollment delays in clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our common stock to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our current or future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials, and, therefore, product candidates, altogether.
Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates, we and/or our potential strategic partners will be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

Any regulatory approvals that we or our potential strategic partners receive for our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, all of which could adversely affect the product’s commercial potential and our revenues. In addition, if the FDA approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, testing, packaging, labeling, storage, distribution, field alert or biological product deviation reporting, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, as well as continued compliance with cGMP for commercial manufacturing and good clinical practices, or GCP, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

·
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;
·
warning letters or holds on clinical trials;
·
refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or our strategic partners, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;
·
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; and
·injunctions, fines or the imposition of other civil or criminal penalties.
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have incurred significant net losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the Sarbanes-Oxley Actforeseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability, which would depress the market price of our common stock, and SEC rules concerning internal controlscould cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We have incurred significant net losses in each fiscal year since our inception, including net losses of $3.0 million and $12.9 million during the fiscal years ending March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  As of March 31, 2014, we had an accumulated deficit of $70.6 million. We do not know whether or when we will become profitable. To date, although we have generated approximately $16.4 million in revenues, we have not commercialized any products or generated any revenues from product sales. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in our research and development programs and from general and administrative expenses. We anticipate that our operating losses will substantially increase over the next several years as we execute our plan to expand our drug rescue, stem cell technology research and development, drug development and potential commercialization activities. Additionally, we expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the event we achieve our goal of obtaining a listing on a national securities exchange. The net losses we incur may be time consuming, difficultfluctuate from quarter to quarter.
If we do not successfully develop, license, sell or obtain regulatory approval for our future product candidates and costly.effectively manufacture, market and sell, or collaborate to accomplish such activities, any product candidates that are approved, we may never generate revenues from product sales, and even if we do generate product sales revenues, we may never achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the market price of our common stock also could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

Since our inception, most of our resources have been dedicated to research and development of the drug rescue capabilities of our human pluripotent stem cell technology. In particular, we have expended substantial resources developing CardioSafe3D and LiverSafe3D, and we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future developing LiverSafe3D and CardioSafe3DDrug Rescue Variants. These expenditures will include costs associated with general and administrative costs, facilities costs, research and development, acquiring new technologies, manufacturing product candidates, conducting preclinical experiments and clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approvals, as well as commercializing any products approved for sale. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.
We have no current source of revenue to sustain our present activities, and we do not expect to generate revenue until, and unless, we out-license a Drug Rescue Variant and/or AV-101 to a third party, obtain approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities and successfully commercialize, on our own or through a future collaboration, one or more of our compounds. As the outcome of our proposed drug rescue and AV-101 development activities and future anticipated clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates, on our own or in collaboration with others. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. As a result of these and other factors, we will need to seek additional capital in the near term to meet our future operating requirements, and may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.
 
Our management team has limited experience as officersfuture capital requirements depend on many factors, including:
·
the number and characteristics of the product candidates we pursue, including Drug Rescue Candidates;
·
the scope, progress, results and costs of researching and developing our product candidates, and conducting preclinical and clinical studies;
·
the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates;
·
the cost of commercialization activities if any of our product candidates are approved for sale, including marketing, sales and distribution costs;
·
the cost of manufacturing our product candidates and any products we successfully commercialize;
·
our ability to establish and maintain strategic partnerships, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of such agreements;
·
market acceptance of our products;
·
the effect of competing technological and market developments;
·
our ability to obtain government funding for our programs;
·
the costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent claims necessary to preserve our freedom to operate in the stem cell industry, including litigation costs associated with any claims that we infringe third-party patents or violate other intellectual property rights and the outcome of such litigation;
·
the timing, receipt and amount of potential future licensee fees, milestone payments, and sales of, or royalties on, our future products, if any; and
·the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products and technologies, although we currently have no commitments or agreements relating to any of these types of transactions.
Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a publicly-traded company, and prior to May 2011,timely basis, we did not operate as a publicly-traded company. It may be time consuming, difficultrequired to delay, limit, reduce or terminate drug rescue programs, preclinical studies, clinical trials or other research and costlydevelopment activities for one or more of our product candidates, or cease or reduce our operating activities and/or sell or license to third parties some or all of our intellectual property, any of which could harm our operating results.
Raising additional capital will cause dilution to our existing stockholders, and may restrict our operations or require us to implementrelinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.
We will need to seek additional capital through a combination of private and maintainpublic equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the internal controlsextent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of existing stockholders will be diluted, and reporting procedures required by Sarbanes-Oxley.the terms of the new capital may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect existing stockholder rights. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to complyraise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Some of our programs have been partially supported by government grants, which may not be available to us in the future.
Since inception, we have received substantial funds under grant award programs funded by state and federal governmental agencies, such as the NIH, the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. To fund a portion of our future research and development programs, we may apply for additional grant funding from such or similar governmental organizations.  However, funding by these governmental organizations may be significantly reduced or eliminated in the future for a number of reasons. For example, some programs are subject to a yearly appropriations process in Congress. In addition, we may not receive funds under future grants because of budgeting constraints of the agency administering the program. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we will receive any future grant funding from any government organization or otherwise.  A restriction on the government funding available to us could reduce the resources that we would be able to devote to future research and development efforts. Such a reduction could delay the introduction of new products and hurt our competitive position.
Our independent auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
Our consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2014 included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared assuming we will continue to operate as a going concern. However, due to our ongoing operating losses and our accumulated deficit, there is doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Because we continue to experience net operating losses, our ability to continue as a going concern is subject to our ability to generate a profit and/or obtain necessary funding from outside sources, including obtaining additional funding from the sale of our securities or obtaining loans and grants from financial institutions and/or government agencies where possible. Our continued net operating losses increase the difficulty in completing such sales or securing alternative sources of funding, and there can be no assurances that we will be able to obtain such funding on favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient financing from the sale of its securities or from alternative sources, it may be required to reduce, defer, or discontinue certain of its research and development activities or it may not be able to continue as a going concern.
Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future taxable income is subject to certain limitations.

If we do not generate sufficient taxable income we may not be able to use a material portion, or any portion, of our existing net operating losses (NOLs). Furthermore, our existing NOLs may be subject to limitations under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which in general provides that a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is limited in its ability to utilize its pre- change NOLs to offset future taxable income. Our existing NOLs are subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, and if we undergo an ownership change, in connection with Sarbanes-Oxley’s internal controlsa future equity-based financing, series of equity-based financings or otherwise, our ability to utilize NOLs could be further limited by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Future changes in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property
We utilize certain technologies that are licensed to us, including key aspects of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform.  If the licensors terminate the licenses or fail to maintain or enforce the underlying patents, our competitive position and disclosure requirements,market share will be harmed, and our business could be adversely affected.
We currently use certain licensed technologies to produce cells that are material to our research and development programs, including our drug rescue programs, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our rights to use such licensed technologies are subject to the negotiation of, continuation of and compliance with the terms of the applicable licenses, including payment of any royalties and diligence, insurance, indemnification and other obligations. If a licensor believes that we have failed to meet our obligations under a license agreement for non-payment of license fees, non-reimbursement of patent expenses, or otherwise, the licensor could seek to limit or terminate our license rights, which could lead to costly and time-consuming litigation and, potentially, a loss of the licensed rights. During the period of any such litigation, our ability to carry out the development and commercialization of potential products could be significantly and negatively affected.
Our license rights are further subject to the validity of the owner’s intellectual property rights. As such, we are dependent on our licensors to defend the viability of these patents and patent applications. We cannot be certain that drafting and/or prosecution of the licensed patents and patent applications by the licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. Legal action could be initiated by or against the owners of the intellectual property that we license. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent these other companies or institutions from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business. In some cases, we do not control the prosecution, maintenance or filing of the patents to which we hold licenses, or the enforcement of these patents against third parties.
Certain of our license agreements are subject to termination by the licensor in specific circumstances, including non-payment of license fees, royalties and patent-related expenses. Any such termination of these licenses could prevent us from producing cells for our research and development programs and future commercial activities, including selling or marketing products. Because of the complexity of our human pluripotent stem cell technology and the patents we have licensed, determining the scope of the license and related royalty obligation can be difficult and can lead to disputes between us and the licensor. An unfavorable resolution of such a dispute could lead to an increase in the royalties payable pursuant to the license. If a licensor believed we were not paying the royalties or other amounts due under the license or were otherwise not in compliance with the terms of the license, the licensor might attempt to revoke the license. If our license rights were restricted or ultimately lost, our ability to continue our business based on the affected technology would be severely adversely affected.
We may engage in discussions regarding possible commercial, licensing and cross-licensing agreements with third parties from time to time. There can be no assurance that these discussions will lead to the execution of commercial license or cross-license agreements or that such agreements will be on terms that are favorable to us. If these discussions are successful, we could be obligated to pay license fees and royalties to such third parties. If these discussions do not lead to the execution of mutually acceptable agreements, we may be limited or prevented from producing and selling our existing products and developing new products. One or more of the parties involved in such discussions could resort to litigation to protect or enforce its patents and proprietary rights or to determine the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others. In addition, if we enter into cross-licensing agreements, there is no assurance that we will be able to effectively compete against others who are licensed under our patents.

If we seek to leverage prior discovery and development of Drug Rescue Candidates under in-license arrangements with academic laboratories, biotechnology companies, the NIH, pharmaceutical companies or other third parties, it is uncertain what ownership rights, if any, we will obtain over intellectual property we derive from such licenses to Drug Rescue Variants we may generate or develop in connection with any such third-party licenses.
If, instead of identifying Drug Rescue Candidates based on information available to us in the public domain, we seek to in-license Drug Rescue Candidates from biotechnology, medicinal chemistry and pharmaceutical companies, academic, governmental and nonprofit research institutions, including the NIH, or other third-parties, there can be no assurances that we will obtain material ownership or economic participation rights over intellectual property we may derive from such licenses or similar rights to the Drug Rescue Variants we may generate and develop. If we are unable to obtain ownership or substantial economic participation rights over intellectual property related to Drug Rescue Variants we generate, our business may be adversely affected.
Our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology through patents and other means is uncertain, and we could be unsuccessful in obtaining adequate patent protection for one or more of our product candidates.
Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technologies. We rely on patents, where appropriate and available, as well as a combination of copyright, trade secret and trademark laws, license agreements and nondisclosure, confidentiality and other contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technology. However, these legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. Pending patent applications of ours or our licensors may not issue as patents or may not issue in a form that will be sufficient to protect our proprietary technology and gain or maintain our competitive advantage. Any patents we have obtained or may obtain in the future, or the rights we have licensed, may be subject to re-examination, reissue, opposition or other administrative proceeding, or may be challenged in litigation, and such challenges could result in a determination that the patent is invalid or unenforceable. In addition, competitors may be able to design alternative methods or products that avoid infringement of these patents or technologies. To the extent our intellectual property, including licensed intellectual property, offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we are exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate protection against our competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Both the patent application process and the process of managing patent disputes can be time consuming and expensive.
The patent positions of companies in the life sciences industry can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. A number of life sciences, biopharmaceutical and other companies, universities and research institutions have filed patent applications or have been issued patents relating to stem cells, use of stem cells and other modified cells to treat disease, disorder or injury, and other technologies potentially relevant to or required by our existing and planned products. We cannot be certain that patents we have filed or may file in the future will be issued or granted, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid and/or unenforceable. The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (US PTO) and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending or future patent applications. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on certain of our proprietary products and technology.
Our patents and patent applications may not be sufficient to protect our products, product candidates and technologies from commercial competition. Our inability to obtain adequate patent protection for our product candidates or platform technology could adversely affect our business. 
Publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature tends to lag behind actual discoveries by at least several months and sometimes several years. Therefore, the persons or entities that we or our licensors name as inventors in our patents and patent applications may not have been the first to invent the inventions disclosed in the patent applications or patents, or the first to file patent applications for these inventions. As a result, we may not be able to obtain the independent registered public accounting firm attestations that Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires certain publicly-traded companies to obtain. If it is determinedpatents for discoveries that we otherwise would consider patentable and that we consider to be extremely significant to our future success.
Where several parties seek U.S. patent protection for the same technology, the US PTO may declare an interference proceeding in order to ascertain the party to which the patent should be issued. Patent interferences are typically complex, highly contested legal proceedings, subject to appeal. They are usually expensive and prolonged, and can cause significant delay in the issuance of patents. Moreover, parties that receive an adverse decision in interference can lose patent rights. Our pending patent applications, or our issued patents, may be drawn into interference proceedings, which may delay or prevent the issuance of patents or result in the loss of issued patent rights. If more groups become engaged in scientific research related to hESCs, the number of patent filings by such groups and therefore the risk of our patents or applications being drawn into interference proceedings may increase. The interference process can also be used to challenge a patent that has been issued to another party.

Outside of the U.S., certain jurisdictions, such as Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, permit oppositions to be filed against the granting of patents. Because we may seek to develop and commercialize our product candidates internationally, securing both proprietary protection and freedom to operate outside of the U.S. is important to our business. In addition, the European Patent Convention prohibits the granting of European patents for inventions that concern “uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes”. The European Patent Office is presently interpreting this prohibition broadly, and is applying it to reject patent claims that pertain to hESCs. However, this broad interpretation is being challenged through the European Patent Office appeals system. As a result, we do not yet know whether or to what extent we will be able to obtain European patent protection for our proprietary hESC-based technology and systems.

Patent opposition proceedings are not currently available in the U.S. patent system, but legislation is pending to introduce them. However, issued U.S. patents can be re-examined by the US PTO at the request of a third party. Patents owned or licensed by us may therefore be subject to re-examination. As in any legal proceeding, the outcome of patent re-examinations is uncertain, and a decision adverse to our interests could result in the loss of valuable patent rights.

Successful challenges to our patents through interference, opposition or re-examination proceedings could result in a loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction(s). As more groups become engaged in scientific research and product development areas of hESCs, the risk of our patents being challenged through patent interferences, oppositions, re-examinations or other means will likely increase. If we institute such proceedings against the patents of other parties and we are unsuccessful, we may be subject to litigation, or otherwise prevented from commercializing potential products in the relevant jurisdiction, or may be required to obtain licenses to those patents or develop or obtain alternative technologies, any of which could harm our business.
Furthermore, if such challenges to our patent rights are not resolved promptly in our favor, our existing business relationships may be jeopardized and we could be delayed or prevented from entering into new collaborations or from commercializing certain products, which could materially harm our business.

Issued patents covering one or more of our product candidates or technologies could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates or technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the US PTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the patent validity, we cannot be certain, for example, that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products or certain aspects of our platform technology, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material weaknessadverse impact on our business.
Claims that any of our product candidates, including our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, or, if commercialized, the sale or use of our internal control over financial reporting, weproducts infringe the patent rights of third parties could incur additional costsresult in costly litigation or could require substantial time and suffer adverse publicity and other consequences of any such determination.money to resolve, even if litigation is avoided.

We cannot assure youguarantee that our product candidates, the use of our product candidates, or our platform technology, do not or will not infringe third party patents. Third parties might allege that we are infringing their patent rights or that we have misappropriated their trade secrets. Such third parties might resort to litigation against us. The basis of such litigation could be existing patents or patents that issue in the future. Our failure to successfully defend against any claims that our product candidates or platform technology infringe the rights of third parties could also adversely affect our business. Failure to obtain any required licenses could restrict our ability to commercialize our products in certain territories or subject us to patent infringement litigation, which could result in us having to cease commercialization of our products and subject us to money damages in such territories.

It is also possible that we may fail to identify relevant patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies, our products or the use of our products.

To avoid or settle potential claims with respect to any patent rights of third parties, we may choose or be required to seek a license from a third party and be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or any future strategic partners were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing one or more of our products, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This could harm our business significantly.

Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other business.
Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation, and could result in unfavorable outcomes that could limit our research and development activities and/or our ability to commercialize certain products.

During the course of any patent litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our products, programs, or intellectual property could be diminished. Moreover, if third parties successfully assert intellectual property rights against us, we might be barred from using certain aspects of our platform technology, or barred from developing and commercializing certain products. Prohibitions against using certain technologies, or prohibitions against commercializing certain products, could be imposed by a court or by a settlement agreement between us and a plaintiff. In addition, if we are unsuccessful in defending against allegations of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets, we may be forced to pay substantial damage awards to the plaintiff. There is inevitable uncertainty in any litigation, including intellectual property litigation. There can be no assurance that we would prevail in any intellectual property litigation, even if the case against us is weak or flawed. If litigation leads to an outcome unfavorable to us, we may be required to obtain a license from the patent owner to continue our research and development programs or to market our product(s). It is possible that the necessary license will not be available to us on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. This could limit our research and development activities, our ability to commercialize certain products, or both.
Most of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation longer than we could. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our internal research programs, conduct clinical trials, continue to in-license needed technology, or enter into strategic partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.
In addition, any future patent litigation, interference or other administrative proceedings will result in additional expense and distraction of our personnel. An adverse outcome in such litigation or proceedings may expose us or any future strategic partners to loss of our proprietary position, expose us to significant liabilities, or require us to seek licenses that may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.
Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets, technical know-how, and proprietary information concerning our business strategy in order to protect our competitive position in the field of stem cell research and product candidate development. In the course of our research and development activities and other business activities, we often rely on confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary information. Such confidentiality agreements are used, for example, when we talk to vendors of laboratory or clinical development services or potential strategic partners. In addition, each of our employees is required to sign a confidentiality agreement upon joining the Company. We take steps to protect our proprietary information, and our confidentiality agreements are carefully drafted to protect our proprietary interests. Nevertheless, there can be no guarantee that an employee or an outside party will not make an unauthorized disclosure of our proprietary confidential information. This might happen intentionally or inadvertently. It is possible that a competitor will make use of such information, and that our competitive position will be compromised, in spite of any legal action we might take against persons making such unauthorized disclosures.

Trade secrets are difficult to protect. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific collaborators might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States sometimes are less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.
Our research and development strategic partners may have rights to publish data and other information to which we have rights. In addition, we sometimes engage individuals or entities to conduct research relevant to our business. The ability of these individuals or entities to publish or otherwise publicly disclose data and other information generated during the course of their research is subject to certain contractual limitations. These contractual provisions may be insufficient or inadequate to protect our confidential information. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication, or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

·Others may be able to make compounds that are the same as or similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we may own or have exclusively licensed;
·We or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we may own or have exclusively licensed;
·We or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;
·Others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
·It is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;
·Issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;
·Our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;
·We may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; and
·The patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.
Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other development stage biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries involve both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, Congress has passed patent reform legislation which provides new limitations on attaining, maintaining and enforcing intellectual property. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the US PTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.
If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection or other commercial protection for AV-101, the value of AV-101 will be harmed.
Commercial protection of AV-101, our small molecule drug candidate for neuropathic pain and other neurological conditions is important to our business. Our success related to AV-101 will depend in part on our or a potential collaborator’s ability to obtain and enforce potential patents and maintain our trade secrets and secure New Drug Product Exclusivity provided by the FDA under section 505(c)(3)(E) and 505(j)(5)(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Additional patents may not be granted, and potential U.S. patents, if issued, might not provide us with commercial benefit or might be infringed upon, invalidated or circumvented by others. The principle U.S. method of use patent and its foreign counterparts for AV-101 have expired.  Although we have recently filed three new U.S. patent applications relating to AV-101, we or others with whom we may collaborate for the development and commercialization of AV-101 may choose not to seek, or may be unable to obtain, patent protection in a country that could potentially be an important market for AV-101.
We may become subject to damages resulting from claims that we or our future employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our employees’ former employers.

Our ability to execute on our business plan will depend on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals with specialized training in the field of stem cell research and bioassay development, as well as medicinal chemistry and in vitro drug candidate screening and nonclinical and clinical development. Our future success depends on our ability to identify, hire and retain these highly skilled personnel during our development stage. We may hire additional highly skilled scientific and technical employees, including employees who may have been previously employed at biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, and who may have executed invention assignments, nondisclosure agreements and/or non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. As to such future employees, we may become subject to claims that we, or these future employees, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize certain potential products, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
Risks Related to our Common Stock
There is no assurance that an active, liquid and orderly trading market will develop for our common stock or what the market price of our common stock will be liquid or thatand, as a result, it may be difficult for you to sell your shares of our common stock.

Since we became a publicly-traded company in May 2011, there has been a limited public market for shares of our common stock will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq Stock Market, or other similar exchanges.
OTCQB Marketplaces (OTCQB). We do not yet meet the initial listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq StockNASDAQ Capital Market, or other similar national securities exchanges. Until our common stock is listed on ana broader exchange, we anticipate that it will remain quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board,OTCQB, another over-the-counter quotation system, or in the “pink sheets.” In those venues, however, investors may find it difficult to obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock. In addition, if we failedfail to meet the criteria set forth in SEC regulations, various requirements would be imposed by law on broker-dealers who sell our securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors. Consequently, such regulations may deter broker-dealers from recommending or selling our common stock, which may further affect their liquidity. This wouldcould also make it more difficult to raise additional capital.
We cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in our company will lead to the development of a more active trading market on the OTCQB, whether we will meet the initial listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Capital Market, or other similar national securities exchanges, or how liquid that market might become. If an active trading market does not develop, you may have difficulty selling any of the shares of our common stock that you buy. In addition, the trading price of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

·
actual or anticipated quarterly variation in our results of operations or the results of our competitors;
·
announcements by us or our competitors of new commercial products, significant contracts, commercial relationships or capital commitments;
·
financial projections we may provide to the public, any changes to those projections, or our failure to meet those projections;
·
issuance of new or changed securities analysts’ reports or recommendations for our stock;
·
developments or disputes concerning our intellectual property or other proprietary rights;
·
commencement of, or our involvement in, litigation;
·
market conditions in the biopharmaceutical and life sciences sectors;
·
failure to complete significant sales;
·
changes in legislation and government regulation;
·
public concern regarding the safety, efficacy or other aspects of our products;
·
entering into, changing or terminating collaborative relationships;
·
any shares of our common stock or other securities eligible for future sale;
·
any major change to the composition of our board of directors or management; and
·general economic conditions and slow or negative growth of our markets.
The stock market in general, and biotechnology-based companies like ours in particular, has from time to time experienced volatility in the market prices for securities that often has been unrelated to the operating performance of the underlying companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In certain recent situations in which the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against such company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit against us, the defense and disposition of the lawsuit could be costly and divert the time and attention of our management and harm our operating results. Additionally, if the trading volume of our common stock remains low and limited there will be an increased level of volatility and you may not be able to generate a return on your investment.
A significant portion of our total outstanding shares are restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into the market in the near future. Future sales of shares by existing stockholders could cause our stock price to decline, even if our business is doing well.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Prior to this date of this report, there has been a limited public market for shares of our common stock on the OTCQB. Future sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, including shares issued upon the exchange of our Series A Preferred Stock, conversion of convertible promissory notes and exercise of outstanding options and warrants for common stock, in the public market, or the possibility of these sales occurring, could cause the prevailing market price for our common stock to fall or impair our ability to raise equity capital in the future.
Our principal institutional stockholders may continue to have substantial control over us and could limit your ability to influence the outcome of key transactions, including changes in control.

Certain of our current institutional stockholders and their respective affiliates beneficially own approximately 46% of our outstanding capital stock, as beneficial ownership is defined by SEC rules and regulations. Accordingly, these stockholders may continue to have substantial influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any other significant corporate transactions. These stockholders may also delay or prevent a change of control of us, even if such a change of control would benefit our other stockholders. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors’ perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise. For information regarding the ownership of our outstanding stock by such stockholders, refer to Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

The trading market for our common stock may depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us and our business. Securities and industry analysts do not currently, and may never, publish research on our company. If no or too few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of our company, the trading price for our stock would likely be negatively impacted. In the event securities or industry analysts initiate coverage, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. In the event we obtain analyst coverage, we will not have any control of the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. If one or more equity research analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

There may be additional issuances of shares of preferred stock in the future.
 
Following approval by our stockholders in October 2011, our Articles of Incorporation now permit us to issue up to 10.0 million shares of preferred stock and our Board has authorized the issuance of up to 500,000 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred, Stock,all of which 437,055 shares are outstanding at March 31, 2012.currently issued and outstanding.  Our Boardboard of Directorsdirectors could authorize the issuance of additional series of preferred stock in the future and such preferred stock could grant holders preferred rights to our assets upon liquidation, the right to receive dividends before dividends would be declared to holders of our common stock, and the right to the redemption of such shares, possibly together with a premium, prior to the redemption of the common stock. In the event and to the extent that we do issue additional preferred stock in the future, the rights of holders of our common stock could be impaired thereby, including without limitation, with respect to liquidation.

Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Our management is currently required to assess the effectiveness of our controls and we are required to disclose changes made in our internal control over financial reporting on a quarterly basis.  As a “smaller reporting company,” however, our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  If we cannot continue to favorably assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide an unqualified attestation report on our internal controls whenever required in the future, investors could lose confidence in our financial information and the price of our common stock could decline.  Additionally, should we cease to be a “smaller reporting company,” we will incur additional expense and management effort to facilitate the required attestation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting by our independent registered public accounting firm.
Our common stock may be considered a “penny stock.”
 
Since we became a publicly-traded corporationcompany in May 2011, our common stock has traded on the OTC Bulletin BoardOTCQB at a price of less than $5.00 per share. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)SEC has adopted regulations which generally define a “penny stock” as an equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to specific exemptions. To the extent that the market price of our common stock is less than $5.00 per share and, therefore, may be considered a “penny stock,” brokers and dealers effecting transactions in our common stock must disclose certain information concerning the transaction, obtain a written agreement from the purchaser and determine that the purchaser is reasonably suitable to purchase the securities. These rules may restrict the ability of brokers or dealers to sell our common stock and may affect your ability to sell shares of our common stock. In addition, as long as our common stock remains listedquoted only on the OTC Bulletin Board,OTCQB, investors may find it difficult to obtain accurate quotations of the stock, and may find few buyers to purchase such stock and few market makers to support its price.


We do not intend to pay cashhave never paid dividends on our commoncapital stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
 
We have never declared or paid anyno cash dividends on any of our sharesclasses of capital stock to date and currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock and we do not currently anticipate paying any such dividends inwill be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. Any payment of cash dividends will depend upon our financial condition, contractual restrictions, financing agreement covenants, solvency tests imposed by corporate law, results of operations, anticipated cash requirements and other factors and will be at the discretion of our Boardboard of Directors.directors. Furthermore, we may incur indebtedness that may severely restrict or prohibit the payment of dividends.

We may be at risk of securities class action litigation that could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources.
In the past, securities class action litigation has been brought against a company following periods of volatility in the market place of its securities, particularly following the company’s initial public offering. Due to the potential volatility of our stock price, we may be the target of securities litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources.

Item 1B1B..  Unresolved Staff Comments

The disclosures in this section are not required since we qualify as a smaller reporting company.

Item 2.  Properties

Our headquartersprincipal executive offices and laboratories are located at 384 Oyster Point Boulevard, No. 8,343 Allerton Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080-1967,94080, where we occupy approximately 6,90010,900 square feet of office and lab space under a lease expiring on June 30, 2013.July 31, 2017. We believe that our current facilities are suitable and adequate for our current and foreseeable needs.

ItemItem 3.  Legal ProceedingsProceeding

From time to time, we may become involved in claims and other legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business. We are not presently involved in any legal proceedingsproceeding nor do we know of any legal proceedingsproceeding which areis threatened or contemplated.

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.
 
 
PPART ART II

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

Market Information

On June 21, 2011 our common stock began trading on the OTC Bulletin BoardMarketplace (OTCQB), under the symbol “VSTA.”“VSTA”.  There was no established trading market for our common stock prior to that date.  On May 23, 2011 our directors approved a 2-for-1 forward stock split. The stock split became effective on the OTC Bulletin Board on June 21, 2011.

Shown below is the range of high and low closingsales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated as reported by the OTC Bulletin Board.OTCQB.  The market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commissions and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.
  High  Low 
Year Ending March 31, 2012      
First quarter ending June 30, 2011 (from June 21, 2011) $2.60  $2.45 
Second quarter ending September 30, 2011 $2.60  $1.80 
Third quarter ending December 31, 2011 $3.10  $2.57 
Fourth quarter ending March 31, 2012 $3.15  $2.55 
  High  Low 
Year Ending March 31, 2014      
First quarter ending June 30, 2013 $0.90  $0.60 
Second quarter ending September 30, 2013 $0.89  $0.55 
Third quarter ending December 31, 2013 $0.61  $0.26 
Fourth quarter ending March 31, 2014 $0.50  $0.28 
         
Year Ending March 31, 2013        
First quarter ending June 30, 2012 $2.80  $0.50 
Second quarter ending September 30, 2012 $1.50  $0.51 
Third quarter ending December 31, 2012 $0.95  $0.55 
Fourth quarter ending March 31, 2013 $0.90  $0.60 

On June 28, 201219, 2014 the closing price of our common stock on the OTC Bulletin BoardOTCQB was $0.98$0.65 per share.

As of June 28, 2012,19, 2014, we had 17,559,963 25,451,877 shares of common stock outstanding and 263 commonapproximately 300 stockholders of record.  On the same date, one stockholder held all 437,055500,000 outstanding restricted shares of our Series A Preferred Stock.Preferred.

Dividend Policy

We have not paid any dividends in the past and we do not anticipate that we will pay dividends in the foreseeable future.  Covenants in certain of our debt agreements prohibit us from paying dividends while the debt remains outstanding.

Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities

There were no repurchases of our common stock during the quarterfiscal year ended March 31, 20122014

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

Equity Grants
As of March 31, 2012, options to purchase a total of 4,805,771 shares of common stock are outstanding at a weighted average exercise price of $1.53 per share, of which 3,740,135 options are vested and exercisable at a weighted average exercise price of $1.45 per share and 1,065,636 are unvested and unexercisable at a weighted average exercise price of $1.83 per share. These options were issued under our 2008 Plan and our 1999 Plan, each as more particularly described below. An additional 433,700 shares remain available for future equity grants under our 2008 Plan.
Plan category 
Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(a)
  
Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding
options, warrants
and rights
(b)
  
Number of securities
remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans
(excluding securities
reflected in column (a))
(c)
 
Equity compensation plans approved by  security holders  4,266,300  $1.57   433,700 
Equity compensation plans not approved  by security holders     539,471   1.23               -- 
Total  4,805,771  $1.53   433,700 
 
2008 Stock Incentive Plan
We adopted our 2008 Plan on December 19, 2008.  The maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be granted pursuant to the 2008 Plan is currently 5,000,000. In all cases, the maximum number of shares of common stock under the 2008 Plan will be subject to adjustments for stock splits, stock dividends or other similar changes in our common stock or our capital structure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum number of shares of common stock available for grant of options intended to qualify as “incentive stock options” under the provisions of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), is 5,000,000.

Our 2008 Plan provides for the grant of stock options, restricted shares of common stock, stock appreciation rights and dividend equivalent rights, collectively referred to as “awards”. Stock options granted under the 2008 Plan may be either incentive stock options under the provisions of Section 422 of the Code, or non-qualified stock options. We may grant incentive stock options only to employees of VistaGen or any parent or subsidiary of VistaGen. Awards other than incentive stock options may be granted to employees, directors and consultants.

Our Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, referred to as the “Administrator”, administers our 2008 Plan, including selecting the award recipients, determining the number of shares to be subject to each award, determining the exercise or purchase price of each award and determining the vesting and exercise periods of each award.

The exercise price of all incentive stock options granted under our 2008 Plan must be at least equal to 100% of the fair market value of the shares on the date of grant. If, however, incentive stock options are granted to an employee who owns stock possessing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of our stock or the stock of any parent or subsidiary of us, the exercise price of any incentive stock option granted must not be less than 110% of the fair market value on the grant date. The maximum term of these incentive stock options granted to employees who own stock possessing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of our stock or the stock of any parent or subsidiary of us must not exceed five years. The maximum term of an incentive stock option granted to any other participant must not exceed ten years. The Administrator will determine the term and exercise or purchase price of all other awards granted under our 2008 Plan.

Under the 2008 Plan, incentive stock options may not be sold, pledged, assigned, hypothecated, transferred or disposed of in any manner other than by will or by the laws of descent or distribution and may be exercised, during the lifetime of the participant, only by the participant. Other awards shall be transferable:
by will and by the laws of descent and distribution; and

during the lifetime of the participant, to the extent and in the manner authorized by the Administrator by gift or pursuant to a domestic relations order to members of the participant’s immediate family.
The 2008 Plan permits the designation of beneficiaries by holders of awards, including incentive stock options.

In the event of termination of a participant’s service for any reason other than disability or death, such participant may, but only during the period specified in the award agreement of not less than 30 days commencing on the date of termination (but in no event later than the expiration date of the term of such award as set forth in the award agreement), exercise the portion of the participant’s award that was vested at the date of such termination or such other portion of the participant’s award as may be determined by the Administrator. The participant’s award agreement may provide that upon the termination of the participant’s service for cause, the participant’s right to exercise the award shall terminate concurrently with the termination of the participant’s service. In the event of a participant’s change of status from employee to consultant, an employee’s incentive stock option shall convert automatically into a non-qualified stock option on the day three months and one day following such change in status. To the extent that the participant’s award was unvested at the date of termination, or if the participant does not exercise the vested portion of the participant’s award within the period specified in the award agreement of not less than 30 days commencing on the date of termination, the award shall terminate. If termination was caused by death or disability, any options which have become exercisable prior to the time of termination, will remain exercisable for twelve months from the date of termination (unless a shorter or longer period of time is determined by the Administrator).

Following the date that the exemption from application of Section 162(m) of the Code ceases to apply to awards, the maximum number of shares with respect to which options and stock appreciation rights may be granted to any participant in any calendar year will be 2,500,000 shares of common stock. In connection with a participant’s commencement of service with us, a participant may be granted options and stock appreciation rights for up to an additional 500,000 shares that will not count against the foregoing limitation. In addition, following the date that the exemption from application of Section 162(m) of the Code ceases to apply to awards, for awards of restricted stock and restricted shares of common stock that are intended to be “performance-based compensation” (within the meaning of Section 162(m)), the maximum number of shares with respect to which such awards may be granted to any participant in any calendar year will be 2,500,000 shares of common stock. The limits described in this paragraph are subject to adjustment in the event of any change in our capital structure as described below.
The terms and conditions of awards shall be determined by the Administrator, including the vesting schedule and any forfeiture provisions. Awards under the plan may vest upon the passage of time or upon the attainment of certain performance criteria. The performance criteria established by the Administrator may be based on any one of, or combination of, the following:
increase in share price;
earnings per share;
total shareholder return;
operating margin;
gross margin;
return on equity;
return on assets;
return on investment;
operating income;
net operating income;
pre-tax profit;
cash flow;
revenue;
expenses;
earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation;
economic value added; and
market share.

Subject to any required action by our shareholders, the number of shares of common stock covered by outstanding awards, the number of shares of common stock that have been authorized for issuance under the 2008 Plan, the exercise or purchase price of each outstanding award, the maximum number of shares of common stock that may be granted subject to awards to any participant in a calendar year, and the like, shall be proportionally adjusted by the Administrator in the event of any increase or decrease in the number of issued shares of common stock resulting from certain changes in our capital structure as described in the 2008 Plan.

Effective upon the consummation of a Corporate Transaction (as defined below), all outstanding awards under the 2008 Plan will terminate unless the acquirer assumes or replaces such awards. The Administrator has the authority, exercisable either in advance of any actual or anticipated Corporate Transaction or Change in Control (as defined below) or at the time of an actual Corporate Transaction or Change in Control and exercisable at the time of the grant of an award under the 2008 Plan or any time while an award remains outstanding, to provide for the full or partial automatic vesting and exercisability of one or more outstanding unvested awards under the 2008 Plan and the release from restrictions on transfer and repurchase or forfeiture rights of such awards in connection with a Corporate Transaction or Change in Control, on such terms and conditions as the Administrator may specify. The Administrator also shall have the authority to condition any such award vesting and exercisability or release from such limitations upon the subsequent termination of the service of the grantee within a specified period following the effective date of the Corporate Transaction or Change in Control. The Administrator may provide that any awards so vested or released from such limitations in connection with a Change in Control, shall remain fully exercisable until the expiration or sooner termination of the award.
Under our 2008 Plan, a Corporate Transaction is generally defined as:
an acquisition of securities possessing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of our outstanding securities but excluding any such transaction or series of related transactions that the Administrator determines shall not be a Corporate Transaction;
a reverse merger in which we remain the surviving entity but: (i) the shares of common stock outstanding immediately prior to such merger are converted or exchanged by virtue of the merger into other property, whether in the form of securities, cash or otherwise; or (ii) in which securities possessing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of our outstanding securities are transferred to a person or persons different from those who held such securities immediately prior to such merger;

a sale, transfer or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of our Corporation;

a merger or consolidation in which our Corporation is not the surviving entity; or

a complete liquidation or dissolution.

Under our 2008 Plan, a Change in Control is generally defined as: (i) the acquisition of more than 50% of the total combined voting power of our stock by any individual or entity which a majority of our Board of Directors (who have served on our board for at least 12 months) do not recommend our shareholders accept; (ii) or a change in the composition of our Board of Directors over a period of 12 months or less.

Unless terminated sooner, our 2008 Plan will automatically terminate in 2017. Our Board of Directors may at any time amend, suspend or terminate our 2008 Plan. To the extent necessary to comply with applicable provisions of U.S. federal securities laws, state corporate and securities laws, the Internal Revenue Code, the rules of any applicable stock exchange or national market system, and the rules of any non-U.S. jurisdiction applicable to awards granted to residents therein, we shall obtain shareholder approval of any such amendment to the 2008 Stock Plan in such a manner and to such a degree as required.

As of March 31, 2012, we have options to purchase an aggregate of 4,266,300 shares of common stock outstanding under our 2008 Plan.

1999 Stock Incentive Plan
VistaGen’s Board of Directors adopted our 1999 Plan on December 6, 1999.  The 1999 Plan has terminated under its own terms, and as a result, no awards may currently be granted under the 1999 Plan. However, the options and awards that have already been granted pursuant to the 1999 Plan remain operative.

The 1999 Plan permitted VistaGen to make grants of incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options and restricted stock awards. VistaGen initially reserved 450,000 shares of its common stock for the issuance of awards under the 1999 Plan, which number was subject to adjustment in the event of a stock split, stock dividend or other change in our capitalization. Generally, shares that were forfeited or cancelled from awards under the 1999 Plan also were available for future awards.

The 1999 Plan could be administered by either VistaGen’s Board of Directors or a committee designated by VistaGen’s Board of Directors. VistaGen’s Board of Directors designated its Compensation Committee as the committee with full power and authority to select the participants to whom awards were granted, to make any combination of awards to participants, to accelerate the exercisability or vesting of any award and to determine the specific terms and conditions of each award, subject to the provisions of the 1999 Plan. All directors, executive officers, and certain other key persons (including employees, consultants and advisors) of VistaGen were eligible to participate in the 1999 Plan.  

The exercise price of incentive stock options awarded under the 1999 Plan could not be less than the fair market value of the common stock on the date of the option grant and could not be less than 110% of the fair market value of the common stock to persons owning stock representing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of our stock. The exercise price of non-qualified stock options could not be less than 85% of the fair market value of the common stock. It is expected that the term of each option granted under the 1999 Plan will not exceed ten years (or five years, in the case of an incentive stock option granted to a 10% shareholder) from the date of grant. VistaGen’s Compensation Committee determined at what time or times each option may be exercised (provided that in no event may it exceed ten years from the date of grant) and, subject to the provisions of the 1999 Plan, the period of time, if any, after retirement, death, disability or other termination of employment during which options could be exercised.

Restricted stock could also be granted under our 1999 Plan. Restricted stock awards issued by VistaGen were shares of common stock that vest in accordance with terms and conditions established by VistaGen’s Compensation Committee. VistaGen’s Compensation Committee could impose conditions to vesting it determined to be appropriate. Shares of restricted stock that do not vest are subject to our right of repurchase or forfeiture. VistaGen’s Compensation Committee determined the number of shares of restricted stock granted to any employee. Our 1999 Plan also gave VistaGen’s Compensation Committee discretion to grant stock awards free of any restrictions.

Unless the Compensation Committee provided otherwise, our 1999 Plan did not generally allow for the transfer of incentive stock options and other awards and only the recipient of an award could exercise an award during his or her lifetime. Non-qualified stock options are transferable only to the extent provided in the award agreement, in a manner consistent with the applicable law, and by will and by the laws of descent and distribution. In the event of a change in control of the Company, the outstanding options will automatically vest unless our Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of the surviving or acquiring entity shall make appropriate provisions for the continuation or assumption of any outstanding awards under the 1999 Plan.

As of March 31, 2012, we have options to purchase an aggregate of 539,471 shares of our common stock outstanding under our 1999 Plan.

Recent SalesCato BioVentures
Cato Holding Company, doing business as Cato BioVentures (Cato BioVentures), is the venture capital affiliate of Unregistered SecuritiesCato Research. Through strategic CRO service agreements with Cato Research, Cato BioVentures invests in therapeutics and medical devices, as well as platform technologies such as our stem cell technology-based Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, which its principals believe, based on their experience as management of Cato Research, are capable of transforming the traditional drug development process and the research and development productivity of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
Our Relationship with Cato Research and Cato BioVentures
Cato Research is our primary CRO for development of AV-101. Cato BioVentures is among our largest, long-term institutional investors.
As a result of the three years precedingaccess Cato Research has to potential Drug Rescue Candidates from its biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry network, as well as Cato BioVentures’ strategic long term equity interest in VistaGen, we believe that our relationships with Cato BioVentures and Cato Research may provide us with unique opportunities relating to our drug rescue efforts that will permit us to leverage both their industry connections and the CRO resources of Cato Research, either on a contract research basis or in exchange for economic participation rights, should we develop Drug Rescue Variants internally on our own rather than out-license them to strategic partners.
United States National Institutes of Health
Since our inception in 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded us $11.3 million in non-dilutive research and development grants, including $2.3 million to support research and development of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and $8.8 million for nonclinical and Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101, our small molecule drug candidate which has successfully completed Phase 1 clinical development in the U.S. for neuropathic pain and other potential diseases and conditions, including epilepsy and depression.
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) funds stem cell research at academic research institutions and companies throughout California. CIRM was established in 2004 with the passage of Stem Cell Initiative (Proposition 71) by California voters. As a stem cell company based in California since 1998, we are eligible to apply for and receive grant funding under the Stem Cell Initiative. To date we have been awarded approximately $1.0 million of non-dilutive grant funding from CIRM for stem cell research and development related to stem cell-derived human liver cells. This funded research and development focused on the improvement of techniques and the production of engineered human ES Cell lines used to develop mature functional human liver cells as a biological system for testing drugs.
Celsis In Vitro Technologies
In March 2013, we entered into a strategic collaboration with Celsis In Vitro Technologies (Celsis IVT), a premier global provider of specialized in vitro products for drug metabolism, drug-drug interaction and toxicity screening, focused on characterizing and functionally benchmarking our human liver cell platform, LiverSafe 3D with Celsis IVT products for studying and predicting drug metabolism.  We intend to utilize Celsis IVT’s experience and expertise in in vitro drug metabolism to help validate LiverSafe 3DTM. We anticipate that Celsis IVT will not only validate our human liver cells in traditional pharmaceutical metabolism assays, but also will determine genetic variations in our human pluripotent stem cell lines that are important to drug development. In addition, we plan to utilize Celsis IVT’s large inventory of cryopreserved primary human liver cells, currently used throughout the pharmaceutical industry for traditional and high-throughput liver toxicology and other bioassays, as reference controls with which to monitor and benchmark the functional properties of LiverSafe 3D.
Collaborating with Celsis IVT scientists, we are focused on the following four key objectives:
·Optimize techniques to handle and maintain primary human cryopreserved primary liver cells as reference controls for various drug development assays;
·Develop a stable supply of characterized and validated human cryopreserved primary liver cells to serve as internal controls and provide benchmark comparisons for the characterization of our pluripotent stem cell-derived liver cells;
·Characterize our human pluripotent stem cell-derived liver cells using many of the same industry-standardized assays used to characterize primary human liver cells; and
·Produce a joint publication of the characterization of our pluripotent stem cell-derived human liver cells.
As an industry leader in the development of in vitro primary hepatocyte technology, we believe Celsis IVT has extensive resources to aid us in the benchmarking LiverSafe 3D to industry standards. We anticipate this collaboration will lead to the further validation of LiverSafe 3D for predicting liver toxicity and drug metabolism issues before costly human clinical trials.
Synterys, Inc.
In December 2011, we entered into a strategic medicinal chemistry collaboration agreement with Synterys, Inc. (Synterys), a leading medicinal chemistry and collaborative drug discovery company. We believe this important collaboration will further our drug rescue initiatives with the support of Synterys’ medicinal chemistry expertise.  In addition to providing flexible, real-time contract medicinal chemistry services in support of our drug rescue programs, we anticipate potential collaborative opportunities with Synterys wherein we may jointly identify and develop Drug Rescue Variants.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property Rights Underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubePlatform
We have established our intellectual property rights to the technology underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform through a combination of exclusive and non-exclusive licenses, patent, and trade secret laws. To our knowledge, we are the first stem cell company focused primarily on stem cell technology-based drug rescue. We have assembled an intellectual property portfolio around the use of pluripotent stem cell technologies in drug discovery and development and with specific application to drug rescue. The differentiation protocols we have licensed direct the differentiation of pluripotent stem cells through:
·
a combination of growth factors (molecules that stimulate the growth of cells);
·
the experimentally controlled regulation of developmental genes, which is critical for determining what differentiation path a human cell will take; and
·
precise selection of immature cell populations for further growth and development.
By influencing key branch points in the cellular differentiation process, our pluripotent stem cell technologies can produce fully-differentiated, non-transformed, highly functional human cells in vitro in an efficient, highly pure and reproducible process.
As of the date of this report, we either own or have licensed 43 issued U.S. patents and 12 U.S. patent applications and certain foreign counterparts relating to the following securitiesstem cell technologies that underlie our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform. Our material rights and obligations with respect to these patents and patent applications are summarized below:
Licenses
National Jewish Health (NJH) Exclusive License
We have exclusive licenses to seven issued U.S. patents held by NJH, certain of which were not registeredexpire in November 2014.  No foreign counterparts to these U.S. patents and patent application have been obtained. These U.S. patents contain claims covering composition of matter relating to specific populations of cells and precursors, methods to produce such cells, and applications of such cells for ES Cell-derived immature pluripotent precursors of all the cells of the mesoderm and endoderm lineages. Among other cell types, this covers cells of the heart, liver, pancreas, blood, connective tissues, vascular system, gut and lung cells.
Under this license agreement, we may become required to pay to NJH 1% of our total revenues up to $30 million in each calendar year and 0.5% of all revenues for amounts greater than $30 million, with minimum annual payments of $25,000. Additionally, we may become obligated under the Securities Actagreement to make certain royalty payments on sales of 1933 (the “Securities Act”):products based on NJH’s patents or the sublicensing of such technology. The royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which would reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments and fees paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. This agreement remains in force for the life of the patents so long as neither party elects to terminate the agreement upon the other party’s uncured breach or default of an obligation under the agreement. We also have the right to terminate the agreement at any time without cause.

12% Convertible Notes
-16-

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (MSSM) Exclusive License
We have an exclusive, field restricted, license to two U.S. patents and Warrantstwo U.S. patent applications, and their foreign counterparts filed by MSSM. Foreign counterparts have been filed in Australia (two), Canada (two), Europe (two), Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Two of the U.S. applications have been issued and the foreign counterparts in Australia and Singapore have been issued, while a counterpart in Europe is pending. These patent applications have claims covering composition of matter relating to specific populations of cells and precursors, methods to produce such cells, and applications of such cells, including:

On February 28,
·
the use of certain growth factors to generate mesoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the heart, blood system, connective tissues, and vascular system) from hESCs;
·
the use of certain growth factors to generate endoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the liver, pancreas, lungs, gut, intestines, thymus, thyroid gland, bladder, and parts of the auditory system) from hESCs; and
·
applications of cells derived from mesoderm and endoderm precursors, especially those relating to drug discovery and testing for applications in the field of in vitro drug discovery and development applications.
This license agreement requires us to pay annual license and patent prosecution and maintenance fees and royalty payments based on product sales and services that are covered by the MSSM patent applications, as well as for any revenues received from sublicensing. Any drug candidates that we develop, including any Drug Rescue Variants, will only require royalty payments to the extent they require the practice of the licensed technology. To the extent we incur royalty payment obligations from other business activities, the royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments or fees paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. The license agreement will remain in force for the life of the patents so long as neither party terminates the agreement for cause (i) due to a material breach or default in performance of any provision of the agreement that is not cured within 60 days or (ii) in the case of failure to pay amounts due within 30 days.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) Non-Exclusive License
We have non-exclusive licenses to over 30 issued stem cell-related U.S. patents, 14 stem cell-related U.S. patent applications, and certain foreign counterparts held by WARF, for applications in the field of in vitro drug discovery and development. Foreign counterparts have been filed in Australia, Canada, Europe, China, India, Hong Kong, Israel, Brazil, South Korea, India, Mexico, and New Zealand. The subject matter of these patents includes specific hESC lines and composition of matter and use claims relating to hESCs important to drug discovery, and drug rescue screening. We have rights to:
·
use the technology for internal research and drug development;
·
provide discovery and screening services to third parties; and
·
market and sell research products (that is, cellular assays incorporating the licensed technology).
This license agreement requires us to make royalty payments based on product sales and services that incorporate the licensed technology. We do not believe that any drug rescue candidates to be developed by us will incorporate the licensed technology and, therefore, no royalty payments will be payable. Nevertheless, there is a minimum royalty of $20,000 per calendar year. There are also milestone fees related to the discovery of therapeutic molecules, though no royalties are owed on such molecules. The royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. The agreement remains in force for the life of the patents so long as we pay all monies due and do not breach any covenants, and such breach or default is uncured for 90 days. We may also terminate the agreement at any time upon 60 days’ notice. There are no reach through royalties on customer-owned small molecule or biologic drug products developed using the licensed technologies.
Our Patents
We have filed two U.S. patent applications on liver stem cells and their applications in drug development relating to toxicity testing, both of which have issued. Of the related international filings, European, Canadian and Korean patents were issued. The European patent has been validated in 11 European countries. We have filed a U.S. patent application, with foreign counterpart filing in Canada and Europe, directed to methods for producing human pluripotent stem cell-derived endocrine cells of the pancreas, with a specific focus on beta-islet cells, the cells that produce insulin, and their uses in diabetes drug discovery and screening.
The material patents currently related to the generation of human heart and liver cells for use in connection with our drug rescue activities are set forth below:
TerritoryPatent No.General Subject MatterExpiration
US7,763,466Method to produce endoderm cellsMay 2025
US7,955,849Method of enriching population of mesoderm cellsMay 2023
US8,143,009Toxicity typing using liver stem cellsJune 2023
US8,512,957Toxicity typing using liver stem cellsJune 2021
With respect to AV-101, we have filed three new U.S. patent applications.
Trade Secrets
We rely, in part, on trade secrets for protection of some of our intellectual property. We attempt to protect trade secrets by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, employees and consultants. Our employees and consultants also sign agreements requiring that they assign to us their interests in patents and copyrights arising from their work for us.
Sponsored Research Collaborations and Intellectual Property Rights
University Health Network, McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Toronto, Ontario
We have a long-term strategic stem cell research collaboration with our co-founder, Dr. Gordon Keller, Director of the UHN’s McEwen Centre, focused on, among other things, developing improved methods for differentiation of cardiomyocytes (heart cells) from pluripotent stem cells, and their uses in biological assay systems for drug discovery and development. Pursuant to our sponsored research collaboration agreement with UHN, we have the right to acquire exclusive worldwide rights to any inventions arising from studies we sponsor, under pre-negotiated license terms. Such pre-negotiated terms provide for royalty payments based on product sales that incorporate the licensed technology and milestone payments based on the achievement of certain events. Any Drug Rescue Variants that we develop will not incorporate the licensed technology and, therefore, will not require any royalty payments. To the extent we incur royalty payment obligations from other business activities, the royalty payments will be subject to anti-stacking provisions, which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. These licenses will remain in force for so long as we have an obligation to make royalty or milestone payments to UHN, but may be terminated earlier upon mutual consent, by us at any time, or by UHN for our breach of any material provision of the license agreement that is not cured within 90 days. We also have the exclusive option to sponsor research for similar cartilage, liver, pancreas and blood cell projects with similar licensing rights.
The sponsored research collaboration agreement with UHN, as amended, has a term of ten years, ending on September 18, 2017. Our 2012/2013 sponsored research project budget under the agreement ended on September 30, 2013. We are currently in discussions with Dr. Keller and UHN regarding the scope of our future sponsored research project budget under the agreement, and we anticipate finalizing such budget within the near term. The ten-year term of the agreement is subject to renewal upon mutual agreement of the parties. The agreement may be terminated earlier upon a material breach by either party that is not cured within 30 days. UHN may elect to terminate the agreement if we become insolvent or if any license granted pursuant to the agreement is prematurely terminated. We have the option to terminate the agreement if Dr. Keller stops conducting his research or ceases to work for UHN.
UHN License for Stem Cell Culture Technology
In April 2012, we consummatedlicensed breakthrough stem cell culture technology from UHN’s McEwen Centre.  We intend to utilize the licensed technology to develop hematopoietic precursor stem cells from human pluripotent stem cells, with the goal of developing drug screening and cell therapy applications for human blood system disorders. The breakthrough technology is included in a private placementnew United States patent application.  We believe this stem cell technology dramatically advances our ability to produce and purify this important blood stem cell precursor for both in vitro drug screening and in vivo cell therapy applications.  In addition to defining new cell culture methods for our use, the technology describes the surface characteristics of convertible promissory notesstem cell-derived adult hematopoietic stem cells. Most groups study embryonic blood development from stem cells, but, for the first time, we are now able to certain accredited investorsnot only purify the stem cell-derived precursor of all adult hematopoietic cells, but also pinpoint the precise timing when adult blood cell differentiation takes place in these cultures.  We believe these early cells have the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 (the "Notes").  Each Note accrues interest at the rate of 12% per annumpotential to be paidthe precursors of the ultimate adult, bone marrow-repopulating hematopoietic stem cells to repopulate the blood and immune system when transplanted into patients prepared for bone marrow transplantation. These cells have important potential therapeutic applications for the restoration of healthy blood and immune systems in kind quarterly,individuals undergoing transplantation therapies for cancer, organ grafts, HIV infections or for acquired or genetic blood and will mature onimmune deficiencies.
AV-101-Related Intellectual Property
We have exclusive licenses to issued U.S. patents related to the earlieruse and function of AV-101, and various central nervous system (CNS)-active molecules related to occurAV-101. These patents are held by the University of twenty-four months fromMaryland, Baltimore, the Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. and Aventis, Inc.  The principle U.S. method of use patent related to AV-101 expired in February 2011. Foreign counterparts to that U.S. patent expired in February 2012.  However, in 2013 and through the date of issuancethis report, we have filed three new U.S. patent applications relating to AV-101.  In addition, among the key components of our commercial protection strategy with respect to AV-101 is the New Drug Product Exclusivity provided by the FDA under section 505(c)(3)(E) and 505(j)(5)(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).  The FDA’s New Drug Product Exclusivity is available for new chemical entities (NCEs) such as AV-101, which, by definition, are innovative and have not been approved previously by the FDA, either alone or consummationin combination.  The FDA’s New Drug Product Exclusivity protection provides the holder of an equity, equity-basedFDA-approved new drug application (NDA) five (5) years of protection from new competition in the U.S. marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved new drug product.  This protection precludes FDA approval of certain generic drug applications under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, as well certain abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), during the five-year exclusivity period, except that such applications may be submitted after four years if they contain a certification of patent invalidity or seriesnon-infringement.
Under the terms of equity-based financings resultingour license agreement, we may be obligated to make royalty payments on 2% of net sales of products using the unexpired patent rights, if any, including products containing compounds covered by the patent rights. Additionally, we may be required to pay a 1% royalty on net sales of combination products that use unexpired patent rights, if any, or contain compounds covered by the patent rights. Consequently, future sales of AV-101 may be subject to a 2% royalty obligation. There are no license, milestone or maintenance fees under the agreement. The agreement remains in gross proceedsforce until the later of: (i) the expiration or invalidation of the last patent right; and (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of the first product that uses the patent rights or contains a compound covered by the patent rights. This agreement may also be terminated earlier at the election of the licensor upon our failure to pay any monies due, our failure to provide updates and reports to the licensor, our failure to provide the necessary financial and other resources required to develop the products, or our failure to cure within 90 days any breach of any provision of the agreement. We may also terminate the agreement at any time upon 90 days’ written notice so long as we make all payments due through the effective date of termination.

Research and Development

Our research and development expense was approximately $2.5 million and $3.4 million for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, or approximately 49% of our operating expenses for each of the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013. Our research and development expense consists of both internal and external expenses incurred in sponsored stem cell research and drug development activities, costs associated with the development of AV-101 and costs related to the licensing, application and prosecution of our intellectual property.
Competition
We believe that our human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC) technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, the hPSC-derived human cells we produce, and the customized human cell-based assay systems we have formulated and developed are capable of being competitive in the diverse and rapidly growing global stem cell and regenerative medicine markets, including markets involving the sale of hPSC-derived cells to third-parties for their in vitro drug discovery and safety testing, contract predictive toxicology drug screening services for third parties, internal drug discovery, development and rescue of new molecular entities (NMEs), and regenerative medicine, including in vivo cell therapy research and development. A representative list of such biopharmaceutical companies pursuing one or more of these potential applications of adult and/or pluripotent stem cell technology includes the following: Acea Biosciences, Advanced Cell Technology, Athersys, BioTime, Cellectis Bioresearch, Cellular Dynamics, Cellerant Therapeutics, Cytori Therapeutics, HemoGenix, International Stem Cell, NeoStem, Neuralstem, Organovo Holdings, PluriStem Therapeutics, Stem Cells, and Stemina BioMarker Discovery.  Pharmaceutical companies and other established corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare Life Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Life Technologies, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Holdings and others have been and are expected to continue pursuing internally various stem cell-related research and development programs. We anticipate that acceptance and use of hPSC technology for drug development and regenerative medicine will continue to occur and increase at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the future.
We believe the best and most valuable near term commercial application of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform is internal production of NMEs, which we refer to as Drug Rescue Variants, through small molecule drug rescue. We believe that the stem cell technologies underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and our primary focus on opportunities to produce small molecule NMEs through drug rescue provide us substantial competitive advantages associated with application of human biology at least $4.0 million (a "Qualified Financing"the front end of the drug development process, before animal and human testing. Although we believe that our model for the application of human pluripotent stem cell technology for drug rescue is novel, significant competition may arise or otherwise increase considerably as the acceptance and use of hPSC technology, the sale of hPSC-derived human heart and liver cells, and the availability of hPSC-related contract predictive toxicology screening services, for drug discovery, development and rescue, as well as cell therapy and regenerative medicine, continue to become more widespread throughout the academic research community and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. In addition, significant competition may arise from those academic research institutions, contract research organizations, and biopharmaceutical companies currently producing or capable of producing, currently using or capable of using, hPSC-derived heart cells and liver cells for third-party sales, contract screening or cell therapy research and development, that elect or their customers elect to transform their current business operations to include internal drug rescue and development of small molecule NMEs in a manner similar to our drug rescue model.
With respect to AV-101, we believe that a range of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have programs to develop small molecule drug candidates for the treatment of neuropathic pain, epilepsy, depression, Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions and diseases, including Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer. We expect that AV-101 will have to compete with a variety of therapeutic products and procedures.  With respect to each Drug Rescue Variant we are able to produce, we anticipate that a range of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies will have programs to develop small molecule drug candidates or biologics for the treatment of the diseases or conditions targeted by each such Drug Rescue Variant.
Government Regulation
United States
With respect to our stem cell research and development in the U.S., the U.S. government has established requirements and procedures relating to the isolation and derivation of certain stem cell lines and the availability of federal funds for research and development programs involving those lines. All of the stem cell lines that we are using were either isolated under procedures that meet U.S. government requirements and are approved for funding from the U.S. government, or were isolated under procedures that meet U.S. government requirements.
With respect to drug development, government authorities at the federal, state and local levels in the U.S. and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, pricing and export and import of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. In the U.S., pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices are subject to rigorous FDA regulation. Federal and state statutes and regulations in the United States govern, among other things, the testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, export, record keeping, approval, marketing, advertising and promotion of our potential drug rescue variants. The information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain approval to market a new drug varies depending on whether the drug is a new product whose safety and effectiveness has not previously been demonstrated in humans, or a drug whose active ingredient(s) and certain other properties are the same as those of a previously approved drug. Product development and approval within this regulatory framework takes a number of years and involves significant uncertainty combined with the expenditure of substantial resources.
Companies seeking FDA approval to sell a new prescription drug in the United States must test it in various ways. Currently, first are laboratory and animal tests. Next are tests in humans to see if the drug candidate is safe and effective when used to treat or diagnose a disease. After testing the drug candidate, the company developing it then sends the FDA an application called a New Drug Application (NDA). Some drug candidates are made out of biologic materials, including human cells, such as the human cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells. Instead of an NDA, new biologic drug candidates are approved using a Biologics License Application (BLA). Whether an NDA or a BLA, the application includes:
·
the drug candidate’s test results;
·
manufacturing information to demonstrate the company developing the drug candidate can properly manufacture it; and
·
the proposed label for the drug candidate, which provides necessary information about the drug candidate, including uses for which it has been shown to be effective, possible risks, and how to use it.
If a review by FDA physicians and scientists shows the drug candidate's benefits outweigh its known risks and the drug candidate can be manufactured in a way that ensures a quality product, the drug candidate is approved and can be marketed in the United States.

New drug and biological product development and approval takes many years, involves the expenditure of substantial resources and is uncertain to succeed. Many new drug and biological candidates appear promising in early stages of development but ultimately do not reach the market because they cannot meet FDA or other regulatory requirements. In addition, the current regulatory framework may change through regulatory, legislative or judicial actions or that additional regulations will not arise during development that may affect approval, delay the submission or review of an application.
The activities required before a new drug or biological candidate may be approved for marketing in the U.S. begin with nonclinical testing, which includes laboratory evaluation and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product as formulated. Results of nonclinical studies are summarized in an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA. Human clinical trials may begin 30 days following submission of an IND application, unless the FDA requires additional time to review the application or raise questions.
Clinical testing involves the administration of the new drug or biological candidate to healthy human volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator, usually a physician, pursuant to an FDA-reviewed protocol. Each clinical study is conducted under the auspices of an institutional review board (IRB) at each of the institutions at which the study will be conducted. A clinical plan, or “protocol,” accompanied by the approval of an IRB, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application prior to commencement of each clinical trial. Human clinical trials are conducted typically in three sequential phases. Phase I trials primarily consist of testing the product’s safety in a small number of patients or healthy volunteers. In Phase II trials, the safety and efficacy of the biological candidate is evaluated in a specific patient population. Phase III trials typically involve additional testing for safety and clinical efficacy in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed sites. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuance of a nonclinical or clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, particularly if safety concerns exist.
All procedures we use to obtain clinical samples, and the procedures we use to isolate hESCs, are consistent with the informed consent and ethical guidelines promulgated by either the U.S. National Academy of Science, the International Society of Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), or the NIH. These procedures and documentation have been reviewed by an external Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee, and all cell lines we use have been approved under one or more of these guidelines.
The U.S. government and its agencies on July 7, 2009 published guidelines for the ethical derivation of hESCs required for receiving federal funding for hESC research. Should we seek NIH funding for our stem cell research and development, our request would involve the use of hESC lines that meet the NIH guidelines for NIH funding. In the U.S., the President’s Council on Bioethics monitors stem cell research, and may make recommendations from time to time that could place restrictions on the scope of research using human embryonic or fetal tissue. Although numerous states in the U.S. are considering, or have in place, legislation relating to stem cell research, including California whose voters approved Proposition 71 to provide up to $3 billion of state funding for stem cell research in California, it is not yet clear what affect, if any, state actions may have on our ability to commercialize stem cell technologies.
Canada
In Canada, stem cell research and development is governed by two policy documents and by one legislative statute: the Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research (the Guidelines) issued by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; the Tri-Council Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (the TCPS); and the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (the Act). The holderGuidelines and the TCPS govern stem cell research conducted by, or under the auspices of, each Noteinstitutions funded by the federal government. Should we seek funding from Canadian government agencies or should we conduct research under the auspices of an institution so funded, we may voluntarily converthave to ensure the outstanding principal amountcompliance of such research with the ethical rules prescribed by the Guidelines and the TCPS.
The Act subjects all research conducted in Canada involving the human embryo, including hESC derivation (but not the stem cells once derived), to a licensing process overseen by a federal licensing agency.  However, as of the Notes,date of this report, the provisions of the Act regarding the licensing of hESC derivation were not in force.
We are not currently conducting stem cell research in Canada.  We are, however, sponsoring pluripotent stem cell research by Dr. Gordon Keller at UHN’s McEwen Centre.  We anticipate conducting pluripotent stem cell research (with both hESCs and hiPSCs), in collaboration with Dr. Keller and his research team, at UHN during 2014 and beyond pursuant to our long term sponsored research collaboration with Dr. Keller and UHN.  Should the provisions of the Act come into force, we may have to apply for a license for all hESC research we may sponsor or conduct in Canada and ensure compliance of such research with the provisions of the Act.
Foreign
In addition to regulations in the U.S., we may be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products outside of the U.S. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Subsidiaries and Inter-Corporate Relationships
VistaGen Therapeutics. Inc., a California corporation, is our wholly-owned subsidiary and has the following two wholly-owned subsidiaries: VistaStem Canada Inc., a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario, intended to facilitate our stem cell-based research and development and drug rescue activities in Ontario, Canada including our collaboration with Dr. Keller and UHN should we elect to expand our U.S. operations into Canada; and Artemis Neuroscience, Inc., a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Maryland and focused on development of AV-101. The operations of VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a California corporation, and each of its two wholly-owned subsidiaries are managed by our senior management team based in South San Francisco, California.
Employees
We have ten full-time employees, four of whom have doctorate degrees. Seven full-time employees work in research and development and laboratory support services and three full-time employees work in general and administrative roles. Staffing for all other functional areas is achieved through strategic relationships with service providers and consultants, each of whom provides services on an as-needed basis, including human resources and payroll, accounting and public company reporting, information technology, facilities, legal, stock plan administration, investor relations and web site maintenance, regulatory affairs, and FDA program management.  In addition, we currently conduct some of our research and development efforts through sponsored research relationships with stem cell scientists at academic research institutions in the U.S. and Canada, including Dr. Keller’s laboratories at UHN. See “Business – Strategic Transactions and Relationships.”
None of our employees is represented by a labor union or is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our current relationship with all of our employees is good.
Environmental Regulation
Our business does not require us to comply with any particular environmental regulations.
Item 1A.  Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all accruedof the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and unpaid interest thereon ("Outstanding Balance") into that number ofrelated notes, before deciding whether to purchase shares of our common stock equalstock. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy
We are a development stage biotechnology company with no approved products and limited experience developing new drug, biological and/or regenerative medicine candidates, including conducting clinical trials and other areas required for the successful development and commercialization of therapeutic products, which makes it difficult to assess our future viability.

We are a development stage biotechnology company. Since inception, we have generated approximately $16.4 million of revenues from strategic collaborations and grant awards.  However, we currently have no approved products and generate no revenues, and we have not yet fully demonstrated an ability to overcome many of the fundamental risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by development stage companies in new and rapidly evolving fields of technology, particularly biotechnology. To execute our business plan successfully, we will need to accomplish the following fundamental objectives, either on our own or with strategic collaborators:
·
produce product candidates;
·
develop and obtain required regulatory approvals for commercialization of products we produce;
·
maintain, leverage and expand our intellectual property portfolio;
·
establish and maintain sales, distribution and marketing capabilities;
·
gain market acceptance for our products; and
·obtain adequate capital resources and manage our spending as costs and expenses increase due to research, production, development, regulatory approval and commercialization of product candidates.
Moreover, we and any future strategic partner will need to receive regulatory approval for any new drug candidate, including each Drug Rescue Variant, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product before it may be marketed and distributed. Such regulatory approval will require, among numerous other things, completing carefully controlled and well-designed clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of each new product candidate. This process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. As a company, we have limited experience developing new drug candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, biological candidates or regenerative medicine products, including conducting clinical trials and in other areas required for the successful development and commercialization of therapeutic products. Such trials will require additional financial and management resources, third-party collaborators with the requisite clinical experience or reliance on third party clinical investigators, contract research organizations and independent consultants. Relying on third parties may force us to encounter delays that are outside of our control, which could materially harm our business.

If we are unsuccessful in accomplishing these fundamental objectives, or if we encounter delays in the regulatory approval process beyond our control, we may not be able to develop product candidates, raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.
Our future success is highly dependent upon our ability to produce product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, using stem cell technology, human cells derived from stem cells, our proprietary human cell-based bioassay systemsand medicinal chemistry, and we cannot provide any assurance that we will successfully produce Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates, or that, if produced, any of our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates will be developed and commercialized.
Research programs designed to identify and produce product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, require substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified and produced. In particular, our drug rescue programs may initially show promise in identifying potential Drug Rescue Variants, yet fail to yield lead Drug Rescue Variants suitable for preclinical, clinical development or commercialization for many reasons, including the following:
·
our research methodology may not be successful in identifying potential Drug Rescue Candidates;
·
competitors may develop alternatives that render our Drug Rescue Variants obsolete;
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate it is unlikely to be effective or otherwise does not meet applicable regulatory criteria;
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may not be capable of being produced in commercial quantities at an acceptable cost, or at all; or
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may not be accepted as safe and effective by regulatory authorities, patients, the medical community or third-party payors.
Our future success depends heavily on our ability to use stem cell technology, human cells derived from stem cells, proprietary human cell-based bioassay systems, especially CardioSafe 3D, and medicinal chemistry to produce Drug Rescue Variants and, develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize lead Drug Rescue Variants, on our own or in strategic collaborations, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenues, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable drug.

We have limited operating history with respect to the Outstanding Balance, dividedidentification and assessment of potential Drug Rescue Candidates and no operating history with respect to the production of Drug Rescue Variants, and we may never be able to produce a Drug Rescue Variant. If we are unable to identify suitable Drug Rescue Candidates for our drug rescue programs, including AV-101, or produce suitable lead Drug Rescue Variants for license to and preclinical and clinical development by $3.00 (the "Conversion Shares")pharmaceutical companies and others, we may not be able to obtain sufficient revenues in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price. There are a number of factors, in addition to the utility of CardioSafe 3D, that may impact our ability to identify and assess Drug Rescue Candidates and produce, develop and commercialize Drug Rescue Variants, independently or with strategic partners, including:
·
our ability to identify potential Drug Rescue Candidates in the public domain, obtain sufficient quantities of them, and assess them using our assay systems;
·
if we seek to rescue Drug Rescue Candidates that are not available to us in the public domain, the extent to which third parties may be willing to license or sell Drug Rescue Candidates to us on commercially reasonable terms;
·
our medicinal chemistry collaborator’s ability to design and produce proprietary Drug Rescue Variants based on the novel biology and structure-function insight we provide using CardioSafe 3D or LiverSafe 3D; and
·
financial resources available to us to develop and commercialize lead Drug Rescue Variants internally, or, if we license them to strategic partners, the resources such partners choose to dedicate to development and commercialization of any Drug Rescue Variants licensed from us.
Even if we do produce a Drug Rescue Variant, we can give no assurance that we will be able to develop and commercialize it as a marketable drug, on our own or in a strategic collaboration. Before we generate any revenues from product sales, we must produce additional product candidates through drug rescue and we or our potential strategic collaborator must complete preclinical and clinical development of one or more of our product candidates, conduct human subject research, submit clinical and manufacturing data to the FDA, qualify a third party contract manufacturer, receive regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, satisfy the FDA that our contract manufacturer is capable of manufacturing the product in compliance with cGMP, build a commercial organization, make substantial investments and undertake significant marketing efforts ourselves or in partnership with others. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.
We have not previously submitted a biologics license application, or BLA, or a new drug application or NDA, to the FDA, or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, if approved.

We or our potential collaborator may also seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, the European Union and potentially in additional foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, to obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.
Our CardioSafe 3D internal validation studies have not been subjectedto extensive external peer review or validation.
Our proprietary internal studies conducted to validate the utility of CardioSafe 3D for drug rescue, including our ability to use it to predict the cardiac effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of Drug Rescue Candidates, have not been subjected to extensive external peer review or validation. It is possible, therefore, that the results we have obtained from our successful internal validation studies may not be replicable by external peer reviewers. We are currently focused on identifying and assessing Drug Rescue Candidates available in the public domain.  However, should we seek to license or acquire Drug Rescue Candidates from third-parties, and such third-parties cannot replicate our results or do not have confidence in the capabilities of CardioSafe 3D, it may be difficult for us to acquire from them certain Drug Rescue Candidates which might be of interest to us. Even if such results can be replicated by external peer reviewers or other third-parties, they may nevertheless conclude that their current screening models are better than our CardioSafe 3D and that a license to the Drug Rescue Candidate we seek from them is not warranted. Our drug rescue business model is predicated on our ability to identify and, if information is not otherwise available in the public domain, obtain licenses from third-parties to Drug Rescue Candidates of interest to us.  If third-party licenses are required, and if we cannot obtain such licenses to on reasonable terms, or at all, our business may be adversely affected.

If CardioSafe3Dfails to predict accurately and efficiently the cardiac effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants, then our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

Our success is highly dependent on our ability to use CardioSafe3D to identify and predict, accurately and efficiently, the potential toxic and nontoxic cardiac effects of Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants. If CardioSafe3D is not capable of providing physiologically relevant and clinically predictive  information regarding human cardiac biology, our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

We have not yet fully validated LiverSafe 3D for potential drug rescue applications, and we may never do so.
We have successfully developed proprietary protocols for controlling the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to produce functional, mature, adult liver cells. However, we have not yet fully validated our ability to use the human liver cells we produce for LiverSafe 3D to predict important biological effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of reference drugs, Drug Rescue Candidates or Drug Rescue Variants on the human liver, including drug-induced liver injury and adverse drug-drug interactions. Furthermore, we may never be able to do so, which could adversely affect our business and the potential applications of LiverSafe 3D for drug rescue and regenerative medicine.
CardioSafe 3D, and, when validated, LiverSafe 3D may not be meaningfully more predictive of the behavior of human cells than existing methods.

The success of our drug rescue business is highly dependent, in the first instance, upon CardioSafe 3D, and, in the second instance, when validated, LiverSafe 3D, being more accurate, efficient and clinically predictive than long-established surrogate safety models, including animal cells and live animals, and immortalized, primary and transformed cells, currently used by pharmaceutical companies and others. We cannot give assurance that CardioSafe 3D, and, when validated, LiverSafe 3D, will be more efficient or accurate at predicting the heart or liver safety of new drug candidates than the testing models currently used. If CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D fail to provide a meaningful difference compared to existing or new models in predicting the behavior of human heart and liver cells, respectively, their utility for drug rescue will be limited and our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

We may invest in producing Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be no demand.

To generate revenue from our drug rescue activities, we must produce Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be demand within the healthcare marketplace, and, if we intend to out-license a particular Drug Rescue Variant for development and commercialization prior to market approval, then also among pharmaceutical companies and other potential strategic collaborators. However, we may produce Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be no or limited demand in the healthcare market and/or among pharmaceutical companies and others. If we misinterpret market conditions, underestimate development costs and/or seek to rescue the wrong Drug Rescue Candidates, we may fail to generate sufficient revenue or other value, on our own or in collaboration with others, to justify our investments, and our drug rescue business may be adversely affected.

We may experience difficulty in producing human cells and our future stem cell technology research and development efforts may not be successful within the timeline anticipated, if at all.

Our human pluripotent stem cell technology is new and technically complex, and the time and resources necessary to develop new cell types and customized bioassay systems are difficult to predict in advance. We intend to devote significant personnel and financial resources to research and development activities designed to expand, in the case of drug rescue, and explore, in the case of regenerative medicine, potential applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform. In particular, we are planning to conduct development programs related to producing and using functional, mature adult liver cells to validate LiverSafe 3D as a novel bioassay system for drug rescue, as well as exploratory nonclinical regenerative medicine programs involving blood, bone, cartilage, heart, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells. Although we and our collaborators have developed proprietary protocols for the production of multiple differentiated cell types, we may encounter difficulties in differentiating particular cell types, even when following these proprietary protocols. These difficulties may result in delays in production of certain cells, assessment of certain Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants, and performance of certain exploratory nonclinical regenerative medicine studies. In the past, our stem cell research and development projects have been significantly delayed when we encountered unanticipated difficulties in differentiating human pluripotent stem cells into heart, liver and pancreatic cells. Although we have overcome such difficulties in the past, we may have similar delays in the future, and we may not be able to overcome them or obtain any benefits from our future stem cell technology research and development activities. Any delay or failure by us, for example, to produce functional, mature blood, bone, cartilage, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells could have a substantial adverse effect on our potential drug rescue and regenerative medicine business opportunities and results of operations.

If we are unable to keep up with rapid technological changes in our field, we will be unable to operate profitably.

We are engaged in activities in the life sciences field, which is characterized by rapid technological changes, frequent new product introductions, changing needs and preferences, emerging competition, and evolving industry standards. If we fail to anticipate or respond adequately to technological developments, our business, revenue, financial condition and operating results could suffer materially. Although we believe we are the first stem cell technology company focused primarily on drug rescue, we anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as competitors develop or access new or improved bioassay systems and explore and enter the drug rescue market with new technologies. Competitors may have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, sales and marketing resources and may be able to respond more quickly and effectively than we can to new opportunities. In light of these advantages, even if our technology is effective in producing Drug Rescue Variants, potential development partners might prefer new drug candidates available from others or develop their own new drug candidates in lieu of licensing or purchasing our Drug Rescue Variants. We may not be able to compete effectively against these organizations. Our failure to compete effectively could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing product candidates before, or more successfully, than we do.

Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the design, development and commercialization of Drug Rescue Variants. Our competitors may succeed in developing product candidates for the same indications we are pursuing before we do, obtaining regulatory approval for competing products or gaining acceptance of their products within the same markets that we are targeting for our Drug Rescue Variants. If, either on our own or in collaboration with a strategic partner, we are not "first to market" with one of our Drug Rescue Variants, our competitive position could be compromised because it may be more difficult for us or our partner to obtain marketing approval for our Drug Rescue Variant and successfully market it as a second competitor.  We expect any Drug Rescue Variants that we commercialize, either independently or in collaboration, will compete with products from other companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.  
Many of our competitors have substantially greater research and development and commercial infrastructures and financial, technical and personnel resources than we have. We will not be able to compete successfully unless we:

·
design, develop, produce and commercialize, either on our own or with collaborators, Drug Rescue Variants that are superior to other products in development or in the market;
·
attract qualified scientific, medical, sales and marketing and commercial personnel or collaborators;
·
obtain patent and/or other proprietary protection for our Drug Rescue Variants; and
·
obtain, either on our own or in collaboration with strategic partners, required regulatory approvals for our Drug Rescue Variants.
Established competitors may invest heavily to quickly discover and develop novel compounds that could make our Drug Rescue Variants obsolete. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

Other companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations are conducting research, seeking patent protection and establishing collaborative arrangements for research, development and marketing of assays similar to ours and Drug Rescue Variants we may produce. These companies and institutions also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, obtaining collaborators and licensees, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to our programs.

As a result of the foregoing, our competitors may develop more effective or more affordable products, or achieve earlier patent protection or product commercialization than we will. Most significantly, competitive products may render any technologies and Drug Rescue Variants that we develop obsolete, which would negatively impact our business and ability to sustain operations.

With respect to drug rescue, the licensing and acquisition of proprietary small molecule compounds, even compounds that have failed in development due to heart or liver safety concerns, is a highly competitive area, and a number of more established companies may also pursue strategies to license, acquire, rescue and develop small molecule compounds that we may consider to be Drug Rescue Candidates. These established companies have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to sell or license Drug Rescue Candidate rights to us. We have limited experience in negotiating licenses to drug candidates and there can be no assurances that we will be able to acquire or obtain licenses to Drug Rescue Candidatesin the eventfuture, on commercially reasonable terms, if at all, should we consummateelect to pursue such third-party licenses. If we are unable to acquire or obtain licenses to Drug Rescue Candidates we seek, our business may be adversely affected.
Restrictions on research and development involving human embryonic stem cells and political commentary regarding such research and development could impair our ability to conduct or sponsor certain potential collaborative research and development programs and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
Some of our most important ongoing and planned research and development programs involve the use of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Some believe the use of hESCs gives rise to ethical and social issues regarding the appropriate use of these cells. Our research related to differentiation of hESCs may become the subject of adverse commentary or publicity, which could significantly harm the market price of our common stock. Although now substantially less than in years past, certain political and religious groups in the United States and elsewhere voice opposition to hESC technology and practices. We use hESCs derived from excess fertilized eggs that have been created for clinical use in in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and have been donated for research purposes with the informed consent of the donors after a Qualified Financing,successful IVF procedure because they are no longer desired or suitable for IVF. Certain academic research institutions have adopted policies regarding the ethical use of human embryonic tissue. These policies may have the effect of limiting the scope of future collaborative research opportunities with such institutions, thereby potentially impairing our ability to conduct certain research and development in this field that we believe is necessary to expand the drug rescue capabilities of our technology.
The use of embryonic or fetal tissue in research (including the derivation of hESCs) in other countries is regulated by the government, and varies widely from country to country. Government-imposed restrictions with respect to use of hESCs in research and development could have a material adverse effect on us by harming our ability to establish critical collaborations, delaying or preventing progress in our research and development, and causing a decrease in the market interest in our stock. These potential ethical concerns do not apply to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), or our plans to pursue pilot nonclinical regenerative medicine studies involving human cells derived from iPSCs, because their derivation does not involve the use of embryonic tissues.
We have assumed that the biological capabilities of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and hESCs are likely to be comparable. If it is discovered that this assumption is incorrect, our exploratory research and development activities focused on potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform could be harmed.
We use both hESCs and iPSCs for drug rescue purposes. However, we anticipate that our future exploratory research and development focused on potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform primarily will involve iPSCs. With respect to iPSCs, we believe scientists are still somewhat uncertain about the clinical utility, life span, and safety of such cells, and whether such cells differ in any clinically significant ways from hESCs. If we discover that iPSCs will not be useful for whatever reason for potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, this would negatively affect our ability to explore expansion of our platform, including, in particular, where it would be preferable to use iPSCs to reproduce rather than approximate the effects of certain specific genetic variations.

If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully produce, develop trials and commercialize our Drug Rescue Variants.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific and technical personnel. We are highly dependent upon our senior management, as well as other employees, consultants and scientific collaborators. As of June 1, 2014, we had 10 full-time employees, which may make us more reliant on our individual employees than companies with a greater number of employees. Although none of our key scientific personnel or members of our senior management has informed us that he or she intends to resign or retire in the near future, the loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of potential expansions and applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and our production of Drug Rescue Variants or disrupt our administrative functions.

Although we have not historically experienced unique difficulties attracting and retaining qualified employees, we could experience such problems in the future. For example, competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals field is intense. We will need to hire additional personnel as we expand our research and development activities. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms.
In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development strategy, including our drug rescue strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance our proposed CardioSafe 3D drug rescue programs, produce and develop Drug Rescue Variants, and develop and validate LiverSafe 3D, we will need to expand our research and development capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. Our future financial performance and our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our research and development efforts effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and technical personnel. The hiring, training and integration of new employees may be more difficult, costly and/or time-consuming for us because we have fewer resources than a larger organization. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing the Company.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

If we produce and develop Drug Rescue Variants or regenerative medicine products, either on our own or in collaboration with others, we will face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the required clinical testing of such product candidates, and will face an even greater risk if we or our collaborators commercialize any such products. For example, we may be sued if any Drug Rescue Variant or regenerative medicine product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

·
decreased demand for our Drug Rescue Variants or other products that we may develop;
·
injury to our reputation;
·
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
·
costs to defend the related litigation;
·
a diversion of management's time and our resources;
·
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
·
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
·
loss of revenue;
·
the inability to commercialize our product candidates; and
·a decline in our stock price.
Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. Although we maintain liability insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

To the extent we enter into licensing or collaboration agreements to develop and commercialize our product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, our dependence on such relationships may adversely affect our business.

We may enter into strategic partnerships in the future, including collaborations with other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, to enhance and accelerate the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our strategy to produce, develop and commercialize our product candidates, including any Drug Rescue Variants, may depend on our ability to enter into such agreements with third-party collaborators. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners. Supporting diligence activities conducted by potential collaborators and negotiating the financial and other terms of a collaboration agreement are long and complex processes with uncertain results. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and/or third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Even if we are successful in entering into one or more strategic collaboration agreements with third-parties, such collaborations may involve greater uncertainty for us, as we may have less control over certain aspects of our collaborative programs than we do over our proprietary internal development and commercialization programs. We may determine that continuing a collaborative arrangement under the terms provided is not in our best interest, and we may terminate the collaboration. Our collaborators could also delay or terminate their agreements, and our products subject to collaborative arrangements may never be successfully commercialized.

Further, our future collaborators may develop alternative products or pursue alternative technologies either on their own or in collaboration with others, including our competitors, and the price per unitpriorities or focus of our collaborators may shift such that our programs receive less attention or resources than we would like, or they may be terminated altogether. Any such actions by our collaborators may adversely affect our business prospects and ability to earn revenues. In addition, we could have disputes with our future collaborators, such as the securities sold, or shareinterpretation of common stock issuableterms in connection withour agreements. Any such Qualified Financing, is at least $2.00, the Outstanding Balance will automatically convert into such securities, the amount of which shall be determined accordingdisagreements could lead to a formula set forthdelays in the Notes. The Notes rank pari-passudevelopment or commercialization of potential products or could result in time-consuming and expensive litigation or arbitration, which may not be resolved in our favor.

Even with respect to certain other promissory notesproducts that we intend to commercialize ourselves, we may issue,enter into agreements with collaborators to share in an aggregate principal amountthe burden of conducting preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing our product candidates or products. In addition, our ability to apply our proprietary technologies to develop proprietary compounds will depend on our ability to establish and maintain licensing arrangements or other collaborative arrangements with the holders of proprietary rights to such compounds. We may not be able to exceed $3.0 million, inclusiveestablish such arrangements on favorable terms or at all, and our future collaborative arrangements may not be successful.

We cannot provide any assurance that our future collaborations will not terminate development before achievement of revenue-generating milestones or market approval, that our future collaborative arrangements will result in successful development and commercialization of Drug Rescue Variants, or that we will derive any revenues from such future arrangements. The failure of any collaborator to conduct, successfully and diligently, their collaborative activities relating to the product candidate we license or sell to them would have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, to the extent that we are unable to license or sell our Drug Rescue Variants to pharmaceutical companies or others, we would require substantial additional capital to undertake development and commercialization activities for any such product candidate on our own, and that substantial additional capital may not be available to us on a timely basis, on reasonable terms, or at all.
Our and our collaborators’ relationships with customers and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Our or our future collaborator’s arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we or they obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

·the federal healthcare anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;
·the federal False Claims Act imposes criminal and civil penalties, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government and also includes provisions allowing for private, civil whistleblower or "qui tam" actions;
·
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program. HIPAA and HITECH also regulate the use and disclosure of identifiable health information by health care providers, health plans and health care clearinghouses, and impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of identifiable health information as well as requiring notification of regulatory breaches. HIPAA and HITECH violations may prompt civil and criminal enforcement actions as well as enforcement by state attorneys general;
·the federal false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;
·the federal transparency requirements under the Health Care Reform Law requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report to the Department of Health and Human Services information related to physician payments and other transfers of value and physician ownership and investment interests;
·analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures; and
·analogous anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and healthcare laws and regulations in foreign countries.
Efforts to ensure that our and our future collaborators’ business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our or their business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our or their operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the Notes.physicians or other providers or entities with whom we or our collaborators expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

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

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

To the extent our research and development activities involve using induced pluripotent stem cells, we will be subject to complex and evolving laws and regulations regarding privacy and informed consent. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and could result in claims, changes to our research and development programs and objectives, increased cost of operations or otherwise harm the Company.

To the extent that we pursue research and development activities involving iPSCs, we will be subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States and abroad that involve matters central to such research and development activities, including obligations to seek informed consent from donors for the use of their blood and other tissue to produce, or have produced for us, iPSCs, as well as state and federal laws that protect the privacy of such donors. United States federal and state and foreign laws and regulations are constantly evolving and can be subject to significant change. If we engage in iPSC-related research and development activities in countries other than the United States, we may become subject to foreign laws and regulations relating to human subjects research and other laws and regulations that are often more restrictive than those in the United States. In addition, both the application and interpretation of these laws and regulations are often uncertain, particularly in the rapidly evolving stem cell technology sector in which we operate. These laws and regulations can be costly to comply with and can delay or impede our research and development activities, result in negative publicity, increase our operating costs, require significant management time and attention and subject us to claims or other remedies, including fines or demands that we modify or cease existing business practices.
Legal, social and ethical concerns surrounding the use of iPSCs, biological materials and genetic information could impair our operations.

To the extent that our future research and development activities involve the use of iPSCs and the manipulation of human tissue and genetic information, the information we derive from such iPSC-related research and development activities could be used in a variety of applications, which may have underlying legal, social and ethical concerns, including the genetic engineering or modification of human cells, testing for genetic predisposition for certain medical conditions and stem cell banking. Governmental authorities could, for safety, social or other purposes, call for limits on or impose regulations on the use of iPSCs and genetic testing or the manufacture or use of certain biological materials involved in our iPSC-related research and development programs. Such concerns or governmental restrictions could limit our future research and development activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our human cell-based bioassay systems and human cells we derive from human pluripotent stem cells, although not currently subject to regulation by the FDA or other regulatory agencies as biological products or drugs, could become subject to regulation in the future.

Our human cells and human cell-based bioassay systems, including CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D, are not currently sold, for research or any other purpose, to biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, government research institutions, academic and nonprofit research institutions, medical research organizations or stem cell banks, and they are not therapeutic procedures. As a result, they are not subject to regulation as biological products or drugs by the FDA or comparable agencies in other countries. However, if, in the future, we seek to include cells we derive from human pluripotent stem cells in therapeutic applications or product candidates, such applications and/or product candidates would be subject to the FDA’s pre- and post-market regulations. For example, if we seek to develop and market human cells we produce for use in performing cell therapy or for other regenerative medicine applications, such as tissue engineering or organ replacement, we would first need to obtain FDA pre-market clearance or approval. Obtaining such clearance or approval from the FDA is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain, generally requiring many years to obtain, and requiring detailed and comprehensive scientific and clinical data. Notwithstanding the time and expense, these efforts may not result in FDA approval or clearance. Even if we were to obtain regulatory approval or clearance, it may not be for the uses that we believe are important or commercially attractive.

We intend to rely on third-party contract manufacturers to produce our product candidate supplies and we intend to rely on such third-party manufacturers to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidates we develop on our own. Any failure by a third-party manufacturer to produce for us supplies of product candidates we elect to develop on our own may delay or impair our ability to initiate or complete clinical trials, commercialize our product candidates, or continue to sell any products we commercialize.

We do not currently own or operate any manufacturing facilities, and we lack sufficient internal staff to produce product candidate supplies ourselves. As a result, we plan to work with third-party contract manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates for future preclinical and clinical testing and commercialization. If we are unable to arrange for such a third-party manufacturing source, or fail to do so on commercially reasonable terms or on a timely basis, we or our potential strategic partner may not be able to successfully produce, develop, and market our product candidates or may be delayed in doing so.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we or our potential collaborators would not be subject if we or they manufactured product candidates ourselves or themselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control (including a failure to synthesize and manufacture our product candidates in accordance with our product specifications), the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us, or misappropriation of proprietary formulas or protocols. We will be, and our potential strategic partners may be, dependent, on the ability of these third-party manufacturers to produce adequate supplies of drug product to support development programs and future commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that all product candidates be manufactured according to cGMP and similar foreign standards. Any failure by our or our collaborators’ third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of product candidates in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for trial initiation or marketing of any product candidates we may produce, including Drug Rescue Variants. In addition, such failure could be the basis for action by the FDA to withdraw approvals for product candidates previously granted and for other regulatory action, including recall or seizure, fines, imposition of operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production or injunctions.
We have limited staffing. We will, and our potential strategic partners may, rely on contract manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for required studies. There may be a small number of suppliers for certain capital equipment and materials that we or our collaborators use to manufacture our product candidates. Such suppliers may not sell these materials to our manufacturers at the times we or they need them or on commercially reasonable terms. We will not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these materials by our manufacturers. Although we and our collaborators generally will not begin a required study unless we or they believe a sufficient supply of a product candidate exists to complete the study, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate or the material components thereof for an ongoing study due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of the studies, product testing and potential regulatory approval. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase these materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial launch of our product candidates could be delayed or there could be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates.

In addition, we or our potential strategic partner may need to optimize the manufacturing processes for a particular drug substance and/or drug product so that certain product candidates may be produced in sufficient quantities of adequate quality, and at an acceptable cost, to support required development activities and commercialization. Contract manufacturers may not be able to adequately demonstrate that an optimized product candidate is comparable to a previously manufactured product candidate which could cause significant delays and increased costs to our or our collaborators’ development programs. Our manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our product candidates at a cost or in quantities or in a timely manner necessary to develop and commercialize them. If we successfully commercialize any of our drugs, we may be required to establish or access large-scale commercial manufacturing capabilities. In addition, assuming that our drug development pipeline increases and matures, we will have a greater need for clinical trial and commercial manufacturing capacity. To meet our projected needs for commercial manufacturing, third party manufactures with whom we work will need to increase their scale of production or we will need to secure alternate suppliers.

If, in the future, we are unable to enter into licensing or collaboration agreements for the sales, marketing and distribution of our Drug Rescue Variants and other product candidates, such as AV-101, we may not be successful in commercializing our Drug Rescue Variants and other product candidates.

We currently have a relatively small number of employees and do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure, and we, including our executive officers, do not have any significant sales, marketing or distribution experience. We will be opportunistic in seeking to collaborate with others to develop and commercialize Drug Rescue Variants and future products if and when they are developed and approved.  If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services for our products, the resulting revenues or the profitability from these revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we had sold, marketed and distributed our products ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell, market and distribute our products effectively.  If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Our business is subject to the risks of earthquakes, fire, floods and other natural catastrophic events, and to interruption by man-made problems such as computer viruses or terrorism.
Our corporate headquarters are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region known for seismic activity. A significant natural disaster, such as an earthquake, fire or a flood, could harm our business. In addition, our servers are vulnerable to computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering with our computer systems. In addition, acts of terrorism or war could cause disruptions in our business or the economy as a whole.
We incur significant costs to ensure compliance with corporate governance, federal securities law and accounting requirements.

Since becoming a public company by means of a strategic reverse merger in 2011, we have been subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), which requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition, and the rules and regulations implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, each of which imposes additional reporting and other obligations on public companies.  We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to comply with these public company reporting requirements, including accounting and related audit costs, legal costs to comply with corporate governance requirements and other costs of operating as a public company. These legal and financial compliance costs will continue to require us to divert a significant amount of money that we could otherwise use to achieve our research and development and other strategic objectives.

The purchaser of each Note was issued a warrantfiling and internal control reporting requirements imposed by federal securities laws, rules and regulations are rigorous and we may not be able to purchase, for $2.75 per share, that number of shares of our common stock equalcontinue to 150% of the total principal amount of the Notes purchased by such purchaser, divided by $2.75,meet them, resulting in a possible decline in the potential issuance of an aggregate of 272,724 shares of our common stock upon exercise of the warrants.  The warrants terminate, if not exercised, five years from the date of issuance.

Noble Financial Capital Markets served as the lead placement agent for the Company in connection with the Note Offering and received fees totaling $21,000.

The Notes and Warrants were offered and sold in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"), in reliance on Section 4(2) thereof and Rule 506 of Regulation D thereunder. Each of the Purchasers represented that it was an "accredited investor" as defined in Regulation D.

2011 Private Placement
On May 11, 2011, we completed a private placement of 1,108,048 Units at a price of $1.75 per Unit (“2011 Private Placement”). Each Unit consisted of one share of our common stock and our inability to obtain future financing. Certain of these requirements may require us to carry out activities we have not done previously and complying with such requirements may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a warrantmaterial adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Any failure to purchase one fourth (1/4)adequately comply with federal securities laws, rules or regulations could subject us to fines or regulatory actions, which may materially adversely affect our business, results of one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.operations and financial condition.

Fall 2011 Follow-On OfferingIn addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We will continue to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, however this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be adversely affected.
Risks Related to Production, Development, and Regulatory Approval of Product Candidates
Even if we are able to begin clinical trails for a Drug Rescue Variant, we may encounter considerable delays and/or expend considerable resources without producing a marketable product capable of generating revenue.

BeginningWe may never generate revenues from sales of a Drug Rescue Variant or any other product because of a variety of risks inherent in October 2011,our business, including the following:
·
clinical trials may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any Drug Rescue Variant, other new drug candidate, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product candidate;
·
completion of nonclinical or clinical trials may be delayed, or costs of nonclinical or clinical trials may exceed anticipated amounts;
·
we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of any Drug Rescue Variant, other new drug candidate, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product candidate; or we may experience delays in obtaining any such approval;
·
we may not be able to manufacture, or have manufactured for us, Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates economically, timely and on a commercial scale;
·
we and any licensees of ours may not be able to successfully market Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates;
·
physicians may not prescribe our products, or patients or third party payors may not accept our Drug Rescue Variants, other drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates;
·
others may have proprietary rights which prevent us from marketing our Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates; and
·
competitors may sell similar, superior or lower-cost products.
In the event we initiatedare able to begin a follow-on private placementclinical trial of Units.  These Units were essentiallya Drug Rescue Variant, our or our collaborator’s future clinical trials may be delayed or halted for many reasons, including:

·
delays or failure reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), contract research organizations (CROs), and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

·
failure of third-party contractors, such as CROs and CMOs, or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner;

·
delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or institutional review boards (IRBs) in order to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;

·
inability to manufacture, or obtain from third parties, a supply of drug product sufficient to complete preclinical studies and clinical trials;

·
the FDA requiring alterations to study designs, preclinical strategy or manufacturing plans;

·
delays in patient enrollment, and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials, or high drop-out rates of patients;

·
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocols or dropping out of a trial and/or the inability to add new clinical trial sites;

·
difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data;

·
poor effectiveness of our product candidates during clinical trials;

·
safety issues, including serious adverse events associated with our product candidates and patients' exposure to unacceptable health risks;

·
receipt by a competitor of marketing approval for a product targeting an indication that one of our product candidates targets, such that we are not "first to market" with our product candidate;

·
governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines; or

·
varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies.
We or our collaborator could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, our collaborator, the same asIRBs of the Units issuedinstitutions in connectionwhich a trial is being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for a trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, if we or our collaborators are able to complete a clinical trial of a product candidate, the results of such trial may not be adequate to support marketing approval. For any such trial, if the FDA disagrees with the 2011 Private Placement, namely, each Unit was priced at $1.75 and consistedchoice of one share ofprimary endpoint or the results for the primary endpoint are not robust or significant relative to control, are subject to confounding factors, or are not adequately supported by other study endpoints, including overall survival or complete response rate, the FDA may refuse to approve a Biologics License Application (BLA) or New Drug Application (NDA). The FDA may require additional clinical trials as a condition for approving our common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase one-fourth (1/4) of one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.  We sold a total of 63,570 Units and received aggregate cash proceeds of $111,248. product candidates.

 
Warrant ExercisesClinical testing involves the administration of the new drug or biological candidate to healthy human volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator, usually a physician, pursuant to an FDA-reviewed protocol. Each clinical study is conducted under the auspices of an institutional review board (IRB) at each of the institutions at which the study will be conducted. A clinical plan, or “protocol,” accompanied by the approval of an IRB, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application prior to commencement of each clinical trial. Human clinical trials are conducted typically in three sequential phases. Phase I trials primarily consist of testing the product’s safety in a small number of patients or healthy volunteers. In Phase II trials, the safety and efficacy of the biological candidate is evaluated in a specific patient population. Phase III trials typically involve additional testing for safety and clinical efficacy in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed sites. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuance of a nonclinical or clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, particularly if safety concerns exist.

DuringOur or our collaborator’s future clinical trials can be delayed or halted for many reasons, including:

·
delays or failure reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), contract research organizations (CROs), and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
·
failure of third-party contractors, such as CROs and CMOs, or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner;
·
delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or IRBs in order to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;
·
inability to manufacture, or obtain from third parties, a supply of drug product sufficient to complete preclinical studies and clinical trials;
·
the FDA requiring alterations to study designs, preclinical strategy or manufacturing plans;
·
delays in patient enrollment, and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials, or high drop-out rates of patients;
·
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocols or dropping out of a trial and/or the inability to add new clinical trial sites;
·
difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data;
·
poor effectiveness of our product candidates during clinical trials;
·
safety issues, including serious adverse events associated with our product candidates and patients' exposure to unacceptable health risks;
·
receipt by a competitor of marketing approval for a product targeting an indication that one of our product candidates targets, such that we are not "first to market" with our product candidate;
·
governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines; or
·varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies.
We or our collaborator could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, our collaborator, the quarter ended December 31, 2011, warrant holders exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,121,259 shares of our common stock, including warrants to purchase 1,599,858 shares of common stock exercised by Platinum under the termsIRBs of the Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement, as describedinstitutions in Note 9, Capital Stock,which a trial is being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for a trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to our financial statements includeda number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in Item 8 of this Report on Form 10-K. The warrants exercised by Platinum resulted in proceeds of $1,719,823 which was applied to reduce the outstanding balanceaccordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the Platinum Note and accrued interest underclinical trial operations or trial site by the terms of the Note and Exchange Agreement.

Other investors and service providers exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 1,028,860 shares of our common stock. In connection with these exercises, we received cash proceeds of $1,106,129; satisfied outstanding indebtedness to certain holders in lieu of payment by us totaling an aggregate of $30,128; and prepaid future services to be performed by certain holdersFDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the aggregate amountimposition of $41,343.

Additionally,a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in December 2011, we entered into an Agreement Regarding Paymentgovernmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of Invoices and Warrant Exercises with Cato Holding Company, doing business as Cato BioVentures (“CHC”), Cato Research Ltd (“CRL”), and certain individual warrant holders affiliated with CHC and CRL (collectively,adequate funding to continue the “CHC Affiliates”) under the terms of which CHC and the CHC Affiliates exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 492,541 shares of our common stock.  As a result of these warrant exercises, we received cash payments of $60,207 and, in lieu of cash payments for the exercise of certain warrants, CHC and CRL agreed to the satisfaction of outstanding indebtedness to CRL in the amount of $245,278 and pre-payment for future services in the amount of $226,449.

Common Stock Exchange Agreement with Platinum

On December 22, 2011, we entered into a strategic Common Stock Exchange Agreement (the "Exchange Agreement") with Platinum, pursuant to which Platinum converted 484,000 shares of VistaGen common stock into 45,980 shares of our Series A Preferred Stock (the "Exchange").  Each share of Series A Preferred Stock issued to Platinum is convertible into ten shares of VistaGen common stock.  In consideration for the Exchange, the Series A Preferred Stock received by Platinum in connection with the Exchange is convertible into the equivalent of 0.95 shares of common stock surrendered in connection with the Exchange.  The Exchange was effected without registration under the Securities Act in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act, and/or Section 4(2) thereunder. We received no proceeds in connection with the Exchange.

Issuance of Excaliber Common Stock in Merger Transaction

On May 11, 2011, Excaliber issued 6,836,452 shares of its common stock to shareholders of VistaGen in connection with the Merger. The issuance of shares of Excaliber’s common stock to these individuals was made in reliance on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act for the offer and sale of securities not involving a public offering.

Morrison & Foerster Note
On March 15, 2010, we issued an unsecured promissory note in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $1.3 million to our legal counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP (“Morrison & Foerster”), in exchange for cancellation of accounts payable for accrued legal fees, including legal fees relating to its intellectual property portfolio, totaling approximately $1.3 million (the “Morrison & Foerster Note”).  The Morrison & Foerster Note provides that amounts payable for services rendered by Morrison & Foerster to us from March 1, 2010 through the closing of our 2011 private placement shall automatically be added to the outstanding principal balance of the Morrison & Foerster Note upon delivery of an invoice for such services.clinical trial.

On May 5, 2011,Moreover, if we amended and restatedor our collaborators are able to complete a clinical trial of a product candidate, the Morrison & Foerster Noteresults of such trial may not be adequate to provide for (i)support marketing approval. For any such trial, if the extension of the maturity date of the note to March 31, 2016 and (ii) an initital payment of $100,000 within three business days of the date of the note (which amount has been paid), followed by the payment of the remaining note balance in monthly installments according to the following five-year schedule: (A) after June 1, 2011, $15,000 per month until March 31, 2012; (B) $25,000 per month from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013; (C) $50,000 per month from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016; provided, however, that beginning on January 1, 2012, we will be required to make interim cash payments to Morrison & Foerster under the Morrison & Foerster Note equal to five percent (5.0%) of the proceeds of any of our public or private equity financings during the then-remaining term of the note.  All amounts paid under the Morrison & Foerster Note shall be fully credited against the outstanding note balance at the time each payment is made.  If any amount remains unpaid as of March 31, 2016, such remaining amount shall be paid in full by such date.  In connectionFDA disagrees with the foregoing amendment and restatementchoice of primary endpoint or the Morrison & Foerster Note, we issued 200,000 shares of restricted common stockresults for the primary endpoint are not robust or significant relative to Morrison & Foerster atcontrol, are subject to confounding factors, or are not adequately supported by other study endpoints, including overall survival or complete response rate, the FDA may refuse to approve a price of $1.75 per share. At March 31, 2012, the aggregate principal and accrued interest of the Morrison & Foerster Note is approximately $2.4 million.BLA
or NDA. The FDA may require additional clinical trials as a condition for approving our product candidates.

 
McCarthy Tetrault NoteIf we or our collaborator experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenues from any of our product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs and slow our product candidate development and approval process. Delays in completing clinical trials could also allow our competitors to obtain marketing approval before we do or shorten the patent protection period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.
 
On May 5, 2011, we issued an unsecured promissory noteResults of earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials.

The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Many companies in the aggregate principal amountbiopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to adverse safety profiles or lack of CDN $502,796.79efficacy, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Similarly, our future clinical trial results may not be successful for these or other reasons.

This drug candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in planned clinical trials compared to our Canadian legal counsel, McCarthy Tetrault LLP (“McCarthy”) in exchange for cancellation of all accounts payable for accrued legal fees (the “McCarthy Note”).  The termscompleted clinical trials. As product candidates are developed through preclinical to early and late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the McCarthy Note provide for: (i) beginning on May 31, 2011,development program, such as manufacturing and onmethods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for later stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes do carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives.
For example, the results of planned clinical trials may be adversely affected if we or beforeour collaborator seek to optimize and scale-up production of a product candidate. In such case, we will need to demonstrate comparability between the last business daynewly manufactured drug substance and/or drug product relative to the previously manufactured drug substance and/or drug product. Demonstrating comparability may cause us to incur additional costs or delay initiation or completion of each calendar month thereafter until December 31, 2011, paymentour clinical trials, including the need to initiate a dose escalation study and, if unsuccessful, could require us to complete additional preclinical or clinical studies of $10,000 per month (“McCarthy Monthly Payment”) untilour product candidates.

If we or our potential strategic partners experience delays in the earlier of: (a)enrollment of patients in clinical trials involving our product candidates, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We or our potential strategic partners may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we or they are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the full paymentFDA or other regulatory authorities. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the McCarthy Note or (b) June 30, 2014; provided, however, that (1) beginning on January 31, 2012,patient population, the McCarthy Monthly Payment shall increaseproximity of patients to $15,000, (2) uponclinical sites, the closing of a McCarthy Qualified Financing (as defined below), we will be required to pay McCarthy $100,000 within ten (10) business dayseligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the closing of such McCarthy Qualified Financing, (3) beginning on January 1, 2012, we will be requiredclinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians' and patients' perceptions as to make interim cash payments to McCarthy under the McCarthy Note equal to one percent (1.0%)potential advantages of the proceeds of all ofdrug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we or our publiccollaborators may be investigating. If we or private equity financings duringthey fail to enroll and maintain the term of the McCarthy Note; and (4) if, during the term of the McCarthy Note, (A) we receive a strategic loan from the federal government of Canada under a low interest long term Canadian federal loan program with net loan proceeds to us of at least CDN $5,000,000 in cash, and (B) the terms of such loan permit the use of loan proceeds by us to pay prior indebtedness to McCarthy, then we shall be required to make an interim cash payment to McCarthy equal to three percent (3%) of such loan proceeds within ten (10) days of our receipt thereof from the Canadian federal government.  All amounts paid under the McCarthy Note shall be fully credited against the outstanding note balance at the time each payment is made.  If any amount remains unpaid as of June 30, 2014, such remaining amount shall be paid in full by such date.  For purposes of the McCarthy Note, “McCarthy Qualified Financing” means an equity or equity based financing or series of equity financings between the issuance date of the McCarthy Note and June 30, 2012, resulting in gross proceeds to us of at least CDN $5,500,000. In connection with the issuance of the McCarthy Note, we issued 100,000 shares of restricted common stock to McCarthy at a price of $1.75 per share.
Desjardins Securities Note
On May 5, 2011, we issued an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of $236,058 to our former Canadian investment bankers, Desjardins Securities Inc. (“Desjardins”), to reimburse Desjardins, pursuant to our prior investment banking services engagement agreement, for legal fees paid by Desjardins on our behalf in connection with a proposed corporate finance transaction in Canada (“Desjardins Note”).  The terms of the Desjardins Note provide for,   beginning on May 31, 2011, and on or before the last business day of each calendar month thereafter until December 31, 2011, payment of approximately $4,000 per month (“Desjardins Monthly Payment”) until the earlier of: (a) the full payment of the Desjardins Note or (b) June 30, 2014; provided, however, that (1) beginning on January 31, 2012, the Desjardins Monthly Payment shall increase to $6,000, (2) upon the closing of a Desjardins Qualified Financing (as defined below), we will be required to pay Desjardins $39,600 within ten (10) business days of the closing of such Desjardins Qualified Financing, (3) beginning on January 1, 2012, we will be required to make interim cash payments to Desjardins under the Desjardins Note equal to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the proceeds of all of our public or private equity financings during the term of the Desjardins Note; and (4) if, during the term of the Desjardins Note, (A) we receive a strategic loan from the federal government of Canada under a low interest long-term Canadian federal loan program with net loan proceeds to us of at least CDN $5,000,000 in cash, and (B) the terms of such loan permit the use of loan proceeds by us to pay prior indebtedness to Desjardins, then we shall be required to make an interim cash payment to Desjardins equal to one percent (1%) of such loan proceeds within ten (10) days of our receipt thereof from the Canadian federal government.  All amounts paid under the Desjardins Note shall be fully credited against the outstanding note balance at the time each payment is made.  If any amount remains unpaid as of June 30, 2014, such remaining amount shall be paid in full by such date.  For purposes of the Desjardins Note, “Desjardins Qualified Financing” means an equity or equity based financing or series of equity financings between the issuance date of the Desjardins Note and June 30, 2012, resulting in gross proceeds to us of at least CDN $5,500,000. In connection with the issuance of the Desjardins Note, we issued 39,600 shares of restricted common stock to Desjardins at a price of $1.75 per share.
August 2010 Notes and Warrants
In August 2010, we issued short-term, non-interest bearing, unsecured promissory notes (the “August 2010 Short Term Notes”) having an aggregate principal amount, as adjusted, of $1,120,000, for a purchase price of $800,000.  In connection with the 2011 Private Placement, a total of $840,000 of the aggregate principal amount of the August 2010 Short Term Notes, plus a note cancellation premium of $94,500, were converted into Units, $105,000 of such amount was converted into a long-term note issued to Cato BioVentures, and $175,000 of such amount was not converted, of which amount approximately $64,000 remains outstanding.  In connection with the issuance of the August 2010 Short Term Notes, we issued to each holder thereof a warrant to purchase that number of sharespatients for which the clinical trial was designed, the statistical power of that clinical trial may be reduced, which would make it harder to demonstrate that the product candidate being tested is safe and effective. Additionally, enrollment delays in clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our common stock determined by multiplying the purchase priceto decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of such August 2010 Short Term Note by 0.50.  Warrants exercisable to acquire an aggregate of 200,000 sharespatients for any of our common stock were also issuedcurrent or future clinical trials would result in connection with the issuance of the August 2010 Short Term Notes.  These warrants expire three (3) years from the date of issuancesignificant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials, and, have an exercise price of $2.00 per share.therefore, product candidates, altogether.

 
2008/2010 Notes
Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates, we and/or our potential strategic partners will be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and Warrantscontinued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

Any regulatory approvals that we or our potential strategic partners receive for our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, all of which could adversely affect the product’s commercial potential and our revenues. In addition, if the FDA approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, testing, packaging, labeling, storage, distribution, field alert or biological product deviation reporting, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, as well as continued compliance with cGMP for commercial manufacturing and good clinical practices, or GCP, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

·
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;
 
From May 2008
·
warning letters or holds on clinical trials;
·
refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or our strategic partners, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;
·
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; and
·injunctions, fines or the imposition of other civil or criminal penalties.
Risks Related to August 4, 2010,Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have incurred significant net losses since inception and anticipate that we sold 10% convertible promissory noteswill continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability, which would depress the market price of our common stock, and could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We have incurred significant net losses in each fiscal year since our inception, including net losses of $3.0 million and $12.9 million during the fiscal years ending March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  As of March 31, 2014, we had an accumulated deficit of $70.6 million. We do not know whether or when we will become profitable. To date, although we have generated approximately $16.4 million in revenues, we have not commercialized any products or generated any revenues from product sales. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in our research and development programs and from general and administrative expenses. We anticipate that our operating losses will substantially increase over the next several years as we execute our plan to expand our drug rescue, stem cell technology research and development, drug development and potential commercialization activities. Additionally, we expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the aggregate principal amountevent we achieve our goal of $2,971,815 (the “2008/2010 Notes”).  Allobtaining a listing on a national securities exchange. The net losses we incur may fluctuate from quarter to quarter.
If we do not successfully develop, license, sell or obtain regulatory approval for our future product candidates and effectively manufacture, market and sell, or collaborate to accomplish such activities, any product candidates that are approved, we may never generate revenues from product sales, and even if we do generate product sales revenues, we may never achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the market price of our common stock also could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

Since our inception, most of our resources have been dedicated to research and development of the 2008/2010 Notes converted into Unitsdrug rescue capabilities of our human pluripotent stem cell technology. In particular, we have expended substantial resources developing CardioSafe3D and LiverSafe3D, and we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future developing LiverSafe3D and CardioSafe3DDrug Rescue Variants. These expenditures will include costs associated with general and administrative costs, facilities costs, research and development, acquiring new technologies, manufacturing product candidates, conducting preclinical experiments and clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approvals, as well as commercializing any products approved for sale. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.
We have no current source of revenue to sustain our present activities, and we do not expect to generate revenue until, and unless, we out-license a Drug Rescue Variant and/or AV-101 to a third party, obtain approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities and successfully commercialize, on our own or through a future collaboration, one or more of our compounds. As the outcome of our proposed drug rescue and AV-101 development activities and future anticipated clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates, on our own or in collaboration with others. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. As a result of these and other factors, we will need to seek additional capital in the near term to meet our future operating requirements, and may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.
Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:
·
the number and characteristics of the product candidates we pursue, including Drug Rescue Candidates;
·
the scope, progress, results and costs of researching and developing our product candidates, and conducting preclinical and clinical studies;
·
the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates;
·
the cost of commercialization activities if any of our product candidates are approved for sale, including marketing, sales and distribution costs;
·
the cost of manufacturing our product candidates and any products we successfully commercialize;
·
our ability to establish and maintain strategic partnerships, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of such agreements;
·
market acceptance of our products;
·
the effect of competing technological and market developments;
·
our ability to obtain government funding for our programs;
·
the costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent claims necessary to preserve our freedom to operate in the stem cell industry, including litigation costs associated with any claims that we infringe third-party patents or violate other intellectual property rights and the outcome of such litigation;
·
the timing, receipt and amount of potential future licensee fees, milestone payments, and sales of, or royalties on, our future products, if any; and
·the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products and technologies, although we currently have no commitments or agreements relating to any of these types of transactions.
Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate drug rescue programs, preclinical studies, clinical trials or other research and development activities for one or more of our product candidates, or cease or reduce our operating activities and/or sell or license to third parties some or all of our intellectual property, any of which could harm our operating results.
Raising additional capital will cause dilution to our existing stockholders, and may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.
We will need to seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of existing stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of the new capital may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect existing stockholder rights. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Some of our programs have been partially supported by government grants, which may not be available to us in the future.
Since inception, we have received substantial funds under grant award programs funded by state and federal governmental agencies, such as the NIH, the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. To fund a portion of our future research and development programs, we may apply for additional grant funding from such or similar governmental organizations.  However, funding by these governmental organizations may be significantly reduced or eliminated in the future for a number of reasons. For example, some programs are subject to a yearly appropriations process in Congress. In addition, we may not receive funds under future grants because of budgeting constraints of the agency administering the program. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we will receive any future grant funding from any government organization or otherwise.  A restriction on the government funding available to us could reduce the resources that we would be able to devote to future research and development efforts. Such a reduction could delay the introduction of new products and hurt our competitive position.
Our independent auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
Our consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2014 included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared assuming we will continue to operate as a going concern. However, due to our ongoing operating losses and our accumulated deficit, there is doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Because we continue to experience net operating losses, our ability to continue as a going concern is subject to our ability to generate a profit and/or obtain necessary funding from outside sources, including obtaining additional funding from the sale of our securities or obtaining loans and grants from financial institutions and/or government agencies where possible. Our continued net operating losses increase the difficulty in completing such sales or securing alternative sources of funding, and there can be no assurances that we will be able to obtain such funding on favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient financing from the sale of its securities or from alternative sources, it may be required to reduce, defer, or discontinue certain of its research and development activities or it may not be able to continue as a going concern.
Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future taxable income is subject to certain limitations.

If we do not generate sufficient taxable income we may not be able to use a material portion, or any portion, of our existing net operating losses (NOLs). Furthermore, our existing NOLs may be subject to limitations under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which in general provides that a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is limited in its ability to utilize its pre- change NOLs to offset future taxable income. Our existing NOLs are subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, and if we undergo an ownership change, in connection with a future equity-based financing, series of equity-based financings or otherwise, our ability to utilize NOLs could be further limited by Section 382 of the 2011 Private Placement.Internal Revenue Code. Future changes in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property
We utilize certain technologies that are licensed to us, including key aspects of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform.  If the licensors terminate the licenses or fail to maintain or enforce the underlying patents, our competitive position and market share will be harmed, and our business could be adversely affected.
We currently use certain licensed technologies to produce cells that are material to our research and development programs, including our drug rescue programs, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our rights to use such licensed technologies are subject to the negotiation of, continuation of and compliance with the terms of the applicable licenses, including payment of any royalties and diligence, insurance, indemnification and other obligations. If a licensor believes that we have failed to meet our obligations under a license agreement for non-payment of license fees, non-reimbursement of patent expenses, or otherwise, the licensor could seek to limit or terminate our license rights, which could lead to costly and time-consuming litigation and, potentially, a loss of the licensed rights. During the period of any such litigation, our ability to carry out the development and commercialization of potential products could be significantly and negatively affected.
Our license rights are further subject to the validity of the owner’s intellectual property rights. As such, we are dependent on our licensors to defend the viability of these patents and patent applications. We cannot be certain that drafting and/or prosecution of the licensed patents and patent applications by the licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. Legal action could be initiated by or against the owners of the intellectual property that we license. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent these other companies or institutions from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business. In some cases, we do not control the prosecution, maintenance or filing of the patents to which we hold licenses, or the enforcement of these patents against third parties.
Certain of our license agreements are subject to termination by the licensor in specific circumstances, including non-payment of license fees, royalties and patent-related expenses. Any such termination of these licenses could prevent us from producing cells for our research and development programs and future commercial activities, including selling or marketing products. Because of the complexity of our human pluripotent stem cell technology and the patents we have licensed, determining the scope of the license and related royalty obligation can be difficult and can lead to disputes between us and the licensor. An unfavorable resolution of such a dispute could lead to an increase in the royalties payable pursuant to the license. If a licensor believed we were not paying the royalties or other amounts due under the license or were otherwise not in compliance with the terms of the license, the licensor might attempt to revoke the license. If our license rights were restricted or ultimately lost, our ability to continue our business based on the affected technology would be severely adversely affected.
We may engage in discussions regarding possible commercial, licensing and cross-licensing agreements with third parties from time to time. There can be no assurance that these discussions will lead to the execution of commercial license or cross-license agreements or that such agreements will be on terms that are favorable to us. If these discussions are successful, we could be obligated to pay license fees and royalties to such third parties. If these discussions do not lead to the execution of mutually acceptable agreements, we may be limited or prevented from producing and selling our existing products and developing new products. One or more of the parties involved in such discussions could resort to litigation to protect or enforce its patents and proprietary rights or to determine the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others. In addition, if we enter into cross-licensing agreements, there is no assurance that we will be able to effectively compete against others who are licensed under our patents.

If we seek to leverage prior discovery and development of Drug Rescue Candidates under in-license arrangements with academic laboratories, biotechnology companies, the NIH, pharmaceutical companies or other third parties, it is uncertain what ownership rights, if any, we will obtain over intellectual property we derive from such licenses to Drug Rescue Variants we may generate or develop in connection with any such third-party licenses.
If, instead of identifying Drug Rescue Candidates based on information available to us in the public domain, we seek to in-license Drug Rescue Candidates from biotechnology, medicinal chemistry and pharmaceutical companies, academic, governmental and nonprofit research institutions, including the NIH, or other third-parties, there can be no assurances that we will obtain material ownership or economic participation rights over intellectual property we may derive from such licenses or similar rights to the Drug Rescue Variants we may generate and develop. If we are unable to obtain ownership or substantial economic participation rights over intellectual property related to Drug Rescue Variants we generate, our business may be adversely affected.
Our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology through patents and other means is uncertain, and we could be unsuccessful in obtaining adequate patent protection for one or more of our product candidates.
Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technologies. We rely on patents, where appropriate and available, as well as a combination of copyright, trade secret and trademark laws, license agreements and nondisclosure, confidentiality and other contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technology. However, these legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. Pending patent applications of ours or our licensors may not issue as patents or may not issue in a form that will be sufficient to protect our proprietary technology and gain or maintain our competitive advantage. Any patents we have obtained or may obtain in the future, or the rights we have licensed, may be subject to re-examination, reissue, opposition or other administrative proceeding, or may be challenged in litigation, and such challenges could result in a determination that the patent is invalid or unenforceable. In addition, competitors may be able to design alternative methods or products that avoid infringement of these patents or technologies. To the extent our intellectual property, including licensed intellectual property, offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we are exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate protection against our competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Both the patent application process and the process of managing patent disputes can be time consuming and expensive.
The patent positions of companies in the life sciences industry can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. A number of life sciences, biopharmaceutical and other companies, universities and research institutions have filed patent applications or have been issued patents relating to stem cells, use of stem cells and other modified cells to treat disease, disorder or injury, and other technologies potentially relevant to or required by our existing and planned products. We cannot be certain that patents we have filed or may file in the future will be issued or granted, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid and/or unenforceable. The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (US PTO) and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending or future patent applications. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on certain of our proprietary products and technology.
Our patents and patent applications may not be sufficient to protect our products, product candidates and technologies from commercial competition. Our inability to obtain adequate patent protection for our product candidates or platform technology could adversely affect our business. 
Publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature tends to lag behind actual discoveries by at least several months and sometimes several years. Therefore, the persons or entities that we or our licensors name as inventors in our patents and patent applications may not have been the first to invent the inventions disclosed in the patent applications or patents, or the first to file patent applications for these inventions. As a result, we may not be able to obtain patents for discoveries that we otherwise would consider patentable and that we consider to be extremely significant to our future success.
Where several parties seek U.S. patent protection for the same technology, the US PTO may declare an interference proceeding in order to ascertain the party to which the patent should be issued. Patent interferences are typically complex, highly contested legal proceedings, subject to appeal. They are usually expensive and prolonged, and can cause significant delay in the issuance of patents. Moreover, parties that receive an adverse decision in interference can lose patent rights. Our pending patent applications, or our issued patents, may be drawn into interference proceedings, which may delay or prevent the issuance of patents or result in the loss of issued patent rights. If more groups become engaged in scientific research related to hESCs, the number of patent filings by such groups and therefore the risk of our patents or applications being drawn into interference proceedings may increase. The interference process can also be used to challenge a patent that has been issued to another party.

Outside of the U.S., certain jurisdictions, such as Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, permit oppositions to be filed against the granting of patents. Because we may seek to develop and commercialize our product candidates internationally, securing both proprietary protection and freedom to operate outside of the U.S. is important to our business. In addition, the European Patent Convention prohibits the granting of European patents for inventions that concern “uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes”. The European Patent Office is presently interpreting this prohibition broadly, and is applying it to reject patent claims that pertain to hESCs. However, this broad interpretation is being challenged through the European Patent Office appeals system. As a result, we do not yet know whether or to what extent we will be able to obtain European patent protection for our proprietary hESC-based technology and systems.

Patent opposition proceedings are not currently available in the U.S. patent system, but legislation is pending to introduce them. However, issued U.S. patents can be re-examined by the US PTO at the request of a third party. Patents owned or licensed by us may therefore be subject to re-examination. As in any legal proceeding, the outcome of patent re-examinations is uncertain, and a decision adverse to our interests could result in the loss of valuable patent rights.

Successful challenges to our patents through interference, opposition or re-examination proceedings could result in a loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction(s). As more groups become engaged in scientific research and product development areas of hESCs, the risk of our patents being challenged through patent interferences, oppositions, re-examinations or other means will likely increase. If we institute such proceedings against the patents of other parties and we are unsuccessful, we may be subject to litigation, or otherwise prevented from commercializing potential products in the relevant jurisdiction, or may be required to obtain licenses to those patents or develop or obtain alternative technologies, any of which could harm our business.
Furthermore, if such challenges to our patent rights are not resolved promptly in our favor, our existing business relationships may be jeopardized and we could be delayed or prevented from entering into new collaborations or from commercializing certain products, which could materially harm our business.

Issued patents covering one or more of our product candidates or technologies could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates or technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the US PTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the patent validity, we cannot be certain, for example, that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products or certain aspects of our platform technology, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.
Claims that any of our product candidates, including our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, or, if commercialized, the sale or use of our products infringe the patent rights of third parties could result in costly litigation or could require substantial time and issuancemoney to resolve, even if litigation is avoided.

We cannot guarantee that our product candidates, the use of our product candidates, or our platform technology, do not or will not infringe third party patents. Third parties might allege that we are infringing their patent rights or that we have misappropriated their trade secrets. Such third parties might resort to litigation against us. The basis of such litigation could be existing patents or patents that issue in the future. Our failure to successfully defend against any claims that our product candidates or platform technology infringe the rights of third parties could also adversely affect our business. Failure to obtain any required licenses could restrict our ability to commercialize our products in certain territories or subject us to patent infringement litigation, which could result in us having to cease commercialization of our products and subject us to money damages in such territories.

It is also possible that we may fail to identify relevant patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies, our products or the use of our products.

To avoid or settle potential claims with respect to any patent rights of third parties, we may choose or be required to seek a license from a third party and be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or any future strategic partners were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing one or more of our products, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This could harm our business significantly.

Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the 2008/2010 Notes,outcome. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other business.
Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation, and could result in unfavorable outcomes that could limit our research and development activities and/or our ability to commercialize certain products.

During the course of any patent litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our products, programs, or intellectual property could be diminished. Moreover, if third parties successfully assert intellectual property rights against us, we might be barred from using certain aspects of our platform technology, or barred from developing and commercializing certain products. Prohibitions against using certain technologies, or prohibitions against commercializing certain products, could be imposed by a court or by a settlement agreement between us and a plaintiff. In addition, if we are unsuccessful in defending against allegations of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets, we may be forced to pay substantial damage awards to the plaintiff. There is inevitable uncertainty in any litigation, including intellectual property litigation. There can be no assurance that we would prevail in any intellectual property litigation, even if the case against us is weak or flawed. If litigation leads to an outcome unfavorable to us, we may be required to obtain a license from the patent owner to continue our research and development programs or to market our product(s). It is possible that the necessary license will not be available to us on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. This could limit our research and development activities, our ability to commercialize certain products, or both.
Most of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation longer than we could. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our internal research programs, conduct clinical trials, continue to in-license needed technology, or enter into strategic partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.
In addition, any future patent litigation, interference or other administrative proceedings will result in additional expense and distraction of our personnel. An adverse outcome in such litigation or proceedings may expose us or any future strategic partners to loss of our proprietary position, expose us to significant liabilities, or require us to seek licenses that may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.
Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets, technical know-how, and proprietary information concerning our business strategy in order to protect our competitive position in the field of stem cell research and product candidate development. In the course of our research and development activities and other business activities, we often rely on confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary information. Such confidentiality agreements are used, for example, when we talk to vendors of laboratory or clinical development services or potential strategic partners. In addition, each of our employees is required to sign a confidentiality agreement upon joining the Company. We take steps to protect our proprietary information, and our confidentiality agreements are carefully drafted to protect our proprietary interests. Nevertheless, there can be no guarantee that an employee or an outside party will not make an unauthorized disclosure of our proprietary confidential information. This might happen intentionally or inadvertently. It is possible that a competitor will make use of such information, and that our competitive position will be compromised, in spite of any legal action we might take against persons making such unauthorized disclosures.

Trade secrets are difficult to protect. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific collaborators might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States sometimes are less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.
Our research and development strategic partners may have rights to publish data and other information to which we have rights. In addition, we sometimes engage individuals or entities to conduct research relevant to our business. The ability of these individuals or entities to publish or otherwise publicly disclose data and other information generated during the course of their research is subject to certain contractual limitations. These contractual provisions may be insufficient or inadequate to protect our confidential information. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication, or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

·Others may be able to make compounds that are the same as or similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we may own or have exclusively licensed;
·We or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we may own or have exclusively licensed;
·We or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;
·Others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
·It is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;
·Issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;
·Our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;
·We may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; and
·The patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.
Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other development stage biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries involve both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, Congress has passed patent reform legislation which provides new limitations on attaining, maintaining and enforcing intellectual property. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the US PTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.
If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection or other commercial protection for AV-101, the value of AV-101 will be harmed.
Commercial protection of AV-101, our small molecule drug candidate for neuropathic pain and other neurological conditions is important to our business. Our success related to AV-101 will depend in part on our or a potential collaborator’s ability to obtain and enforce potential patents and maintain our trade secrets and secure New Drug Product Exclusivity provided by the FDA under section 505(c)(3)(E) and 505(j)(5)(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Additional patents may not be granted, and potential U.S. patents, if issued, each holdermight not provide us with commercial benefit or might be infringed upon, invalidated or circumvented by others. The principle U.S. method of use patent and its foreign counterparts for AV-101 have expired.  Although we have recently filed three new U.S. patent applications relating to AV-101, we or others with whom we may collaborate for the development and commercialization of AV-101 may choose not to seek, or may be unable to obtain, patent protection in a country that could potentially be an important market for AV-101.
We may become subject to damages resulting from claims that we or our future employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our employees’ former employers.

Our ability to execute on our business plan will depend on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals with specialized training in the field of stem cell research and bioassay development, as well as medicinal chemistry and in vitro drug candidate screening and nonclinical and clinical development. Our future success depends on our ability to identify, hire and retain these highly skilled personnel during our development stage. We may hire additional highly skilled scientific and technical employees, including employees who may have been previously employed at biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, and who may have executed invention assignments, nondisclosure agreements and/or non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. As to such future employees, we may become subject to claims that we, or these future employees, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize certain potential products, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
Risks Related to our Common Stock
There is no assurance that an active, liquid and orderly trading market will develop for our common stock or what the market price of our common stock will be and, as a result, it may be difficult for you to sell your shares of our common stock.

Since we became a publicly-traded company in May 2011, there has been a limited public market for shares of our common stock on the OTCQB Marketplaces (OTCQB). We do not yet meet the initial listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Capital Market, or other similar national securities exchanges. Until our common stock is listed on a broader exchange, we anticipate that it will remain quoted on the OTCQB, another over-the-counter quotation system, or in the “pink sheets.” In those venues, investors may find it difficult to obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock. In addition, if we fail to meet the criteria set forth in SEC regulations, various requirements would be imposed by law on broker-dealers who sell our securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors. Consequently, such regulations may deter broker-dealers from recommending or selling our common stock, which may further affect liquidity. This could also make it more difficult to raise additional capital.
We cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in our company will lead to the development of a 2008/2010 Notemore active trading market on the OTCQB, whether we will meet the initial listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Capital Market, or other similar national securities exchanges, or how liquid that market might become. If an active trading market does not develop, you may have difficulty selling any of the shares of our common stock that you buy. In addition, the trading price of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

·
actual or anticipated quarterly variation in our results of operations or the results of our competitors;
·
announcements by us or our competitors of new commercial products, significant contracts, commercial relationships or capital commitments;
·
financial projections we may provide to the public, any changes to those projections, or our failure to meet those projections;
·
issuance of new or changed securities analysts’ reports or recommendations for our stock;
·
developments or disputes concerning our intellectual property or other proprietary rights;
·
commencement of, or our involvement in, litigation;
·
market conditions in the biopharmaceutical and life sciences sectors;
·
failure to complete significant sales;
·
changes in legislation and government regulation;
·
public concern regarding the safety, efficacy or other aspects of our products;
·
entering into, changing or terminating collaborative relationships;
·
any shares of our common stock or other securities eligible for future sale;
·
any major change to the composition of our board of directors or management; and
·general economic conditions and slow or negative growth of our markets.
The stock market in general, and biotechnology-based companies like ours in particular, has from time to time experienced volatility in the market prices for securities that often has been unrelated to the operating performance of the underlying companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In certain recent situations in which the market price of a warrantstock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against such company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to purchase thatbring a lawsuit against us, the defense and disposition of the lawsuit could be costly and divert the time and attention of our management and harm our operating results. Additionally, if the trading volume of our common stock remains low and limited there will be an increased level of volatility and you may not be able to generate a return on your investment.
A significant portion of our total outstanding shares are restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into the market in the near future. Future sales of shares by existing stockholders could cause our stock price to decline, even if our business is doing well.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock equal toin the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares determined by dividingintend to sell shares, could reduce the principal amountmarket price of such holder’s 2008/2010 Note by the price per share sold under an equity or equity based financing or seriesour common stock. Prior to this date of equity-based financings resulting in gross proceeds totaling at least $3 million and then multiplying the quotient by 0.5. The warrants expirethis report, there has been a limited public market for shares of our common stock on the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2013;OTCQB. Future sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, including shares issued upon the exchange of our Series A Preferred Stock, conversion of convertible promissory notes and exercise of outstanding options and warrants for common stock, in the public market, or (ii) 10 days preceding the closing datepossibility of these sales occurring, could cause the prevailing market price for our common stock to fall or impair our ability to raise equity capital in the future.
Our principal institutional stockholders may continue to have substantial control over us and could limit your ability to influence the outcome of key transactions, including changes in control.

Certain of our current institutional stockholders and their respective affiliates beneficially own approximately 46% of our outstanding capital stock, as beneficial ownership is defined by SEC rules and regulations. Accordingly, these stockholders may continue to have substantial influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of VistaGen or all or substantially all of our assets or any other significant corporate transactions. These stockholders may also delay or prevent a change of control of us, even if such a change of control would benefit our other stockholders. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors’ perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise. For information regarding the ownership of our outstanding stock by such stockholders, refer to Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

The trading market for our common stock may depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us and our business. Securities and industry analysts do not currently, and may never, publish research on our company. If no or too few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of our company, the trading price for our stock would likely be negatively impacted. In the event securities or industry analysts initiate coverage, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. In the event we obtain analyst coverage, we will not have any control of the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. If one or more equity research analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

There may be additional issuances of shares of preferred stock in the future.
Following approval by our stockholders in October 2011, our Articles of Incorporation permit us to issue up to 10.0 million shares of preferred stock and our Board has authorized the issuance of 500,000 shares of Series A Preferred, all of which shares are currently issued and outstanding.  Our board of directors could authorize the issuance of additional series of preferred stock in the future and such preferred stock could grant holders preferred rights to our assets upon liquidation, the right to receive dividends before dividends would be declared to holders of our common stock, and the right to the redemption of such shares, possibly together with a premium, prior to the redemption of the common stock. In the event and to the extent that we do issue additional preferred stock in the future, the rights of holders of our common stock could be impaired thereby, including without limitation, with respect to liquidation.
Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Our management is currently required to assess the effectiveness of our controls and we are required to disclose changes made in our internal control over financial reporting on a quarterly basis.  As a “smaller reporting company,” however, our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  If we cannot continue to favorably assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide an unqualified attestation report on our internal controls whenever required in the future, investors could lose confidence in our financial information and the price of our common stock could decline.  Additionally, should we cease to be a “smaller reporting company,” we will incur additional expense and management effort to facilitate the required attestation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting by our independent registered public accounting firm.
Our common stock may be considered a “penny stock.”
Since we became a publicly-traded company in May 2011, our common stock has traded on the OTCQB at a price of less than $5.00 per share. The SEC has adopted regulations which generally define a “penny stock” as an equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to specific exemptions. To the extent that the market price of our common stock is less than $5.00 per share and, therefore, may be considered a “penny stock,” brokers and dealers effecting transactions in our common stock must disclose certain information concerning the transaction, obtain a written agreement from the purchaser and determine that the purchaser is reasonably suitable to purchase the securities. These rules may restrict the ability of brokers or dealers to sell our common stock and may affect your ability to sell shares of our common stock. In addition, as long as our common stock remains quoted only on the OTCQB, investors may find it difficult to obtain accurate quotations of the stock, and may find few buyers to purchase such stock and few market makers to support its assets. price.

We have never paid dividends on our capital stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
We have paid no cash dividends on any of our classes of capital stock to date and currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. Any payment of cash dividends will depend upon our financial condition, contractual restrictions, financing agreement covenants, solvency tests imposed by corporate law, results of operations, anticipated cash requirements and other factors and will be at the discretion of our board of directors. Furthermore, we may incur indebtedness that may severely restrict or prohibit the payment of dividends.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments
The warrantsdisclosures in this section are exercisablenot required since we qualify as a smaller reporting company.

Item 2.  Properties

Our principal executive offices and laboratories are located at an exercise343 Allerton Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, where we occupy approximately 10,900 square feet of office and lab space under a lease expiring on July 31, 2017. We believe that our facilities are suitable and adequate for our current and foreseeable needs.

Item 3.  Legal Proceeding

From time to time, we may become involved in claims and other legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business. We are not presently involved in any legal proceeding nor do we know of any legal proceeding which is threatened or contemplated.

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.
PART II

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

Market Information

On June 21, 2011 our common stock began trading on the OTC Marketplace (OTCQB), under the symbol “VSTA”.  There was no established trading market for our common stock prior to that date.
Shown below is the range of high and low sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated as reported by the OTCQB.  The market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commissions and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.
  High  Low 
Year Ending March 31, 2014      
First quarter ending June 30, 2013 $0.90  $0.60 
Second quarter ending September 30, 2013 $0.89  $0.55 
Third quarter ending December 31, 2013 $0.61  $0.26 
Fourth quarter ending March 31, 2014 $0.50  $0.28 
         
Year Ending March 31, 2013        
First quarter ending June 30, 2012 $2.80  $0.50 
Second quarter ending September 30, 2012 $1.50  $0.51 
Third quarter ending December 31, 2012 $0.95  $0.55 
Fourth quarter ending March 31, 2013 $0.90  $0.60 

On June 19, 2014 the closing price equal to $2.625of our common stock on the OTCQB was $0.65 per share.

As of June 19, 2014, we had 25,451,877 shares of common stock outstanding and approximately 300 stockholders of record.  On the same date, one stockholder held all 500,000 outstanding restricted shares of our Series A Preferred.
Dividend Policy
We have not paid any dividends in the past and we do not anticipate that we will pay dividends in the foreseeable future.  Covenants in certain of our debt agreements prohibit us from paying dividends while the debt remains outstanding.
Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities

There were no repurchases of our common stock during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014

Cato BioVentures
 
Cato Holding Company, doing business as Cato BioVentures (Cato BioVentures), is the life sciences venture capital affiliate of Cato Research. Through strategic CRO service agreements with Cato Research, Cato BioVentures invests in therapeutics and medical devices, as well as platform technologies such as our stem cell technology-based Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, which its principals believe, based on their experience as management of Cato Research, are capable of transforming the traditional drug development process and the research and development productivity of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
Our Relationship with Cato Research and Cato BioVentures
Cato Research is our primary CRO for development of AV-101. Cato BioVentures is among our largest, long-term institutional investors.
As a result of the access Cato Research has to potential Drug Rescue Candidates from its biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry network, as well as Cato BioVentures’ strategic long term equity interest in VistaGen, we believe that our relationships with Cato BioVentures and Cato Research may provide us with unique opportunities relating to our drug rescue efforts that will permit us to leverage both their industry connections and the CRO resources of Cato Research, either on a contract research basis or in exchange for economic participation rights, should we develop Drug Rescue Variants internally on our own rather than out-license them to strategic partners.
United States National Institutes of Health
Since our inception in 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded us $11.3 million in non-dilutive research and development grants, including $2.3 million to support research and development of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and $8.8 million for nonclinical and Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101, our small molecule drug candidate which has successfully completed Phase 1 clinical development in the U.S. for neuropathic pain and other potential diseases and conditions, including epilepsy and depression.
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) funds stem cell research at academic research institutions and companies throughout California. CIRM was established in 2004 with the passage of Stem Cell Initiative (Proposition 71) by California voters. As a stem cell company based in California since 1998, we are eligible to apply for and receive grant funding under the Stem Cell Initiative. To date we have been awarded approximately $1.0 million of non-dilutive grant funding from CIRM for stem cell research and development related to stem cell-derived human liver cells. This funded research and development focused on the improvement of techniques and the production of engineered human ES Cell lines used to develop mature functional human liver cells as a biological system for testing drugs.
Celsis In Vitro Technologies
In March 2013, we entered into a strategic collaboration with Celsis In Vitro Technologies (Celsis IVT), a premier global provider of specialized in vitro products for drug metabolism, drug-drug interaction and toxicity screening, focused on characterizing and functionally benchmarking our human liver cell platform, LiverSafe 3D with Celsis IVT products for studying and predicting drug metabolism.  We intend to utilize Celsis IVT’s experience and expertise in in vitro drug metabolism to help validate LiverSafe 3DTM. We anticipate that Celsis IVT will not only validate our human liver cells in traditional pharmaceutical metabolism assays, but also will determine genetic variations in our human pluripotent stem cell lines that are important to drug development. In addition, we plan to utilize Celsis IVT’s large inventory of cryopreserved primary human liver cells, currently used throughout the pharmaceutical industry for traditional and high-throughput liver toxicology and other bioassays, as reference controls with which to monitor and benchmark the functional properties of LiverSafe 3D.
Collaborating with Celsis IVT scientists, we are focused on the following four key objectives:
·Optimize techniques to handle and maintain primary human cryopreserved primary liver cells as reference controls for various drug development assays;
·Develop a stable supply of characterized and validated human cryopreserved primary liver cells to serve as internal controls and provide benchmark comparisons for the characterization of our pluripotent stem cell-derived liver cells;
·Characterize our human pluripotent stem cell-derived liver cells using many of the same industry-standardized assays used to characterize primary human liver cells; and
·Produce a joint publication of the characterization of our pluripotent stem cell-derived human liver cells.
As an industry leader in the development of in vitro primary hepatocyte technology, we believe Celsis IVT has extensive resources to aid us in the benchmarking LiverSafe 3D to industry standards. We anticipate this collaboration will lead to the further validation of LiverSafe 3D for predicting liver toxicity and drug metabolism issues before costly human clinical trials.
Synterys, Inc.
In December 2011, we entered into a strategic medicinal chemistry collaboration agreement with Synterys, Inc. (Synterys), a leading medicinal chemistry and collaborative drug discovery company. We believe this important collaboration will further our drug rescue initiatives with the support of Synterys’ medicinal chemistry expertise.  In addition to providing flexible, real-time contract medicinal chemistry services in support of our drug rescue programs, we anticipate potential collaborative opportunities with Synterys wherein we may jointly identify and develop Drug Rescue Variants.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property Rights Underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test TubePlatform
We have established our intellectual property rights to the technology underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform through a combination of exclusive and non-exclusive licenses, patent, and trade secret laws. To our knowledge, we are the first stem cell company focused primarily on stem cell technology-based drug rescue. We have assembled an intellectual property portfolio around the use of pluripotent stem cell technologies in drug discovery and development and with specific application to drug rescue. The differentiation protocols we have licensed direct the differentiation of pluripotent stem cells through:
·
a combination of growth factors (molecules that stimulate the growth of cells);
·
the experimentally controlled regulation of developmental genes, which is critical for determining what differentiation path a human cell will take; and
·
precise selection of immature cell populations for further growth and development.
By influencing key branch points in the cellular differentiation process, our pluripotent stem cell technologies can produce fully-differentiated, non-transformed, highly functional human cells in vitro in an efficient, highly pure and reproducible process.
As of the date of this report, we either own or have licensed 43 issued U.S. patents and 12 U.S. patent applications and certain foreign counterparts relating to the stem cell technologies that underlie our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform. Our material rights and obligations with respect to these patents and patent applications are summarized below:
Licenses
National Jewish Health (NJH) Exclusive License
We have exclusive licenses to seven issued U.S. patents held by NJH, certain of which expire in November 2014.  No foreign counterparts to these U.S. patents and patent application have been obtained. These U.S. patents contain claims covering composition of matter relating to specific populations of cells and precursors, methods to produce such cells, and applications of such cells for ES Cell-derived immature pluripotent precursors of all the cells of the mesoderm and endoderm lineages. Among other cell types, this covers cells of the heart, liver, pancreas, blood, connective tissues, vascular system, gut and lung cells.
Under this license agreement, we may become required to pay to NJH 1% of our total revenues up to $30 million in each calendar year and 0.5% of all revenues for amounts greater than $30 million, with minimum annual payments of $25,000. Additionally, we may become obligated under the agreement to make certain royalty payments on sales of products based on NJH’s patents or the sublicensing of such technology. The royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which would reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments and fees paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. This agreement remains in force for the life of the patents so long as neither party elects to terminate the agreement upon the other party’s uncured breach or default of an obligation under the agreement. We also have the right to terminate the agreement at any time without cause.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (MSSM) Exclusive License
We have an exclusive, field restricted, license to two U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications, and their foreign counterparts filed by MSSM. Foreign counterparts have been filed in Australia (two), Canada (two), Europe (two), Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Two of the U.S. applications have been issued and the foreign counterparts in Australia and Singapore have been issued, while a counterpart in Europe is pending. These patent applications have claims covering composition of matter relating to specific populations of cells and precursors, methods to produce such cells, and applications of such cells, including:
·
the use of certain growth factors to generate mesoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the heart, blood system, connective tissues, and vascular system) from hESCs;
·
the use of certain growth factors to generate endoderm (that is, the precursors capable of developing into cells of the liver, pancreas, lungs, gut, intestines, thymus, thyroid gland, bladder, and parts of the auditory system) from hESCs; and
·
applications of cells derived from mesoderm and endoderm precursors, especially those relating to drug discovery and testing for applications in the field of in vitro drug discovery and development applications.
This license agreement requires us to pay annual license and patent prosecution and maintenance fees and royalty payments based on product sales and services that are covered by the MSSM patent applications, as well as for any revenues received from sublicensing. Any drug candidates that we develop, including any Drug Rescue Variants, will only require royalty payments to the extent they require the practice of the licensed technology. To the extent we incur royalty payment obligations from other business activities, the royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments or fees paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. The license agreement will remain in force for the life of the patents so long as neither party terminates the agreement for cause (i) due to a material breach or default in performance of any provision of the agreement that is not cured within 60 days or (ii) in the case of failure to pay amounts due within 30 days.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) Non-Exclusive License
We have non-exclusive licenses to over 30 issued stem cell-related U.S. patents, 14 stem cell-related U.S. patent applications, and certain foreign counterparts held by WARF, for applications in the field of in vitro drug discovery and development. Foreign counterparts have been filed in Australia, Canada, Europe, China, India, Hong Kong, Israel, Brazil, South Korea, India, Mexico, and New Zealand. The subject matter of these patents includes specific hESC lines and composition of matter and use claims relating to hESCs important to drug discovery, and drug rescue screening. We have rights to:
·
use the technology for internal research and drug development;
·
provide discovery and screening services to third parties; and
·
market and sell research products (that is, cellular assays incorporating the licensed technology).
This license agreement requires us to make royalty payments based on product sales and services that incorporate the licensed technology. We do not believe that any drug rescue candidates to be developed by us will incorporate the licensed technology and, therefore, no royalty payments will be payable. Nevertheless, there is a minimum royalty of $20,000 per calendar year. There are also milestone fees related to the discovery of therapeutic molecules, though no royalties are owed on such molecules. The royalty payments are subject to anti-stacking provisions which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. The agreement remains in force for the life of the patents so long as we pay all monies due and do not breach any covenants, and such breach or default is uncured for 90 days. We may also terminate the agreement at any time upon 60 days’ notice. There are no reach through royalties on customer-owned small molecule or biologic drug products developed using the licensed technologies.
Our Patents
We have filed two U.S. patent applications on liver stem cells and their applications in drug development relating to toxicity testing, both of which have issued. Of the related international filings, European, Canadian and Korean patents were issued. The European patent has been validated in 11 European countries. We have filed a U.S. patent application, with foreign counterpart filing in Canada and Europe, directed to methods for producing human pluripotent stem cell-derived endocrine cells of the pancreas, with a specific focus on beta-islet cells, the cells that produce insulin, and their uses in diabetes drug discovery and screening.
The material patents currently related to the generation of human heart and liver cells for use in connection with our drug rescue activities are set forth below:
TerritoryPatent No.General Subject MatterExpiration
US7,763,466Method to produce endoderm cellsMay 2025
US7,955,849Method of enriching population of mesoderm cellsMay 2023
US8,143,009Toxicity typing using liver stem cellsJune 2023
US8,512,957Toxicity typing using liver stem cellsJune 2021
With respect to AV-101, we have filed three new U.S. patent applications.
Trade Secrets
We rely, in part, on trade secrets for protection of some of our intellectual property. We attempt to protect trade secrets by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, employees and consultants. Our employees and consultants also sign agreements requiring that they assign to us their interests in patents and copyrights arising from their work for us.
Sponsored Research Collaborations and Intellectual Property Rights
University Health Network, McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Toronto, Ontario
We have a long-term strategic stem cell research collaboration with our co-founder, Dr. Gordon Keller, Director of the UHN’s McEwen Centre, focused on, among other things, developing improved methods for differentiation of cardiomyocytes (heart cells) from pluripotent stem cells, and their uses in biological assay systems for drug discovery and development. Pursuant to our sponsored research collaboration agreement with UHN, we have the right to acquire exclusive worldwide rights to any inventions arising from studies we sponsor, under pre-negotiated license terms. Such pre-negotiated terms provide for royalty payments based on product sales that incorporate the licensed technology and milestone payments based on the achievement of certain events. Any Drug Rescue Variants that we develop will not incorporate the licensed technology and, therefore, will not require any royalty payments. To the extent we incur royalty payment obligations from other business activities, the royalty payments will be subject to anti-stacking provisions, which reduce our payments by a percentage of any royalty payments paid to third parties who have licensed necessary intellectual property to us. These licenses will remain in force for so long as we have an obligation to make royalty or milestone payments to UHN, but may be terminated earlier upon mutual consent, by us at any time, or by UHN for our breach of any material provision of the license agreement that is not cured within 90 days. We also have the exclusive option to sponsor research for similar cartilage, liver, pancreas and blood cell projects with similar licensing rights.
The sponsored research collaboration agreement with UHN, as amended, has a term of ten years, ending on September 18, 2017. Our 2012/2013 sponsored research project budget under the agreement ended on September 30, 2013. We are currently in discussions with Dr. Keller and UHN regarding the scope of our future sponsored research project budget under the agreement, and we anticipate finalizing such budget within the near term. The ten-year term of the agreement is subject to renewal upon mutual agreement of the parties. The agreement may be terminated earlier upon a material breach by either party that is not cured within 30 days. UHN may elect to terminate the agreement if we become insolvent or if any license granted pursuant to the agreement is prematurely terminated. We have the option to terminate the agreement if Dr. Keller stops conducting his research or ceases to work for UHN.
UHN License for Stem Cell Culture Technology
In April 2012, we licensed breakthrough stem cell culture technology from UHN’s McEwen Centre.  We intend to utilize the licensed technology to develop hematopoietic precursor stem cells from human pluripotent stem cells, with the goal of developing drug screening and cell therapy applications for human blood system disorders. The breakthrough technology is included in a new United States patent application.  We believe this stem cell technology dramatically advances our ability to produce and purify this important blood stem cell precursor for both in vitro drug screening and in vivo cell therapy applications.  In addition to defining new cell culture methods for our use, the technology describes the surface characteristics of stem cell-derived adult hematopoietic stem cells. Most groups study embryonic blood development from stem cells, but, for the first time, we are now able to not only purify the stem cell-derived precursor of all adult hematopoietic cells, but also pinpoint the precise timing when adult blood cell differentiation takes place in these cultures.  We believe these early cells have the potential to be the precursors of the ultimate adult, bone marrow-repopulating hematopoietic stem cells to repopulate the blood and immune system when transplanted into patients prepared for bone marrow transplantation. These cells have important potential therapeutic applications for the restoration of healthy blood and immune systems in individuals undergoing transplantation therapies for cancer, organ grafts, HIV infections or for acquired or genetic blood and immune deficiencies.
AV-101-Related Intellectual Property
We have exclusive licenses to issued U.S. patents related to the use and function of AV-101, and various central nervous system (CNS)-active molecules related to AV-101. These patents are held by the University of Maryland, Baltimore, the Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. and Aventis, Inc.  The principle U.S. method of use patent related to AV-101 expired in February 2011. Foreign counterparts to that U.S. patent expired in February 2012.  However, in 2013 and through the date of this report, we have filed three new U.S. patent applications relating to AV-101.  In addition, among the key components of our commercial protection strategy with respect to AV-101 is the New Drug Product Exclusivity provided by the FDA under section 505(c)(3)(E) and 505(j)(5)(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).  The FDA’s New Drug Product Exclusivity is available for new chemical entities (NCEs) such as AV-101, which, by definition, are innovative and have not been approved previously by the FDA, either alone or in combination.  The FDA’s New Drug Product Exclusivity protection provides the holder of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) five (5) years of protection from new competition in the U.S. marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved new drug product.  This protection precludes FDA approval of certain generic drug applications under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, as well certain abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), during the five-year exclusivity period, except that such applications may be submitted after four years if they contain a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.
Under the terms of our license agreement, we may be obligated to make royalty payments on 2% of net sales of products using the unexpired patent rights, if any, including products containing compounds covered by the patent rights. Additionally, we may be required to pay a 1% royalty on net sales of combination products that use unexpired patent rights, if any, or contain compounds covered by the patent rights. Consequently, future sales of AV-101 may be subject to a 2% royalty obligation. There are no license, milestone or maintenance fees under the agreement. The agreement remains in force until the later of: (i) the expiration or invalidation of the last patent right; and (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of the first product that uses the patent rights or contains a compound covered by the patent rights. This agreement may also be terminated earlier at the election of the licensor upon our failure to pay any monies due, our failure to provide updates and reports to the licensor, our failure to provide the necessary financial and other resources required to develop the products, or our failure to cure within 90 days any breach of any provision of the agreement. We may also terminate the agreement at any time upon 90 days’ written notice so long as we make all payments due through the effective date of termination.

Research and Development

Our research and development expense was approximately $2.5 million and $3.4 million for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, or approximately 49% of our operating expenses for each of the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013. Our research and development expense consists of both internal and external expenses incurred in sponsored stem cell research and drug development activities, costs associated with the development of AV-101 and costs related to the licensing, application and prosecution of our intellectual property.
Competition
We believe that our human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC) technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, the hPSC-derived human cells we produce, and the customized human cell-based assay systems we have formulated and developed are capable of being competitive in the diverse and rapidly growing global stem cell and regenerative medicine markets, including markets involving the sale of hPSC-derived cells to third-parties for their in vitro drug discovery and safety testing, contract predictive toxicology drug screening services for third parties, internal drug discovery, development and rescue of new molecular entities (NMEs), and regenerative medicine, including in vivo cell therapy research and development. A representative list of such biopharmaceutical companies pursuing one or more of these potential applications of adult and/or pluripotent stem cell technology includes the following: Acea Biosciences, Advanced Cell Technology, Athersys, BioTime, Cellectis Bioresearch, Cellular Dynamics, Cellerant Therapeutics, Cytori Therapeutics, HemoGenix, International Stem Cell, NeoStem, Neuralstem, Organovo Holdings, PluriStem Therapeutics, Stem Cells, and Stemina BioMarker Discovery.  Pharmaceutical companies and other established corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare Life Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Life Technologies, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Holdings and others have been and are expected to continue pursuing internally various stem cell-related research and development programs. We anticipate that acceptance and use of hPSC technology for drug development and regenerative medicine will continue to occur and increase at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the future.
We believe the best and most valuable near term commercial application of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform is internal production of NMEs, which we refer to as Drug Rescue Variants, through small molecule drug rescue. We believe that the stem cell technologies underlying our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and our primary focus on opportunities to produce small molecule NMEs through drug rescue provide us substantial competitive advantages associated with application of human biology at the front end of the drug development process, before animal and human testing. Although we believe that our model for the application of human pluripotent stem cell technology for drug rescue is novel, significant competition may arise or otherwise increase considerably as the acceptance and use of hPSC technology, the sale of hPSC-derived human heart and liver cells, and the availability of hPSC-related contract predictive toxicology screening services, for drug discovery, development and rescue, as well as cell therapy and regenerative medicine, continue to become more widespread throughout the academic research community and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. In addition, significant competition may arise from those academic research institutions, contract research organizations, and biopharmaceutical companies currently producing or capable of producing, currently using or capable of using, hPSC-derived heart cells and liver cells for third-party sales, contract screening or cell therapy research and development, that elect or their customers elect to transform their current business operations to include internal drug rescue and development of small molecule NMEs in a manner similar to our drug rescue model.
With respect to AV-101, we believe that a range of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have programs to develop small molecule drug candidates for the treatment of neuropathic pain, epilepsy, depression, Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions and diseases, including Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer. We expect that AV-101 will have to compete with a variety of therapeutic products and procedures.  With respect to each Drug Rescue Variant we are able to produce, we anticipate that a range of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies will have programs to develop small molecule drug candidates or biologics for the treatment of the diseases or conditions targeted by each such Drug Rescue Variant.
Government Regulation
United States
With respect to our stem cell research and development in the U.S., the U.S. government has established requirements and procedures relating to the isolation and derivation of certain stem cell lines and the availability of federal funds for research and development programs involving those lines. All of the stem cell lines that we are using were either isolated under procedures that meet U.S. government requirements and are approved for funding from the U.S. government, or were isolated under procedures that meet U.S. government requirements.
With respect to drug development, government authorities at the federal, state and local levels in the U.S. and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, pricing and export and import of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. In the U.S., pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices are subject to rigorous FDA regulation. Federal and state statutes and regulations in the United States govern, among other things, the testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, export, record keeping, approval, marketing, advertising and promotion of our potential drug rescue variants. The information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain approval to market a new drug varies depending on whether the drug is a new product whose safety and effectiveness has not previously been demonstrated in humans, or a drug whose active ingredient(s) and certain other properties are the same as those of a previously approved drug. Product development and approval within this regulatory framework takes a number of years and involves significant uncertainty combined with the expenditure of substantial resources.
Companies seeking FDA approval to sell a new prescription drug in the United States must test it in various ways. Currently, first are laboratory and animal tests. Next are tests in humans to see if the drug candidate is safe and effective when used to treat or diagnose a disease. After testing the drug candidate, the company developing it then sends the FDA an application called a New Drug Application (NDA). Some drug candidates are made out of biologic materials, including human cells, such as the human cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells. Instead of an NDA, new biologic drug candidates are approved using a Biologics License Application (BLA). Whether an NDA or a BLA, the application includes:
·
the drug candidate’s test results;
·
manufacturing information to demonstrate the company developing the drug candidate can properly manufacture it; and
·
the proposed label for the drug candidate, which provides necessary information about the drug candidate, including uses for which it has been shown to be effective, possible risks, and how to use it.
If a review by FDA physicians and scientists shows the drug candidate's benefits outweigh its known risks and the drug candidate can be manufactured in a way that ensures a quality product, the drug candidate is approved and can be marketed in the United States.

New drug and biological product development and approval takes many years, involves the expenditure of substantial resources and is uncertain to succeed. Many new drug and biological candidates appear promising in early stages of development but ultimately do not reach the market because they cannot meet FDA or other regulatory requirements. In addition, the current regulatory framework may change through regulatory, legislative or judicial actions or that additional regulations will not arise during development that may affect approval, delay the submission or review of an application.
The activities required before a new drug or biological candidate may be approved for marketing in the U.S. begin with nonclinical testing, which includes laboratory evaluation and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product as formulated. Results of nonclinical studies are summarized in an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA. Human clinical trials may begin 30 days following submission of an IND application, unless the FDA requires additional time to review the application or raise questions.
Clinical testing involves the administration of the new drug or biological candidate to healthy human volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator, usually a physician, pursuant to an FDA-reviewed protocol. Each clinical study is conducted under the auspices of an institutional review board (IRB) at each of the institutions at which the study will be conducted. A clinical plan, or “protocol,” accompanied by the approval of an IRB, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application prior to commencement of each clinical trial. Human clinical trials are conducted typically in three sequential phases. Phase I trials primarily consist of testing the product’s safety in a small number of patients or healthy volunteers. In Phase II trials, the safety and efficacy of the biological candidate is evaluated in a specific patient population. Phase III trials typically involve additional testing for safety and clinical efficacy in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed sites. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuance of a nonclinical or clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, particularly if safety concerns exist.
All procedures we use to obtain clinical samples, and the procedures we use to isolate hESCs, are consistent with the informed consent and ethical guidelines promulgated by either the U.S. National Academy of Science, the International Society of Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), or the NIH. These procedures and documentation have been reviewed by an external Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee, and all cell lines we use have been approved under one or more of these guidelines.
The U.S. government and its agencies on July 7, 2009 published guidelines for the ethical derivation of hESCs required for receiving federal funding for hESC research. Should we seek NIH funding for our stem cell research and development, our request would involve the use of hESC lines that meet the NIH guidelines for NIH funding. In the U.S., the President’s Council on Bioethics monitors stem cell research, and may make recommendations from time to time that could place restrictions on the scope of research using human embryonic or fetal tissue. Although numerous states in the U.S. are considering, or have in place, legislation relating to stem cell research, including California whose voters approved Proposition 71 to provide up to $3 billion of state funding for stem cell research in California, it is not yet clear what affect, if any, state actions may have on our ability to commercialize stem cell technologies.
Canada
In Canada, stem cell research and development is governed by two policy documents and by one legislative statute: the Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research (the Guidelines) issued by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; the Tri-Council Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (the TCPS); and the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (the Act). The Guidelines and the TCPS govern stem cell research conducted by, or under the auspices of, institutions funded by the federal government. Should we seek funding from Canadian government agencies or should we conduct research under the auspices of an institution so funded, we may have to ensure the compliance of such research with the ethical rules prescribed by the Guidelines and the TCPS.
The Act subjects all research conducted in Canada involving the human embryo, including hESC derivation (but not the stem cells once derived), to a licensing process overseen by a federal licensing agency.  However, as of the date of this report, the provisions of the Act regarding the licensing of hESC derivation were not in force.
We are not currently conducting stem cell research in Canada.  We are, however, sponsoring pluripotent stem cell research by Dr. Gordon Keller at UHN’s McEwen Centre.  We anticipate conducting pluripotent stem cell research (with both hESCs and hiPSCs), in collaboration with Dr. Keller and his research team, at UHN during 2014 and beyond pursuant to our long term sponsored research collaboration with Dr. Keller and UHN.  Should the provisions of the Act come into force, we may have to apply for a license for all hESC research we may sponsor or conduct in Canada and ensure compliance of such research with the provisions of the Act.
Foreign
In addition to regulations in the U.S., we may be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products outside of the U.S. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Subsidiaries and Inter-Corporate Relationships
VistaGen Therapeutics. Inc., a California corporation, is our wholly-owned subsidiary and has the following two wholly-owned subsidiaries: VistaStem Canada Inc., a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario, intended to facilitate our stem cell-based research and development and drug rescue activities in Ontario, Canada including our collaboration with Dr. Keller and UHN should we elect to expand our U.S. operations into Canada; and Artemis Neuroscience, Inc., a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Maryland and focused on development of AV-101. The operations of VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a California corporation, and each of its two wholly-owned subsidiaries are managed by our senior management team based in South San Francisco, California.
Employees
We have ten full-time employees, four of whom have doctorate degrees. Seven full-time employees work in research and development and laboratory support services and three full-time employees work in general and administrative roles. Staffing for all other functional areas is achieved through strategic relationships with service providers and consultants, each of whom provides services on an as-needed basis, including human resources and payroll, accounting and public company reporting, information technology, facilities, legal, stock plan administration, investor relations and web site maintenance, regulatory affairs, and FDA program management.  In addition, we currently conduct some of our research and development efforts through sponsored research relationships with stem cell scientists at academic research institutions in the U.S. and Canada, including Dr. Keller’s laboratories at UHN. See “Business – Strategic Transactions and Relationships.”
None of our employees is represented by a labor union or is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our current relationship with all of our employees is good.
Environmental Regulation
Our business does not require us to comply with any particular environmental regulations.
Item 1A.  Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and related notes, before deciding whether to purchase shares of our common stock. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy
We are a development stage biotechnology company with no approved products and limited experience developing new drug, biological and/or regenerative medicine candidates, including conducting clinical trials and other areas required for the successful development and commercialization of therapeutic products, which makes it difficult to assess our future viability.

We are a development stage biotechnology company. Since inception, we have generated approximately $16.4 million of revenues from strategic collaborations and grant awards.  However, we currently have no approved products and generate no revenues, and we have not yet fully demonstrated an ability to overcome many of the fundamental risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by development stage companies in new and rapidly evolving fields of technology, particularly biotechnology. To execute our business plan successfully, we will need to accomplish the following fundamental objectives, either on our own or with strategic collaborators:
·
produce product candidates;
·
develop and obtain required regulatory approvals for commercialization of products we produce;
·
maintain, leverage and expand our intellectual property portfolio;
·
establish and maintain sales, distribution and marketing capabilities;
·
gain market acceptance for our products; and
·obtain adequate capital resources and manage our spending as costs and expenses increase due to research, production, development, regulatory approval and commercialization of product candidates.
Moreover, we and any future strategic partner will need to receive regulatory approval for any new drug candidate, including each Drug Rescue Variant, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product before it may be marketed and distributed. Such regulatory approval will require, among numerous other things, completing carefully controlled and well-designed clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of each new product candidate. This process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. As a company, we have limited experience developing new drug candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, biological candidates or regenerative medicine products, including conducting clinical trials and in other areas required for the successful development and commercialization of therapeutic products. Such trials will require additional financial and management resources, third-party collaborators with the requisite clinical experience or reliance on third party clinical investigators, contract research organizations and independent consultants. Relying on third parties may force us to encounter delays that are outside of our control, which could materially harm our business.

If we are unsuccessful in accomplishing these fundamental objectives, or if we encounter delays in the regulatory approval process beyond our control, we may not be able to develop product candidates, raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.
Our future success is highly dependent upon our ability to produce product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, using stem cell technology, human cells derived from stem cells, our proprietary human cell-based bioassay systemsand medicinal chemistry, and we cannot provide any assurance that we will successfully produce Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates, or that, if produced, any of our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates will be developed and commercialized.
Research programs designed to identify and produce product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, require substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified and produced. In particular, our drug rescue programs may initially show promise in identifying potential Drug Rescue Variants, yet fail to yield lead Drug Rescue Variants suitable for preclinical, clinical development or commercialization for many reasons, including the following:
·
our research methodology may not be successful in identifying potential Drug Rescue Candidates;
·
competitors may develop alternatives that render our Drug Rescue Variants obsolete;
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate it is unlikely to be effective or otherwise does not meet applicable regulatory criteria;
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may not be capable of being produced in commercial quantities at an acceptable cost, or at all; or
·
a Drug Rescue Variant may not be accepted as safe and effective by regulatory authorities, patients, the medical community or third-party payors.
Our future success depends heavily on our ability to use stem cell technology, human cells derived from stem cells, proprietary human cell-based bioassay systems, especially CardioSafe 3D, and medicinal chemistry to produce Drug Rescue Variants and, develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize lead Drug Rescue Variants, on our own or in strategic collaborations, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenues, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable drug.

We have limited operating history with respect to the identification and assessment of potential Drug Rescue Candidates and no operating history with respect to the production of Drug Rescue Variants, and we may never be able to produce a Drug Rescue Variant. If we are unable to identify suitable Drug Rescue Candidates for our drug rescue programs, including AV-101, or produce suitable lead Drug Rescue Variants for license to and preclinical and clinical development by pharmaceutical companies and others, we may not be able to obtain sufficient revenues in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price. There are a number of factors, in addition to the utility of CardioSafe 3D, that may impact our ability to identify and assess Drug Rescue Candidates and produce, develop and commercialize Drug Rescue Variants, independently or with strategic partners, including:
·
our ability to identify potential Drug Rescue Candidates in the public domain, obtain sufficient quantities of them, and assess them using our assay systems;
·
if we seek to rescue Drug Rescue Candidates that are not available to us in the public domain, the extent to which third parties may be willing to license or sell Drug Rescue Candidates to us on commercially reasonable terms;
·
our medicinal chemistry collaborator’s ability to design and produce proprietary Drug Rescue Variants based on the novel biology and structure-function insight we provide using CardioSafe 3D or LiverSafe 3D; and
·
financial resources available to us to develop and commercialize lead Drug Rescue Variants internally, or, if we license them to strategic partners, the resources such partners choose to dedicate to development and commercialization of any Drug Rescue Variants licensed from us.
Even if we do produce a Drug Rescue Variant, we can give no assurance that we will be able to develop and commercialize it as a marketable drug, on our own or in a strategic collaboration. Before we generate any revenues from product sales, we must produce additional product candidates through drug rescue and we or our potential strategic collaborator must complete preclinical and clinical development of one or more of our product candidates, conduct human subject research, submit clinical and manufacturing data to the FDA, qualify a third party contract manufacturer, receive regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, satisfy the FDA that our contract manufacturer is capable of manufacturing the product in compliance with cGMP, build a commercial organization, make substantial investments and undertake significant marketing efforts ourselves or in partnership with others. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.
We have not previously submitted a biologics license application, or BLA, or a new drug application or NDA, to the FDA, or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, if approved.

We or our potential collaborator may also seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, the European Union and potentially in additional foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, to obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.
Our CardioSafe 3D internal validation studies have not been subjectedto extensive external peer review or validation.
Our proprietary internal studies conducted to validate the utility of CardioSafe 3D for drug rescue, including our ability to use it to predict the cardiac effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of Drug Rescue Candidates, have not been subjected to extensive external peer review or validation. It is possible, therefore, that the results we have obtained from our successful internal validation studies may not be replicable by external peer reviewers. We are currently focused on identifying and assessing Drug Rescue Candidates available in the public domain.  However, should we seek to license or acquire Drug Rescue Candidates from third-parties, and such third-parties cannot replicate our results or do not have confidence in the capabilities of CardioSafe 3D, it may be difficult for us to acquire from them certain Drug Rescue Candidates which might be of interest to us. Even if such results can be replicated by external peer reviewers or other third-parties, they may nevertheless conclude that their current screening models are better than our CardioSafe 3D and that a license to the Drug Rescue Candidate we seek from them is not warranted. Our drug rescue business model is predicated on our ability to identify and, if information is not otherwise available in the public domain, obtain licenses from third-parties to Drug Rescue Candidates of interest to us.  If third-party licenses are required, and if we cannot obtain such licenses to on reasonable terms, or at all, our business may be adversely affected.

If CardioSafe3Dfails to predict accurately and efficiently the cardiac effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants, then our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

Our success is highly dependent on our ability to use CardioSafe3D to identify and predict, accurately and efficiently, the potential toxic and nontoxic cardiac effects of Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants. If CardioSafe3D is not capable of providing physiologically relevant and clinically predictive  information regarding human cardiac biology, our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

We have not yet fully validated LiverSafe 3D for potential drug rescue applications, and we may never do so.
We have successfully developed proprietary protocols for controlling the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to produce functional, mature, adult liver cells. However, we have not yet fully validated our ability to use the human liver cells we produce for LiverSafe 3D to predict important biological effects, both toxic and nontoxic, of reference drugs, Drug Rescue Candidates or Drug Rescue Variants on the human liver, including drug-induced liver injury and adverse drug-drug interactions. Furthermore, we may never be able to do so, which could adversely affect our business and the potential applications of LiverSafe 3D for drug rescue and regenerative medicine.
CardioSafe 3D, and, when validated, LiverSafe 3D may not be meaningfully more predictive of the behavior of human cells than existing methods.

The success of our drug rescue business is highly dependent, in the first instance, upon CardioSafe 3D, and, in the second instance, when validated, LiverSafe 3D, being more accurate, efficient and clinically predictive than long-established surrogate safety models, including animal cells and live animals, and immortalized, primary and transformed cells, currently used by pharmaceutical companies and others. We cannot give assurance that CardioSafe 3D, and, when validated, LiverSafe 3D, will be more efficient or accurate at predicting the heart or liver safety of new drug candidates than the testing models currently used. If CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D fail to provide a meaningful difference compared to existing or new models in predicting the behavior of human heart and liver cells, respectively, their utility for drug rescue will be limited and our drug rescue business will be adversely affected.

We may invest in producing Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be no demand.

To generate revenue from our drug rescue activities, we must produce Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be demand within the healthcare marketplace, and, if we intend to out-license a particular Drug Rescue Variant for development and commercialization prior to market approval, then also among pharmaceutical companies and other potential strategic collaborators. However, we may produce Drug Rescue Variants for which there proves to be no or limited demand in the healthcare market and/or among pharmaceutical companies and others. If we misinterpret market conditions, underestimate development costs and/or seek to rescue the wrong Drug Rescue Candidates, we may fail to generate sufficient revenue or other value, on our own or in collaboration with others, to justify our investments, and our drug rescue business may be adversely affected.

We may experience difficulty in producing human cells and our future stem cell technology research and development efforts may not be successful within the timeline anticipated, if at all.

Our human pluripotent stem cell technology is new and technically complex, and the time and resources necessary to develop new cell types and customized bioassay systems are difficult to predict in advance. We intend to devote significant personnel and financial resources to research and development activities designed to expand, in the case of drug rescue, and explore, in the case of regenerative medicine, potential applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform. In particular, we are planning to conduct development programs related to producing and using functional, mature adult liver cells to validate LiverSafe 3D as a novel bioassay system for drug rescue, as well as exploratory nonclinical regenerative medicine programs involving blood, bone, cartilage, heart, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells. Although we and our collaborators have developed proprietary protocols for the production of multiple differentiated cell types, we may encounter difficulties in differentiating particular cell types, even when following these proprietary protocols. These difficulties may result in delays in production of certain cells, assessment of certain Drug Rescue Candidates and Drug Rescue Variants, and performance of certain exploratory nonclinical regenerative medicine studies. In the past, our stem cell research and development projects have been significantly delayed when we encountered unanticipated difficulties in differentiating human pluripotent stem cells into heart, liver and pancreatic cells. Although we have overcome such difficulties in the past, we may have similar delays in the future, and we may not be able to overcome them or obtain any benefits from our future stem cell technology research and development activities. Any delay or failure by us, for example, to produce functional, mature blood, bone, cartilage, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells could have a substantial adverse effect on our potential drug rescue and regenerative medicine business opportunities and results of operations.

If we are unable to keep up with rapid technological changes in our field, we will be unable to operate profitably.

We are engaged in activities in the life sciences field, which is characterized by rapid technological changes, frequent new product introductions, changing needs and preferences, emerging competition, and evolving industry standards. If we fail to anticipate or respond adequately to technological developments, our business, revenue, financial condition and operating results could suffer materially. Although we believe we are the first stem cell technology company focused primarily on drug rescue, we anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as competitors develop or access new or improved bioassay systems and explore and enter the drug rescue market with new technologies. Competitors may have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, sales and marketing resources and may be able to respond more quickly and effectively than we can to new opportunities. In light of these advantages, even if our technology is effective in producing Drug Rescue Variants, potential development partners might prefer new drug candidates available from others or develop their own new drug candidates in lieu of licensing or purchasing our Drug Rescue Variants. We may not be able to compete effectively against these organizations. Our failure to compete effectively could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing product candidates before, or more successfully, than we do.

Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the design, development and commercialization of Drug Rescue Variants. Our competitors may succeed in developing product candidates for the same indications we are pursuing before we do, obtaining regulatory approval for competing products or gaining acceptance of their products within the same markets that we are targeting for our Drug Rescue Variants. If, either on our own or in collaboration with a strategic partner, we are not "first to market" with one of our largest institutional stockholders.  PursuantDrug Rescue Variants, our competitive position could be compromised because it may be more difficult for us or our partner to obtain marketing approval for our Drug Rescue Variant and successfully market it as a second competitor.  We expect any Drug Rescue Variants that we commercialize, either independently or in collaboration, will compete with products from other companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.  
Many of our competitors have substantially greater research and development and commercial infrastructures and financial, technical and personnel resources than we have. We will not be able to compete successfully unless we:

·
design, develop, produce and commercialize, either on our own or with collaborators, Drug Rescue Variants that are superior to other products in development or in the market;
·
attract qualified scientific, medical, sales and marketing and commercial personnel or collaborators;
·
obtain patent and/or other proprietary protection for our Drug Rescue Variants; and
·
obtain, either on our own or in collaboration with strategic partners, required regulatory approvals for our Drug Rescue Variants.
Established competitors may invest heavily to quickly discover and develop novel compounds that could make our Drug Rescue Variants obsolete. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

Other companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations are conducting research, seeking patent protection and establishing collaborative arrangements for research, development and marketing of assays similar to ours and Drug Rescue Variants we may produce. These companies and institutions also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, obtaining collaborators and licensees, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to our programs.

As a result of the foregoing, our competitors may develop more effective or more affordable products, or achieve earlier patent protection or product commercialization than we will. Most significantly, competitive products may render any technologies and Drug Rescue Variants that we develop obsolete, which would negatively impact our business and ability to sustain operations.

With respect to drug rescue, the licensing and acquisition of proprietary small molecule compounds, even compounds that have failed in development due to heart or liver safety concerns, is a highly competitive area, and a number of more established companies may also pursue strategies to license, acquire, rescue and develop small molecule compounds that we may consider to be Drug Rescue Candidates. These established companies have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to sell or license Drug Rescue Candidate rights to us. We have limited experience in negotiating licenses to drug candidates and there can be no assurances that we will be able to acquire or obtain licenses to Drug Rescue Candidates in the future, on commercially reasonable terms, if at all, should we elect to pursue such third-party licenses. If we are unable to acquire or obtain licenses to Drug Rescue Candidates we seek, our business may be adversely affected.
Restrictions on research and development involving human embryonic stem cells and political commentary regarding such research and development could impair our ability to conduct or sponsor certain potential collaborative research and development programs and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
Some of our most important ongoing and planned research and development programs involve the use of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Some believe the use of hESCs gives rise to ethical and social issues regarding the appropriate use of these cells. Our research related to differentiation of hESCs may become the subject of adverse commentary or publicity, which could significantly harm the market price of our common stock. Although now substantially less than in years past, certain political and religious groups in the United States and elsewhere voice opposition to hESC technology and practices. We use hESCs derived from excess fertilized eggs that have been created for clinical use in in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and have been donated for research purposes with the informed consent of the donors after a successful IVF procedure because they are no longer desired or suitable for IVF. Certain academic research institutions have adopted policies regarding the ethical use of human embryonic tissue. These policies may have the effect of limiting the scope of future collaborative research opportunities with such institutions, thereby potentially impairing our ability to conduct certain research and development in this field that we believe is necessary to expand the drug rescue capabilities of our technology.
The use of embryonic or fetal tissue in research (including the derivation of hESCs) in other countries is regulated by the government, and varies widely from country to country. Government-imposed restrictions with respect to use of hESCs in research and development could have a material adverse effect on us by harming our ability to establish critical collaborations, delaying or preventing progress in our research and development, and causing a decrease in the market interest in our stock. These potential ethical concerns do not apply to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), or our plans to pursue pilot nonclinical regenerative medicine studies involving human cells derived from iPSCs, because their derivation does not involve the use of embryonic tissues.
We have assumed that the biological capabilities of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and hESCs are likely to be comparable. If it is discovered that this assumption is incorrect, our exploratory research and development activities focused on potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform could be harmed.
We use both hESCs and iPSCs for drug rescue purposes. However, we anticipate that our future exploratory research and development focused on potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform primarily will involve iPSCs. With respect to iPSCs, we believe scientists are still somewhat uncertain about the clinical utility, life span, and safety of such cells, and whether such cells differ in any clinically significant ways from hESCs. If we discover that iPSCs will not be useful for whatever reason for potential regenerative medicine applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, this would negatively affect our ability to explore expansion of our platform, including, in particular, where it would be preferable to use iPSCs to reproduce rather than approximate the effects of certain specific genetic variations.

If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully produce, develop trials and commercialize our Drug Rescue Variants.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific and technical personnel. We are highly dependent upon our senior management, as well as other employees, consultants and scientific collaborators. As of June 1, 2014, we had 10 full-time employees, which may make us more reliant on our individual employees than companies with a greater number of employees. Although none of our key scientific personnel or members of our senior management has informed us that he or she intends to resign or retire in the near future, the loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of potential expansions and applications of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform and our production of Drug Rescue Variants or disrupt our administrative functions.

Although we have not historically experienced unique difficulties attracting and retaining qualified employees, we could experience such problems in the future. For example, competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals field is intense. We will need to hire additional personnel as we expand our research and development activities. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms.
In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development strategy, including our drug rescue strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance our proposed CardioSafe 3D drug rescue programs, produce and develop Drug Rescue Variants, and develop and validate LiverSafe 3D, we will need to expand our research and development capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. Our future financial performance and our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our research and development efforts effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and technical personnel. The hiring, training and integration of new employees may be more difficult, costly and/or time-consuming for us because we have fewer resources than a larger organization. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing the Company.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

If we produce and develop Drug Rescue Variants or regenerative medicine products, either on our own or in collaboration with others, we will face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the required clinical testing of such product candidates, and will face an even greater risk if we or our collaborators commercialize any such products. For example, we may be sued if any Drug Rescue Variant or regenerative medicine product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

·
decreased demand for our Drug Rescue Variants or other products that we may develop;
·
injury to our reputation;
·
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
·
costs to defend the related litigation;
·
a diversion of management's time and our resources;
·
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
·
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
·
loss of revenue;
·
the inability to commercialize our product candidates; and
·a decline in our stock price.
Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. Although we maintain liability insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a loanproduct liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

To the extent we enter into licensing or collaboration agreements to develop and commercialize our product candidates, including Drug Rescue Variants, our dependence on such relationships may adversely affect our business.

We may enter into strategic partnerships in the future, including collaborations with other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, to enhance and accelerate the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our strategy to produce, develop and commercialize our product candidates, including any Drug Rescue Variants, may depend on our ability to enter into such agreements with third-party collaborators. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners. Supporting diligence activities conducted by potential collaborators and negotiating the financial and other terms of a collaboration agreement datedare long and complex processes with uncertain results. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and/or third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Even if we are successful in entering into one or more strategic collaboration agreements with third-parties, such collaborations may involve greater uncertainty for us, as we may have less control over certain aspects of February 3, 2004our collaborative programs than we do over our proprietary internal development and commercialization programs. We may determine that continuing a collaborative arrangement under the terms provided is not in our best interest, and we may terminate the collaboration. Our collaborators could also delay or terminate their agreements, and our products subject to collaborative arrangements may never be successfully commercialized.

Further, our future collaborators may develop alternative products or pursue alternative technologies either on their own or in collaboration with others, including our competitors, and the priorities or focus of our collaborators may shift such that our programs receive less attention or resources than we would like, or they may be terminated altogether. Any such actions by our collaborators may adversely affect our business prospects and between Cato BioVenturesability to earn revenues. In addition, we could have disputes with our future collaborators, such as the interpretation of terms in our agreements. Any such disagreements could lead to delays in the development or commercialization of potential products or could result in time-consuming and VistaGen,expensive litigation or arbitration, which may not be resolved in our favor.

Even with respect to certain other products that we intend to commercialize ourselves, we may enter into agreements with collaborators to share in the burden of conducting preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing our product candidates or products. In addition, our ability to apply our proprietary technologies to develop proprietary compounds will depend on our ability to establish and maintain licensing arrangements or other collaborative arrangements with the holders of proprietary rights to such compounds. We may not be able to establish such arrangements on favorable terms or at all, and our future collaborative arrangements may not be successful.

We cannot provide any assurance that our future collaborations will not terminate development before achievement of revenue-generating milestones or market approval, that our future collaborative arrangements will result in successful development and commercialization of Drug Rescue Variants, or that we will derive any revenues from such future arrangements. The failure of any collaborator to conduct, successfully and diligently, their collaborative activities relating to the product candidate we license or sell to them would have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, to the extent that we are unable to license or sell our Drug Rescue Variants to pharmaceutical companies or others, we would require substantial additional capital to undertake development and commercialization activities for any such product candidate on our own, and that substantial additional capital may not be available to us on a timely basis, on reasonable terms, or at all.
Our and our collaborators’ relationships with customers and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Our or our future collaborator’s arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we or they obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

·the federal healthcare anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;
·the federal False Claims Act imposes criminal and civil penalties, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government and also includes provisions allowing for private, civil whistleblower or "qui tam" actions;
·
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program. HIPAA and HITECH also regulate the use and disclosure of identifiable health information by health care providers, health plans and health care clearinghouses, and impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of identifiable health information as well as requiring notification of regulatory breaches. HIPAA and HITECH violations may prompt civil and criminal enforcement actions as well as enforcement by state attorneys general;
·the federal false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;
·the federal transparency requirements under the Health Care Reform Law requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report to the Department of Health and Human Services information related to physician payments and other transfers of value and physician ownership and investment interests;
·analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures; and
·analogous anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and healthcare laws and regulations in foreign countries.
Efforts to ensure that our and our future collaborators’ business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our or their business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our or their operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we or our collaborators expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

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

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

To the extent our research and development activities involve using induced pluripotent stem cells, we will be subject to complex and evolving laws and regulations regarding privacy and informed consent. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and could result in claims, changes to our research and development programs and objectives, increased cost of operations or otherwise harm the Company.

To the extent that we pursue research and development activities involving iPSCs, we will be subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States and abroad that involve matters central to such research and development activities, including obligations to seek informed consent from donors for the use of their blood and other tissue to produce, or have produced for us, iPSCs, as well as state and federal laws that protect the privacy of such donors. United States federal and state and foreign laws and regulations are constantly evolving and can be subject to significant change. If we engage in iPSC-related research and development activities in countries other than the United States, we may become subject to foreign laws and regulations relating to human subjects research and other laws and regulations that are often more restrictive than those in the United States. In addition, both the application and interpretation of these laws and regulations are often uncertain, particularly in the rapidly evolving stem cell technology sector in which we operate. These laws and regulations can be costly to comply with and can delay or impede our research and development activities, result in negative publicity, increase our operating costs, require significant management time and attention and subject us to claims or other remedies, including fines or demands that we modify or cease existing business practices.
Legal, social and ethical concerns surrounding the use of iPSCs, biological materials and genetic information could impair our operations.

To the extent that our future research and development activities involve the use of iPSCs and the manipulation of human tissue and genetic information, the information we derive from such iPSC-related research and development activities could be used in a variety of applications, which may have underlying legal, social and ethical concerns, including the genetic engineering or modification of human cells, testing for genetic predisposition for certain medical conditions and stem cell banking. Governmental authorities could, for safety, social or other purposes, call for limits on or impose regulations on the use of iPSCs and genetic testing or the manufacture or use of certain biological materials involved in our iPSC-related research and development programs. Such concerns or governmental restrictions could limit our future research and development activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our human cell-based bioassay systems and human cells we derive from human pluripotent stem cells, although not currently subject to regulation by the FDA or other regulatory agencies as biological products or drugs, could become subject to regulation in the future.

Our human cells and human cell-based bioassay systems, including CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D, are not currently sold, for research or any other purpose, to biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, government research institutions, academic and nonprofit research institutions, medical research organizations or stem cell banks, and they are not therapeutic procedures. As a result, they are not subject to regulation as biological products or drugs by the FDA or comparable agencies in other countries. However, if, in the future, we seek to include cells we derive from human pluripotent stem cells in therapeutic applications or product candidates, such applications and/or product candidates would be subject to the FDA’s pre- and post-market regulations. For example, if we seek to develop and market human cells we produce for use in performing cell therapy or for other regenerative medicine applications, such as tissue engineering or organ replacement, we would first need to obtain FDA pre-market clearance or approval. Obtaining such clearance or approval from the FDA is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain, generally requiring many years to obtain, and requiring detailed and comprehensive scientific and clinical data. Notwithstanding the time and expense, these efforts may not result in FDA approval or clearance. Even if we were to obtain regulatory approval or clearance, it may not be for the uses that we believe are important or commercially attractive.

We intend to rely on third-party contract manufacturers to produce our product candidate supplies and we intend to rely on such third-party manufacturers to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidates we develop on our own. Any failure by a third-party manufacturer to produce for us supplies of product candidates we elect to develop on our own may delay or impair our ability to initiate or complete clinical trials, commercialize our product candidates, or continue to sell any products we commercialize.

We do not currently own or operate any manufacturing facilities, and we lack sufficient internal staff to produce product candidate supplies ourselves. As a result, we plan to work with third-party contract manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates for future preclinical and clinical testing and commercialization. If we are unable to arrange for such a third-party manufacturing source, or fail to do so on commercially reasonable terms or on a timely basis, we or our potential strategic partner may not be able to successfully produce, develop, and market our product candidates or may be delayed in doing so.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we or our potential collaborators would not be subject if we or they manufactured product candidates ourselves or themselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control (including a failure to synthesize and manufacture our product candidates in accordance with our product specifications), the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us, or misappropriation of proprietary formulas or protocols. We will be, and our potential strategic partners may be, dependent, on the ability of these third-party manufacturers to produce adequate supplies of drug product to support development programs and future commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that all product candidates be manufactured according to cGMP and similar foreign standards. Any failure by our or our collaborators’ third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of product candidates in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for trial initiation or marketing of any product candidates we may produce, including Drug Rescue Variants. In addition, such failure could be the basis for action by the FDA to withdraw approvals for product candidates previously granted and for other regulatory action, including recall or seizure, fines, imposition of operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production or injunctions.
We have limited staffing. We will, and our potential strategic partners may, rely on contract manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for required studies. There may be a small number of suppliers for certain capital equipment and materials that we or our collaborators use to manufacture our product candidates. Such suppliers may not sell these materials to our manufacturers at the times we or they need them or on commercially reasonable terms. We will not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these materials by our manufacturers. Although we and our collaborators generally will not begin a required study unless we or they believe a sufficient supply of a product candidate exists to complete the study, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate or the material components thereof for an ongoing study due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of the studies, product testing and potential regulatory approval. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase these materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial launch of our product candidates could be delayed or there could be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates.

In addition, we or our potential strategic partner may need to optimize the manufacturing processes for a particular drug substance and/or drug product so that certain product candidates may be produced in sufficient quantities of adequate quality, and at an acceptable cost, to support required development activities and commercialization. Contract manufacturers may not be able to adequately demonstrate that an optimized product candidate is comparable to a previously manufactured product candidate which could cause significant delays and increased costs to our or our collaborators’ development programs. Our manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our product candidates at a cost or in quantities or in a timely manner necessary to develop and commercialize them. If we successfully commercialize any of our drugs, we may be required to establish or access large-scale commercial manufacturing capabilities. In addition, assuming that our drug development pipeline increases and matures, we will have a greater need for clinical trial and commercial manufacturing capacity. To meet our projected needs for commercial manufacturing, third party manufactures with whom we work will need to increase their scale of production or we will need to secure alternate suppliers.

If, in the future, we are unable to enter into licensing or collaboration agreements for the sales, marketing and distribution of our Drug Rescue Variants and other product candidates, such as AV-101, we may not be successful in commercializing our Drug Rescue Variants and other product candidates.

We currently have a relatively small number of employees and do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure, and we, including our executive officers, do not have any significant sales, marketing or distribution experience. We will be opportunistic in seeking to collaborate with others to develop and commercialize Drug Rescue Variants and future products if and when they are developed and approved.  If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services for our products, the resulting revenues or the profitability from these revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we had sold, marketed and distributed our products ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell, market and distribute our products effectively.  If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Our business is subject to the risks of earthquakes, fire, floods and other natural catastrophic events, and to interruption by man-made problems such as computer viruses or terrorism.
Our corporate headquarters are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region known for seismic activity. A significant natural disaster, such as an earthquake, fire or a flood, could harm our business. In addition, our servers are vulnerable to computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering with our computer systems. In addition, acts of terrorism or war could cause disruptions in our business or the economy as a whole.
We incur significant costs to ensure compliance with corporate governance, federal securities law and accounting requirements.

Since becoming a public company by means of a strategic reverse merger in 2011, we have been subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended Cato BioVentures extended(Exchange Act), which requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to VistaGenour business and financial condition, and the rules and regulations implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, each of which imposes additional reporting and other obligations on public companies.  We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to comply with these public company reporting requirements, including accounting and related audit costs, legal costs to comply with corporate governance requirements and other costs of operating as a $400,000 revolving linepublic company. These legal and financial compliance costs will continue to require us to divert a significant amount of credit.money that we could otherwise use to achieve our research and development and other strategic objectives.

The filing and internal control reporting requirements imposed by federal securities laws, rules and regulations are rigorous and we may not be able to continue to meet them, resulting in a possible decline in the price of our common stock and our inability to obtain future financing. Certain of these requirements may require us to carry out activities we have not done previously and complying with such requirements may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Any failure to adequately comply with federal securities laws, rules or regulations could subject us to fines or regulatory actions, which may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We will continue to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, however this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be adversely affected.
Risks Related to Production, Development, and Regulatory Approval of Product Candidates
Even if we are able to begin clinical trails for a Drug Rescue Variant, we may encounter considerable delays and/or expend considerable resources without producing a marketable product capable of generating revenue.

We may never generate revenues from sales of a Drug Rescue Variant or any other product because of a variety of risks inherent in our business, including the following:
·
clinical trials may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any Drug Rescue Variant, other new drug candidate, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product candidate;
·
completion of nonclinical or clinical trials may be delayed, or costs of nonclinical or clinical trials may exceed anticipated amounts;
·
we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of any Drug Rescue Variant, other new drug candidate, biological candidate or regenerative medicine product candidate; or we may experience delays in obtaining any such approval;
·
we may not be able to manufacture, or have manufactured for us, Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates economically, timely and on a commercial scale;
·
we and any licensees of ours may not be able to successfully market Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates;
·
physicians may not prescribe our products, or patients or third party payors may not accept our Drug Rescue Variants, other drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates;
·
others may have proprietary rights which prevent us from marketing our Drug Rescue Variants, other new drug candidates, biological candidates or regenerative medicine product candidates; and
·
competitors may sell similar, superior or lower-cost products.
In the event we are able to begin a clinical trial of a Drug Rescue Variant, our or our collaborator’s future clinical trials may be delayed or halted for many reasons, including:

·
delays or failure reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), contract research organizations (CROs), and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

·
failure of third-party contractors, such as CROs and CMOs, or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner;

·
delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or institutional review boards (IRBs) in order to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;

·
inability to manufacture, or obtain from third parties, a supply of drug product sufficient to complete preclinical studies and clinical trials;

·
the FDA requiring alterations to study designs, preclinical strategy or manufacturing plans;

·
delays in patient enrollment, and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials, or high drop-out rates of patients;

·
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocols or dropping out of a trial and/or the inability to add new clinical trial sites;

·
difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data;

·
poor effectiveness of our product candidates during clinical trials;

·
safety issues, including serious adverse events associated with our product candidates and patients' exposure to unacceptable health risks;

·
receipt by a competitor of marketing approval for a product targeting an indication that one of our product candidates targets, such that we are not "first to market" with our product candidate;

·
governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines; or

·
varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies.
We or our collaborator could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, our collaborator, the IRBs of the institutions in which a trial is being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for a trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, if we or our collaborators are able to complete a clinical trial of a product candidate, the results of such trial may not be adequate to support marketing approval. For any such trial, if the FDA disagrees with the choice of primary endpoint or the results for the primary endpoint are not robust or significant relative to control, are subject to confounding factors, or are not adequately supported by other study endpoints, including overall survival or complete response rate, the FDA may refuse to approve a Biologics License Application (BLA) or New Drug Application (NDA). The FDA may require additional clinical trials as a condition for approving our product candidates.

Clinical testing involves the administration of the new drug or biological candidate to healthy human volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator, usually a physician, pursuant to an FDA-reviewed protocol. Each clinical study is conducted under the auspices of an institutional review board (IRB) at each of the institutions at which the study will be conducted. A clinical plan, or “protocol,” accompanied by the approval of an IRB, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application prior to commencement of each clinical trial. Human clinical trials are conducted typically in three sequential phases. Phase I trials primarily consist of testing the product’s safety in a small number of patients or healthy volunteers. In Phase II trials, the safety and efficacy of the biological candidate is evaluated in a specific patient population. Phase III trials typically involve additional testing for safety and clinical efficacy in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed sites. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuance of a nonclinical or clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, particularly if safety concerns exist.

Our or our collaborator’s future clinical trials can be delayed or halted for many reasons, including:

·
delays or failure reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), contract research organizations (CROs), and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
·
failure of third-party contractors, such as CROs and CMOs, or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner;
·
delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or IRBs in order to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;
·
inability to manufacture, or obtain from third parties, a supply of drug product sufficient to complete preclinical studies and clinical trials;
·
the FDA requiring alterations to study designs, preclinical strategy or manufacturing plans;
·
delays in patient enrollment, and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials, or high drop-out rates of patients;
·
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocols or dropping out of a trial and/or the inability to add new clinical trial sites;
·
difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data;
·
poor effectiveness of our product candidates during clinical trials;
·
safety issues, including serious adverse events associated with our product candidates and patients' exposure to unacceptable health risks;
·
receipt by a competitor of marketing approval for a product targeting an indication that one of our product candidates targets, such that we are not "first to market" with our product candidate;
·
governmental or regulatory delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines; or
·varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies.
We or our collaborator could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, our collaborator, the IRBs of the institutions in which a trial is being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for a trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, if we or our collaborators are able to complete a clinical trial of a product candidate, the results of such trial may not be adequate to support marketing approval. For any such trial, if the FDA disagrees with the choice of primary endpoint or the results for the primary endpoint are not robust or significant relative to control, are subject to confounding factors, or are not adequately supported by other study endpoints, including overall survival or complete response rate, the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA or NDA. The FDA may require additional clinical trials as a condition for approving our product candidates.
If we or our collaborator experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenues from any of our product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs and slow our product candidate development and approval process. Delays in completing clinical trials could also allow our competitors to obtain marketing approval before we do or shorten the patent protection period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.
Results of earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials.

The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to adverse safety profiles or lack of efficacy, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Similarly, our future clinical trial results may not be successful for these or other reasons.

This drug candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in planned clinical trials compared to completed clinical trials. As product candidates are developed through preclinical to early and late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing and methods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for later stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes do carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives.
For example, the results of planned clinical trials may be adversely affected if we or our collaborator seek to optimize and scale-up production of a product candidate. In such case, we will need to demonstrate comparability between the newly manufactured drug substance and/or drug product relative to the previously manufactured drug substance and/or drug product. Demonstrating comparability may cause us to incur additional costs or delay initiation or completion of our clinical trials, including the need to initiate a dose escalation study and, if unsuccessful, could require us to complete additional preclinical or clinical studies of our product candidates.

If we or our potential strategic partners experience delays in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials involving our product candidates, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We or our potential strategic partners may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we or they are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians' and patients' perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we or our collaborators may be investigating. If we or they fail to enroll and maintain the number of patients for which the clinical trial was designed, the statistical power of that clinical trial may be reduced, which would make it harder to demonstrate that the product candidate being tested is safe and effective. Additionally, enrollment delays in clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our common stock to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our current or future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials, and, therefore, product candidates, altogether.
Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates, we and/or our potential strategic partners will be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

Any regulatory approvals that we or our potential strategic partners receive for our Drug Rescue Variants or other product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, all of which could adversely affect the product’s commercial potential and our revenues. In addition, if the FDA approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, testing, packaging, labeling, storage, distribution, field alert or biological product deviation reporting, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, as well as continued compliance with cGMP for commercial manufacturing and good clinical practices, or GCP, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

·
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;
·
warning letters or holds on clinical trials;
·
refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or our strategic partners, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;
·
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; and
·injunctions, fines or the imposition of other civil or criminal penalties.
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have incurred significant net losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability, which would depress the market price of our common stock, and could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We have incurred significant net losses in each fiscal year since our inception, including net losses of $3.0 million and $12.9 million during the fiscal years ending March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  As of April 29, 2011,March 31, 2014, we had an accumulated deficit of $70.6 million. We do not know whether or when we will become profitable. To date, although we have generated approximately $16.4 million in revenues, we have not commercialized any products or generated any revenues from product sales. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in our research and development programs and from general and administrative expenses. We anticipate that our operating losses will substantially increase over the outstanding balance under the line of credit agreement was $242,273.  On April 29, 2011, the line of credit agreement was terminatednext several years as we execute our plan to expand our drug rescue, stem cell technology research and VistaGen issued to Cato BioVentures an unsecured promissory notedevelopment, drug development and potential commercialization activities. Additionally, we expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the principal amountevent we achieve our goal of $352,273 (the “2011 Cato Note”)obtaining a listing on a national securities exchange. The net losses we incur may fluctuate from quarter to quarter.
If we do not successfully develop, license, sell or obtain regulatory approval for our future product candidates and effectively manufacture, market and sell, or collaborate to accomplish such activities, any product candidates that are approved, we may never generate revenues from product sales, and even if we do generate product sales revenues, we may never achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the market price of our common stock also could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

Since our inception, most of our resources have been dedicated to research and development of the drug rescue capabilities of our human pluripotent stem cell technology. In particular, we have expended substantial resources developing CardioSafe3D and LiverSafe3D, and we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future developing LiverSafe3D and CardioSafe3DDrug Rescue Variants. These expenditures will include costs associated with general and administrative costs, facilities costs, research and development, acquiring new technologies, manufacturing product candidates, conducting preclinical experiments and clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approvals, as well as commercializing any products approved for sale. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.
We have no current source of revenue to sustain our present activities, and we do not expect to generate revenue until, and unless, we out-license a Drug Rescue Variant and/or AV-101 to a third party, obtain approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities and successfully commercialize, on our own or through a future collaboration, one or more of our compounds. As the outcome of our proposed drug rescue and AV-101 development activities and future anticipated clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates, on our own or in collaboration with others. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. As a result of these and other factors, we will need to seek additional capital in the near term to meet our future operating requirements, and may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.
Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:
·
the number and characteristics of the product candidates we pursue, including Drug Rescue Candidates;
·
the scope, progress, results and costs of researching and developing our product candidates, and conducting preclinical and clinical studies;
·
the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates;
·
the cost of commercialization activities if any of our product candidates are approved for sale, including marketing, sales and distribution costs;
·
the cost of manufacturing our product candidates and any products we successfully commercialize;
·
our ability to establish and maintain strategic partnerships, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of such agreements;
·
market acceptance of our products;
·
the effect of competing technological and market developments;
·
our ability to obtain government funding for our programs;
·
the costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent claims necessary to preserve our freedom to operate in the stem cell industry, including litigation costs associated with any claims that we infringe third-party patents or violate other intellectual property rights and the outcome of such litigation;
·
the timing, receipt and amount of potential future licensee fees, milestone payments, and sales of, or royalties on, our future products, if any; and
·the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products and technologies, although we currently have no commitments or agreements relating to any of these types of transactions.
Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate drug rescue programs, preclinical studies, clinical trials or other research and development activities for one or more of our product candidates, or cease or reduce our operating activities and/or sell or license to third parties some or all of our intellectual property, any of which principal amount includedcould harm our operating results.
Raising additional capital will cause dilution to our existing stockholders, and may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.
We will need to seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the $242,273 outstanding balanceextent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of existing stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of the new capital may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect existing stockholder rights. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Some of our programs have been partially supported by government grants, which may not be available to us in the future.
Since inception, we have received substantial funds under grant award programs funded by state and federal governmental agencies, such as the NIH, the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. To fund a portion of our future research and development programs, we may apply for additional grant funding from such or similar governmental organizations.  However, funding by these governmental organizations may be significantly reduced or eliminated in the future for a number of reasons. For example, some programs are subject to a yearly appropriations process in Congress. In addition, we may not receive funds under future grants because of budgeting constraints of the agency administering the program. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we will receive any future grant funding from any government organization or otherwise.  A restriction on the linegovernment funding available to us could reduce the resources that we would be able to devote to future research and development efforts. Such a reduction could delay the introduction of creditnew products and hurt our competitive position.
Our independent auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
Our consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2014 included in Item 8 of April 29, 2011,this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared assuming we will continue to operate as a going concern. However, due to our ongoing operating losses and $105,000our accumulated deficit, there is doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Because we continue to experience net operating losses, our ability to continue as a going concern is subject to our ability to generate a profit and/or obtain necessary funding from outside sources, including obtaining additional funding from the sale of indebtedness owedour securities or obtaining loans and grants from financial institutions and/or government agencies where possible. Our continued net operating losses increase the difficulty in completing such sales or securing alternative sources of funding, and there can be no assurances that we will be able to Cato BioVenturesobtain such funding on favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient financing from the sale of its securities or from alternative sources, it may be required to reduce, defer, or discontinue certain of its research and development activities or it may not be able to continue as a going concern.
Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future taxable income is subject to certain limitations.

If we do not generate sufficient taxable income we may not be able to use a material portion, or any portion, of our existing net operating losses (NOLs). Furthermore, our existing NOLs may be subject to limitations under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which in general provides that a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is limited in its August 2010 Short-Term Note (as described above).  The 2011 Cato Note bears interest atability to utilize its pre- change NOLs to offset future taxable income. Our existing NOLs are subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, and if we undergo an ownership change, in connection with a future equity-based financing, series of equity-based financings or otherwise, our ability to utilize NOLs could be further limited by Section 382 of the rateInternal Revenue Code. Future changes in our stock ownership, some of 7.0% per annum, is payablewhich are outside of our control, could result in installments as follows:  ten thousand dollars ($10,000) each month, beginning June 1, 2011an ownership change under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property
We utilize certain technologies that are licensed to us, including key aspects of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform.  If the licensors terminate the licenses or fail to maintain or enforce the underlying patents, our competitive position and ending on November 1, 2011; twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500) each month, beginning December 1, 2011,market share will be harmed, and each month thereafter untilour business could be adversely affected.
We currently use certain licensed technologies to produce cells that are material to our research and development programs, including our drug rescue programs, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the balance underfuture. Our rights to use such licensed technologies are subject to the 2011 Cato Note is paid in full,negotiation of, continuation of and compliance with the final monthlyterms of the applicable licenses, including payment of any royalties and diligence, insurance, indemnification and other obligations. If a licensor believes that we have failed to meet our obligations under a license agreement for non-payment of license fees, non-reimbursement of patent expenses, or otherwise, the licensor could seek to limit or terminate our license rights, which could lead to costly and time-consuming litigation and, potentially, a loss of the licensed rights. During the period of any such litigation, our ability to carry out the development and commercialization of potential products could be madesignificantly and negatively affected.
Our license rights are further subject to the validity of the owner’s intellectual property rights. As such, we are dependent on our licensors to defend the viability of these patents and patent applications. We cannot be certain that drafting and/or prosecution of the licensed patents and patent applications by the licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. Legal action could be initiated by or against the owners of the intellectual property that we license. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent these other companies or institutions from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business. In some cases, we do not control the prosecution, maintenance or filing of the patents to which we hold licenses, or the enforcement of these patents against third parties.
Certain of our license agreements are subject to termination by the licensor in specific circumstances, including non-payment of license fees, royalties and patent-related expenses. Any such termination of these licenses could prevent us from producing cells for our research and development programs and future commercial activities, including selling or marketing products. Because of the complexity of our human pluripotent stem cell technology and the patents we have licensed, determining the scope of the license and related royalty obligation can be difficult and can lead to disputes between us and the licensor. An unfavorable resolution of such a dispute could lead to an increase in the amount equalroyalties payable pursuant to the then current outstanding balance of principal and interestlicense. If a licensor believed we were not paying the royalties or other amounts due under the license or were otherwise not in compliance with the terms of the license, the licensor might attempt to revoke the license. If our license rights were restricted or ultimately lost, our ability to continue our business based on the affected technology would be severely adversely affected.
We may engage in discussions regarding possible commercial, licensing and cross-licensing agreements with third parties from time to time. There can be no assurance that these discussions will lead to the execution of commercial license or cross-license agreements or that such agreements will be on terms that are favorable to us. If these discussions are successful, we could be obligated to pay license fees and royalties to such third parties. If these discussions do not lead to the execution of mutually acceptable agreements, we may be limited or prevented from producing and selling our existing products and developing new products. One or more of the parties involved in such discussions could resort to litigation to protect or enforce its patents and proprietary rights or to determine the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others. In addition, if we enter into cross-licensing agreements, there is no assurance that we will be able to effectively compete against others who are licensed under our patents.

If we seek to leverage prior discovery and development of Drug Rescue Candidates under in-license arrangements with academic laboratories, biotechnology companies, the NIH, pharmaceutical companies or other third parties, it is uncertain what ownership rights, if any, we will obtain over intellectual property we derive from such licenses to Drug Rescue Variants we may generate or develop in connection with any such third-party licenses.
If, instead of identifying Drug Rescue Candidates based on information available to us in the public domain, we seek to in-license Drug Rescue Candidates from biotechnology, medicinal chemistry and pharmaceutical companies, academic, governmental and nonprofit research institutions, including the NIH, or other third-parties, there can be no assurances that we will obtain material ownership or economic participation rights over intellectual property we may derive from such licenses or similar rights to the Drug Rescue Variants we may generate and develop. If we are unable to obtain ownership or substantial economic participation rights over intellectual property related to Drug Rescue Variants we generate, our business may be adversely affected.
Our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology through patents and other means is uncertain, and we could be unsuccessful in obtaining adequate patent protection for one or more of our product candidates.
Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technologies. We rely on patents, where appropriate and available, as well as a combination of copyright, trade secret and trademark laws, license agreements and nondisclosure, confidentiality and other contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technology. However, these legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. Pending patent applications of ours or our licensors may not issue as patents or may not issue in a form that will be sufficient to protect our proprietary technology and gain or maintain our competitive advantage. Any patents we have obtained or may obtain in the future, or the rights we have licensed, may be subject to re-examination, reissue, opposition or other administrative proceeding, or may be challenged in litigation, and such challenges could result in a determination that the patent is invalid or unenforceable. In addition, competitors may be able to design alternative methods or products that avoid infringement of these patents or technologies. To the extent our intellectual property, including licensed intellectual property, offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we are exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate protection against our competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Both the patent application process and the process of managing patent disputes can be time consuming and expensive.
The patent positions of companies in the life sciences industry can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. A number of life sciences, biopharmaceutical and other companies, universities and research institutions have filed patent applications or have been issued patents relating to stem cells, use of stem cells and other modified cells to treat disease, disorder or injury, and other technologies potentially relevant to or required by our existing and planned products. We cannot be certain that patents we have filed or may file in the future will be issued or granted, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid and/or unenforceable. The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (US PTO) and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending or future patent applications. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on certain of our proprietary products and technology.
Our patents and patent applications may not be sufficient to protect our products, product candidates and technologies from commercial competition. Our inability to obtain adequate patent protection for our product candidates or platform technology could adversely affect our business. 
Publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature tends to lag behind actual discoveries by at least several months and sometimes several years. Therefore, the persons or entities that we or our licensors name as inventors in our patents and patent applications may not have been the first to invent the inventions disclosed in the patent applications or patents, or the first to file patent applications for these inventions. As a result, we may not be able to obtain patents for discoveries that we otherwise would consider patentable and that we consider to be extremely significant to our future success.
Where several parties seek U.S. patent protection for the same technology, the US PTO may declare an interference proceeding in order to ascertain the party to which the patent should be issued. Patent interferences are typically complex, highly contested legal proceedings, subject to appeal. They are usually expensive and prolonged, and can cause significant delay in the issuance of patents. Moreover, parties that receive an adverse decision in interference can lose patent rights. Our pending patent applications, or our issued patents, may be drawn into interference proceedings, which may delay or prevent the issuance of patents or result in the loss of issued patent rights. If more groups become engaged in scientific research related to hESCs, the number of patent filings by such groups and therefore the risk of our patents or applications being drawn into interference proceedings may increase. The interference process can also be used to challenge a patent that has been issued to another party.

Outside of the U.S., certain jurisdictions, such as Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, permit oppositions to be filed against the granting of patents. Because we may seek to develop and commercialize our product candidates internationally, securing both proprietary protection and freedom to operate outside of the U.S. is important to our business. In addition, the European Patent Convention prohibits the granting of European patents for inventions that concern “uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes”. The European Patent Office is presently interpreting this prohibition broadly, and is applying it to reject patent claims that pertain to hESCs. However, this broad interpretation is being challenged through the European Patent Office appeals system. As a result, we do not yet know whether or to what extent we will be able to obtain European patent protection for our proprietary hESC-based technology and systems.

Patent opposition proceedings are not currently available in the U.S. patent system, but legislation is pending to introduce them. However, issued U.S. patents can be re-examined by the US PTO at the request of a third party. Patents owned or licensed by us may therefore be subject to re-examination. As in any legal proceeding, the outcome of patent re-examinations is uncertain, and a decision adverse to our interests could result in the loss of valuable patent rights.

Successful challenges to our patents through interference, opposition or re-examination proceedings could result in a loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction(s). As more groups become engaged in scientific research and product development areas of hESCs, the risk of our patents being challenged through patent interferences, oppositions, re-examinations or other means will likely increase. If we institute such proceedings against the patents of other parties and we are unsuccessful, we may be subject to litigation, or otherwise prevented from commercializing potential products in the relevant jurisdiction, or may be required to obtain licenses to those patents or develop or obtain alternative technologies, any of which could harm our business.
Furthermore, if such challenges to our patent rights are not resolved promptly in our favor, our existing business relationships may be jeopardized and we could be delayed or prevented from entering into new collaborations or from commercializing certain products, which could materially harm our business.

Issued patents covering one or more of our product candidates or technologies could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates or technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the US PTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the patent validity, we cannot be certain, for example, that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products or certain aspects of our platform technology, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.
Claims that any of our product candidates, including our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, or, if commercialized, the sale or use of our products infringe the patent rights of third parties could result in costly litigation or could require substantial time and money to resolve, even if litigation is avoided.

We cannot guarantee that our product candidates, the use of our product candidates, or our platform technology, do not or will not infringe third party patents. Third parties might allege that we are infringing their patent rights or that we have misappropriated their trade secrets. Such third parties might resort to litigation against us. The basis of such litigation could be existing patents or patents that issue in the future. Our failure to successfully defend against any claims that our product candidates or platform technology infringe the rights of third parties could also adversely affect our business. Failure to obtain any required licenses could restrict our ability to commercialize our products in certain territories or subject us to patent infringement litigation, which could result in us having to cease commercialization of our products and subject us to money damages in such territories.

It is also possible that we may fail to identify relevant patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies, our products or the use of our products.

To avoid or settle potential claims with respect to any patent rights of third parties, we may choose or be required to seek a license from a third party and be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or any future strategic partners were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing one or more of our products, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This could harm our business significantly.

Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other business.
Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation, and could result in unfavorable outcomes that could limit our research and development activities and/or our ability to commercialize certain products.

During the course of any patent litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our products, programs, or intellectual property could be diminished. Moreover, if third parties successfully assert intellectual property rights against us, we might be barred from using certain aspects of our platform technology, or barred from developing and commercializing certain products. Prohibitions against using certain technologies, or prohibitions against commercializing certain products, could be imposed by a court or by a settlement agreement between us and a plaintiff. In addition, if we are unsuccessful in defending against allegations of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets, we may be forced to pay substantial damage awards to the plaintiff. There is inevitable uncertainty in any litigation, including intellectual property litigation. There can be no assurance that we would prevail in any intellectual property litigation, even if the case against us is weak or flawed. If litigation leads to an outcome unfavorable to us, we may be required to obtain a license from the patent owner to continue our research and development programs or to market our product(s). It is possible that the necessary license will not be available to us on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. This could limit our research and development activities, our ability to commercialize certain products, or both.
Most of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation longer than we could. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our internal research programs, conduct clinical trials, continue to in-license needed technology, or enter into strategic partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.
In addition, any future patent litigation, interference or other administrative proceedings will result in additional expense and distraction of our personnel. An adverse outcome in such litigation or proceedings may expose us or any future strategic partners to loss of our proprietary position, expose us to significant liabilities, or require us to seek licenses that may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.
Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets, technical know-how, and proprietary information concerning our business strategy in order to protect our competitive position in the field of stem cell research and product candidate development. In the course of our research and development activities and other business activities, we often rely on confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary information. Such confidentiality agreements are used, for example, when we talk to vendors of laboratory or clinical development services or potential strategic partners. In addition, each of our employees is required to sign a confidentiality agreement upon joining the Company. We take steps to protect our proprietary information, and our confidentiality agreements are carefully drafted to protect our proprietary interests. Nevertheless, there can be no guarantee that an employee or an outside party will not make an unauthorized disclosure of our proprietary confidential information. This might happen intentionally or inadvertently. It is possible that a competitor will make use of such information, and that our competitive position will be compromised, in spite of any legal action we might take against persons making such unauthorized disclosures.

Trade secrets are difficult to protect. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific collaborators might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States sometimes are less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.
Our research and development strategic partners may have rights to publish data and other information to which we have rights. In addition, we sometimes engage individuals or entities to conduct research relevant to our business. The ability of these individuals or entities to publish or otherwise publicly disclose data and other information generated during the course of their research is subject to certain contractual limitations. These contractual provisions may be insufficient or inadequate to protect our confidential information. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication, or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

·Others may be able to make compounds that are the same as or similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we may own or have exclusively licensed;
·We or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we may own or have exclusively licensed;
·We or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;
·Others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
·It is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;
·Issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;
·Our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;
·We may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; and
·The patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.
Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other development stage biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries involve both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, Congress has passed patent reform legislation which provides new limitations on attaining, maintaining and enforcing intellectual property. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the US PTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.
If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection or other commercial protection for AV-101, the value of AV-101 will be harmed.
Commercial protection of AV-101, our small molecule drug candidate for neuropathic pain and other neurological conditions is important to our business. Our success related to AV-101 will depend in part on our or a potential collaborator’s ability to obtain and enforce potential patents and maintain our trade secrets and secure New Drug Product Exclusivity provided by the FDA under section 505(c)(3)(E) and 505(j)(5)(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Additional patents may not be granted, and potential U.S. patents, if issued, might not provide us with commercial benefit or might be infringed upon, invalidated or circumvented by others. The principle U.S. method of use patent and its foreign counterparts for AV-101 have expired.  Although we have recently filed three new U.S. patent applications relating to AV-101, we or others with whom we may collaborate for the development and commercialization of AV-101 may choose not to seek, or may be unable to obtain, patent protection in a country that could potentially be an important market for AV-101.
We may become subject to damages resulting from claims that we or our future employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our employees’ former employers.

Our ability to execute on our business plan will depend on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals with specialized training in the field of stem cell research and bioassay development, as well as medicinal chemistry and in vitro drug candidate screening and nonclinical and clinical development. Our future success depends on our ability to identify, hire and retain these highly skilled personnel during our development stage. We may hire additional highly skilled scientific and technical employees, including employees who may have been previously employed at biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, and who may have executed invention assignments, nondisclosure agreements and/or non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. As to such future employees, we may become subject to claims that we, or these future employees, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize certain potential products, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
Risks Related to our Common Stock
There is no assurance that an active, liquid and orderly trading market will develop for our common stock or what the market price of our common stock will be and, as a result, it may be difficult for you to sell your shares of our common stock.

Since we became a publicly-traded company in May 2011, Cato Note.there has been a limited public market for shares of our common stock on the OTCQB Marketplaces (OTCQB). We do not yet meet the initial listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Capital Market, or other similar national securities exchanges. Until our common stock is listed on a broader exchange, we anticipate that it will remain quoted on the OTCQB, another over-the-counter quotation system, or in the “pink sheets.” In those venues, investors may find it difficult to obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock. In addition, if we fail to meet the criteria set forth in SEC regulations, various requirements would be imposed by law on broker-dealers who sell our securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors. Consequently, such regulations may deter broker-dealers from recommending or selling our common stock, which may further affect liquidity. This could also make it more difficult to raise additional capital.
We cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in our company will lead to the development of a more active trading market on the OTCQB, whether we will meet the initial listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Capital Market, or other similar national securities exchanges, or how liquid that market might become. If an active trading market does not develop, you may have difficulty selling any of the shares of our common stock that you buy. In addition, the trading price of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

·
actual or anticipated quarterly variation in our results of operations or the results of our competitors;
·
announcements by us or our competitors of new commercial products, significant contracts, commercial relationships or capital commitments;
·
financial projections we may provide to the public, any changes to those projections, or our failure to meet those projections;
·
issuance of new or changed securities analysts’ reports or recommendations for our stock;
·
developments or disputes concerning our intellectual property or other proprietary rights;
·
commencement of, or our involvement in, litigation;
·
market conditions in the biopharmaceutical and life sciences sectors;
·
failure to complete significant sales;
·
changes in legislation and government regulation;
·
public concern regarding the safety, efficacy or other aspects of our products;
·
entering into, changing or terminating collaborative relationships;
·
any shares of our common stock or other securities eligible for future sale;
·
any major change to the composition of our board of directors or management; and
·general economic conditions and slow or negative growth of our markets.
The stock market in general, and biotechnology-based companies like ours in particular, has from time to time experienced volatility in the market prices for securities that often has been unrelated to the operating performance of the underlying companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In certain recent situations in which the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against such company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit against us, the defense and disposition of the lawsuit could be costly and divert the time and attention of our management and harm our operating results. Additionally, if the trading volume of our common stock remains low and limited there will be an increased level of volatility and you may not be able to generate a return on your investment.
A significant portion of our total outstanding shares are restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into the market in the near future. Future sales of shares by existing stockholders could cause our stock price to decline, even if our business is doing well.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Prior to this date of this report, there has been a limited public market for shares of our common stock on the OTCQB. Future sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, including shares issued upon the exchange of our Series A Preferred Stock, conversion of convertible promissory notes and exercise of outstanding options and warrants for common stock, in the public market, or the possibility of these sales occurring, could cause the prevailing market price for our common stock to fall or impair our ability to raise equity capital in the future.
Our principal institutional stockholders may continue to have substantial control over us and could limit your ability to influence the outcome of key transactions, including changes in control.

Certain of our current institutional stockholders and their respective affiliates beneficially own approximately 46% of our outstanding capital stock, as beneficial ownership is defined by SEC rules and regulations. Accordingly, these stockholders may continue to have substantial influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any other significant corporate transactions. These stockholders may also delay or prevent a change of control of us, even if such a change of control would benefit our other stockholders. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors’ perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise. For information regarding the ownership of our outstanding stock by such stockholders, refer to Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

The trading market for our common stock may depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us and our business. Securities and industry analysts do not currently, and may never, publish research on our company. If no or too few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of our company, the trading price for our stock would likely be negatively impacted. In the event securities or industry analysts initiate coverage, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. In the event we obtain analyst coverage, we will not have any control of the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. If one or more equity research analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

There may be additional issuances of shares of preferred stock in the future.
Following approval by our stockholders in October 2011, our Articles of Incorporation permit us to issue up to 10.0 million shares of preferred stock and our Board has authorized the issuance of 500,000 shares of Series A Preferred, all of which shares are currently issued and outstanding.  Our board of directors could authorize the issuance of additional series of preferred stock in the future and such preferred stock could grant holders preferred rights to our assets upon liquidation, the right to receive dividends before dividends would be declared to holders of our common stock, and the right to the redemption of such shares, possibly together with a premium, prior to the redemption of the common stock. In the event and to the extent that we do issue additional preferred stock in the future, the rights of holders of our common stock could be impaired thereby, including without limitation, with respect to liquidation.
Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Our management is currently required to assess the effectiveness of our controls and we are required to disclose changes made in our internal control over financial reporting on a quarterly basis.  As a “smaller reporting company,” however, our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  If we cannot continue to favorably assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide an unqualified attestation report on our internal controls whenever required in the future, investors could lose confidence in our financial information and the price of our common stock could decline.  Additionally, should we cease to be a “smaller reporting company,” we will incur additional expense and management effort to facilitate the required attestation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting by our independent registered public accounting firm.
Our common stock may be considered a “penny stock.”
Since we became a publicly-traded company in May 2011, our common stock has traded on the OTCQB at a price of less than $5.00 per share. The SEC has adopted regulations which generally define a “penny stock” as an equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to specific exemptions. To the extent that the market price of our common stock is less than $5.00 per share and, therefore, may be considered a “penny stock,” brokers and dealers effecting transactions in our common stock must disclose certain information concerning the transaction, obtain a written agreement from the purchaser and determine that the purchaser is reasonably suitable to purchase the securities. These rules may restrict the ability of brokers or dealers to sell our common stock and may affect your ability to sell shares of our common stock. In addition, as long as our common stock remains quoted only on the OTCQB, investors may find it difficult to obtain accurate quotations of the stock, and may find few buyers to purchase such stock and few market makers to support its price.

We have never paid dividends on our capital stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
We have paid no cash dividends on any of our classes of capital stock to date and currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. Any payment of cash dividends will depend upon our financial condition, contractual restrictions, financing agreement covenants, solvency tests imposed by corporate law, results of operations, anticipated cash requirements and other factors and will be at the discretion of our board of directors. Furthermore, we may incur indebtedness that may severely restrict or prohibit the payment of dividends.

Item 1B6.  Selected Financial Data.  Unresolved Staff Comments

The disclosures in this section are not required since we qualify as a smaller reporting company.

Item2.  Properties

Our principal executive offices and laboratories are located at 343 Allerton Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, where we occupy approximately 10,900 square feet of office and lab space under a lease expiring on July 31, 2017. We believe that our facilities are suitable and adequate for our current and foreseeable needs.

Item 3.  Legal Proceeding

From time to time, we may become involved in claims and other legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business. We are not presently involved in any legal proceeding nor do we know of any legal proceeding which is threatened or contemplated.

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.
PART II

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

Market Information

On June 21, 2011 our common stock began trading on the OTC Marketplace (OTCQB), under the symbol “VSTA”.  There was no established trading market for our common stock prior to that date.
Shown below is the range of high and low sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated as reported by the OTCQB.  The market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commissions and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.
  High  Low 
Year Ending March 31, 2014      
First quarter ending June 30, 2013 $0.90  $0.60 
Second quarter ending September 30, 2013 $0.89  $0.55 
Third quarter ending December 31, 2013 $0.61  $0.26 
Fourth quarter ending March 31, 2014 $0.50  $0.28 
         
Year Ending March 31, 2013        
First quarter ending June 30, 2012 $2.80  $0.50 
Second quarter ending September 30, 2012 $1.50  $0.51 
Third quarter ending December 31, 2012 $0.95  $0.55 
Fourth quarter ending March 31, 2013 $0.90  $0.60 

On June 19, 2014 the closing price of our common stock on the OTCQB was $0.65 per share.

As of June 19, 2014, we had 25,451,877 shares of common stock outstanding and approximately 300 stockholders of record.  On the same date, one stockholder held all 500,000 outstanding restricted shares of our Series A Preferred.
Dividend Policy
We have not paid any dividends in the past and we do not anticipate that we will pay dividends in the foreseeable future.  Covenants in certain of our debt agreements prohibit us from paying dividends while the debt remains outstanding.
Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities

There were no repurchases of our common stock during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
During the three years preceding the date of this report, we issued the following securities in private placement transactions which were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act) and that have not been previously reported in a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or a Current Report on Form 8-K:
2013/2014 Unit Private Placement
On March 11, 2014, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with an accredited investor pursuant to which we sold Units consisting of an aggregate of (i) a 10% convertible note in the face amount of $37,500 maturing on July 30, 2014 (2013/2014 Unit Note); (ii) 75,000 shares of our restricted common stock; and (iii) a warrant exercisable through July 30, 2016 to purchase 75,000 shares of our restricted common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share (Unit Warrant).  We received cash proceeds of $37,500 which we used for general corporate purposes. The Unit Note and related accrued interest are convertible into shares of our restricted common stock at a conversion price of $0.50 per share at or prior to maturity at the option of the investor.  The Units were offered and sold in a transaction exempt from registration under the Securities Act, in reliance on Section 4(2) thereof.
Securities Issued in Satisfaction of Technology License and Maintenance Fees and Patent Expenses
On April 10, 2014, we  issued (i) a promissory note in the face amount of $300,000 due on the earlier of December 31, 2014 or the completion of a qualified financing, as defined, (ii) 300,000 restricted shares of our common stock and (iii) a warrant exercisable through March 31, 2019 to purchase 300,000 restricted shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share to Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in satisfaction of $288,400 of license maintenance fees and reimbursable patent prosecution costs.  The securities were issued in a private placement transaction exempt from registration under the Securities Act, in reliance on Section 4(2) thereof.

Securities Issued for Consulting Services
On May 21, 2014, we issued to an accredited investor 200,000 restricted shares of our common stock as partial compensation under the terms of a strategic consulting agreement.  The securities were issued in a private placement transaction exempt from registration under the Securities Act, in reliance on Section 4(2) thereof.
Item 6.  Selected Financial Data
The disclosures in this section are not required since we qualify as a smaller reporting company.

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

CautionarySpecial Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

The following discussion contains
This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes forward-looking statements that are based on the current beliefs of our management, as well as current assumptions made by, and information currently available to, our management.statements. All statements contained in the discussion below,this Annual Report on Form 10-K other than statements thatof historical fact, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, our business strategy and plans, and our objectives for future operations, are purely historical,forward- looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward- looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy, short-term and long-term business operations and objectives, and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and uncertainties that could cause our future actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially fromassumptions, including those expressed in, or implied by, any such forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not limited to, those risks and uncertainties discussed in this section, as well asdescribed in the section entitled “Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in our other filings with the SEC. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates and assumptions we make in light of our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors that we believe are appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our business is subject to significant risks including, but not limited to, our ability to obtain additional financing, the results of our research and development efforts, the results of pre-clinical and clinical testing, the effect of regulation by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies, the impact of competitive products, product development, commercialization and technological difficulties, the effect of our accounting policies, and other risks as detailed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” section. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, even if our product candidates appear promising at various stages of development, our share price may decrease such that we are unable to raise additional capital without dilution or other terms that may be unacceptable to our management, Board of Directors and shareholders.

Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements contained herein. Additionally, unless otherwise stated, the forward-looking statements contained in this report are made as of the date of this report, and we have no intention and undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. The forward-looking statements contained in this report are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.rapidly changing environment. New factorsrisks emerge from time to time, and ittime. It is not possible for usour management to predict which factors may arise. In addition,all risks, nor can we cannot assess the impact of each factorall factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the future events and trends discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.
You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We are under no duty to update any of these forward-looking statements after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or to conform these statements to actual results or revised expectations. If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward- looking statements.
Business Overview

We are a stem cell company headquartered in South San Francisco, California and focused on drug rescue and regenerative medicine. We believe better cells lead to better medicine™ and that the key to making better cells is precisely controlling the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells, which are the building blocks of all cells of the human body. For over 15 years, our stem cell research and development teams and collaborators have focused on controlling the differentiation of pluripotent stem cells to produce multiple types of mature, functional, adult human cells, with emphasis on human heart and liver cells for drug rescue applications.
Our Stem Cell Technology Platform - Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™
Our stem cell technology platform, which we refer to as Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, is based on a combination of proprietary and exclusively licensed technologies for controlling the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into multiple types of mature, functional, adult human cells that we use, or plan to develop, to reproduce complex human biology and disease.  We are currently producing human heart cells and liver cells for our drug rescue applications. However, we also intend to advance, internally and through collaborative research projects, production of pluripotent stem cell-derived blood, bone, cartilage, and pancreatic beta-islet cells and explore ways to leverage our stem cell technology platform for regenerative medicine purposes. Our interest in the regenerative medicine arena is on developing novel human disease models for discovery of small molecule drugs and biologics that activate the endogenous growth and healing processes enabling the body to repair tissue damage caused by certain degenerative diseases.
 
Business OverviewCardioSafe 3D™

We are a biotechnology company applyingUsing mature cardiomyocytes (heart cells) differentiated from human pluripotent stem cell technology for drug rescue and cell therapy.

Drug rescue involves the combination of human pluripotent stem cell technology with modern medicinal chemistry to generate new chemical variants (“drug rescue variants”) of promising small molecule drug candidates that pharmaceutical companies have discontinued during preclinical or early clinical development (“put on the shelf”) due to heart or liver toxicity. We anticipate that our stem cell technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tubetm, will allow us to assess the heart and liver toxicity profile of new drug candidates with greater speed and precision than nonclinical in vitro techniques and technologies currently used in the drug development process.  Our drug rescue model is designed to leverage both the pharmaceutical company’s substantial prior investment in discovery and development of once-promising drug candidates which they ultimately put on the shelf and the predictive toxicology and drug development capabilities of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tubetm platform.

Our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tubetm platform is based on a combination of proprietary and exclusively licensed stem cell technologies, including technologies developed over the last 20 years by Canadian scientist, Dr. Gordon Keller, and Dr. Ralph Snodgrass, VistaGen’s founder, President and Chief Scientific Officer. Dr. Keller is currently the Director of the University Health Network’s McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Toronto. Dr. Keller’s research is focused on understanding and controlling stem cell differentiation (development) and production of multiple types of mature, functional, human cells from pluripotent stem cells, including heart cells and liver cells that can be used in our biological assay systems (drug screening systems) for drug rescue. Dr. Snodgrass has nearly 20 years of experience in both academia and industry in the development and application of stem cell differentiation systems for drug discovery and development.

With mature heart cells produced from stem cells, we have developed CardioSafe 3D, as a novel, in vitro ™, a three-dimensional (“3D”) bioassay system.system used to assess new drug candidates for potential cardiac toxicity before they are tested in animals or humans. We believe CardioSafe 3D is capable of predicting the in vivo cardiac effects, both toxic and non-toxic, of small molecule drug candidates before theywith greater speed and precision than the long-established, surrogate safety models most often used in drug development, including models using animal cells or live animals, and cellular assays using cadaver, immortalized or transformed cells. Our pluripotent stem cell derived cardiomyocytes (heart cells) and CardioSafe 3D are tested in humans. Our immediate goal is to leverage CardioSafe 3D ™ to generate and monetize a pipeline of small molecule drug candidates through drug rescue collaborations. We intend to expand our drug rescue capabilities by developing LiverSafe 3D ™, a human liver cell-based toxicity and metabolism bioassay system.

In parallel with our drug rescue activities, we plan to advance pilot nonclinical development of cell therapy programs focused on blood, cartilage, heart, liver and pancreas cells. Each of these cell therapy programs is based on the proprietary differentiation and production capabilitieskey components of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube tm platform.platform and drug rescue programs.

LiverSafe 3D
Using mature, functional adult hepatocytes (liver cells) derived from human pluripotent stem cells, we are correlating LiverSafe 3D, our second novel stem cell technology-based bioassay system, with reported clinical results. We believe LiverSafe 3D will enable us to assess, early in development, new drug candidates for potential drug-induced liver toxicity and particularly metabolism issues that can result in serious adverse drug-drug interactions, before animal or human testing. We plan to use LiverSafe 3D, and the clinically predictive liver biology insight we believe it will provide us, to expand the scope of our commercial opportunities related to drug rescue.
Drug Rescue
We believe drug rescue using our novel in vitro bioassay systems, CardioSafe 3D and LiverSafe 3D, the foundation of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform, is the highest-value near term commercial application of the human cells we produce.  Detailed information is available to us in the public domain regarding the efficacy, pharmacology, formulation and toxicity of promising small molecule drug candidates developed by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies which have failed due to unexpected heart or liver toxicity. These failed but still promising drug candidates, which we refer to as Drug Rescue Candidates™, have already been optimized and tested by a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company and assessed for efficacy and commercial potential.
Failure of promising Drug Rescue Candidates due to unexpected human clinical toxicity highlights the need for new paradigms to evaluate potential heart and liver toxicity early in drug development. While efforts of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to improve their prediction of such human clinical toxicity for new drug candidates is ongoing, the existence of Drug Rescue Candidates™ offers us an opportunity to use our novel stem cell technology to take advantage of prior third-party investment in Drug Rescue Candidates with early signs of efficacy, by significantly reducing the toxicity that caused them to be terminated, and bring new, safer versions back into development protected by new intellectual property. We refer to the new, safer versions of Drug Rescue Candidates we intend to produce with our medicinal chemistry collaborator and validate internally in our bioassay systems as Drug Rescue Variants™.
Through stem cell technology-based drug rescue, our objective is to become a leading source of proprietary, small molecule drug candidates to the global pharmaceutical industry. We have designed our drug rescue model to leverage publicly available information and substantial prior investment by pharmaceutical companies and others in Drug Rescue Candidates. The key commercial objective of our drug rescue model is to generate revenue from license, development and commercialization arrangements involving Drug Rescue Variants. We anticipate that each validated lead Drug Rescue Variant will be suitable as a promising new drug development program, either internally or in collaboration with a strategic partner.
Our Drug Rescue Strategy
We believe the pre-existing public domain knowledge base supporting the therapeutic and commercial potential of our Drug Rescue Candidates will provide us with a valuable head start as we launch our drug rescue programs. Leveraging the substantial prior investments by global pharmaceutical companies and others in discovery, optimization and efficacy validation of Drug Rescue Candidates is an essential component of our drug rescue strategy.
Our current drug rescue emphasis is on Drug Rescue Candidates discontinued prior to FDA market approval due to unexpected cardiac safety concerns. By using our CardioSafe 3D assay platform to enhance our understanding of the cardiac liability profile of Drug Rescue Candidates, biological insight not previously available when the Drug Rescue Candidate was originally discovered and developed, we believe we can demonstrate in vitro proof-of-concept as to the efficacy and safety of Drug Rescue Variants earlier in development and with substantially less investment in discovery, efficacy optimization and development than was required of the pharmaceutical companies prior to their decision to terminate  the Drug Rescue Candidates.
The key elements of our CardioSafe 3D drug rescue strategy are as follows:
·
identify potential Drug Rescue Candidates with heart safety issues utilizing drug discovery and development information available in the public domain through open source, licensed databases, and published patents, as well as through our strategic relationships with our drug rescue and scientific advisors and consultants, including Synterys, Inc. and Cato Research Ltd., our preferred provider of contract medicinal chemistry and contract clinical development and regulatory services, respectively;
·
leverage substantial prior research and development investments made by global pharmaceutical companies and others to analyse internally the therapeutic and commercial potential of Drug Rescue Candidates, as important criteria for selection of Drug Rescue Candidates and potential lead Drug Rescue Variants;
·
use CardioSafe 3D to enhance our understanding of the cardiac liability profile of Drug Rescue Candidates, important and more comprehensive biological insights not available when the Drug Rescue Candidates were originally discovered and developed by pharmaceutical companies;
·
leverage our internal knowledge base about each Drug Rescue Candidate’s specific chemistry to design and produce a portfolio of novel potential lead Drug Rescue Variants for each Drug Rescue Candidate;
·
use CardioSafe 3D and pre-existing in vitro efficacy models to assess the efficacy and cardiac safety of potential Drug Rescue Variants and identify and validate a lead Drug Rescue Variant; and
·
internally develop validated lead Drug Rescue Variants or out-license them to a global pharmaceutical company in revenue-generating agreements providing for the full development, market approval and commercial sale.
We believe our exclusive focus on Drug Rescue Candidates with established therapeutic and commercial potential, and our ability to build on that valuable head start using our expertise in human biology, will help us to generate Drug Rescue Variants without incurring certain high costs and risks typically inherent in drug discovery and development. Although we plan to continue to identify Drug Rescue Candidates in the public domain, we may also seek to acquire rights to Drug Rescue Candidates not available to us in the public domain through in-licensing arrangements with third-parties.
Strategic Licensing of Drug Rescue Variants
We believe many pharmaceutical companies are experiencing, and will continue to experience, critical research and development productivity issues, as measured by their lack of, or very low number of, FDA-approved products each year during the past decade. For example, in 2013, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry invested over $51 billion in research and development and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) of the FDA approved a total of only 39 novel drugs, known as New Molecular Entities (NMEs).  In 2013, CDER approved only 27 NMEs, thirteen of which NME approvals (48%) were received by only five pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer (two), GlaxoSmithKline (four), Johnson & Johnson (three), Roche (two) and Takeda (two). Despite remarkable levels of research and development investment by the global pharmaceutical industry as a whole, since 2003, the FDA has only approved an average of approximately 26 NMEs per year. In addition, we believe many pharmaceutical companies with established products that are no longer patent protected are also experiencing substantial market pressure from generic competition.
As a result of research and development productivity issues, diminishing product pipelines and generic competition, we believe there is and will continue to be a critical need among pharmaceutical companies to license or acquire the new, safer Drug Rescue Variants we are focused on developing, including companies that originally discovered, developed and ultimately discontinued the Drug Rescue Candidates we select for our drug rescue programs.
Once we achieve proof-of-concept (POC) in vitro as to the efficacy and safety of a lead Drug Rescue Variant, we intend to announce the results of our internal POC studies and, at that time, consider whether we will seek to license that Drug Rescue Variant to a pharmaceutical company, including the company that developed the Drug Rescue Candidate, or further develop it internally on our own.  If we decide to license a lead Drug Rescue Variant to a pharmaceutical company, through a form of license arrangement we believe is generally accepted in the pharmaceutical industry, we anticipate that the pharmaceutical company will be responsible for all subsequent development, manufacturing, regulatory approval, marketing and sale of the Drug Rescue Variant and that we will receive licensing revenue through payments to us from the license upon signing the license agreement, achievement of development and regulatory milestones, and, if approved and marketed, upon commercial sales.
Regenerative Medicine and Drug Discovery 
Although we believe the best and most valuable near term commercial application of our stem cell technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, is for small molecule drug rescue, we also believe stem cell technology-based regenerative medicine has the potential to transform healthcare in the U.S. over the next decade by altering the fundamental mechanisms of disease.  We are interested in exploring ways to leverage our stem cell technology platform for regenerative medicine purposes, with emphasis on developing novel human disease models for discovery of small molecule drugs with regenerative and therapeutic potential. Our regenerative medicine focus will be based on our expertise in human biology, differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to develop functional adult human cells and tissues involved in human disease, including blood, bone, cartilage, heart, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells, and our expertise in formulating customized biological assays with the cells we produce. Among our key objectives will be to explore regenerative medicine opportunities through pilot nonclinical proof-of-concept studies, after which we intend to assess any potential opportunities for further development and commercialization of therapeutically and commercially promising regenerative medicine programs and novel, customized, disease-specific biological assays, either on our own or with strategic partners.
AV-101 for Neuropathic Pain, Epilepsy and Depression
With $8.8 million of grant funding awarded from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, (“NIH”)we have successfully completed Phase 1 development of AV-101. AV-101, also known as “L-4-chlorokynurenine” and “4-Cl-KYN”, we are also developing AV-101,is an orally available non-sedating, small molecule prodrug candidate aimed at the multi-billion dollar neurological disease and disorders market. AV-101 is currently in Phase I development in the U.S. for treatment ofmarket, including neuropathic pain, a serious and chronic condition causing pain after an injury or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. Neuropathic pain affects approximately 1.8 million people insystem, epilepsy, depression and Parkinson’s disease. Our AV-101 IND application, on file with the U.S. alone. To date, we have been awarded over $8.9 million of grant funding from the NIH for preclinical and Phase IFDA, covers clinical development for neuropathic pain.  However, we believe the Phase 1 AV-101 safety studies completed to date will support development of AV-101.

Our immediateAV-101 for multiple indications, including epilepsy, depression and Parkinson’s disease. We intend to seek potential opportunities for further clinical development and commercialization of AV-101 for neuropathic pain, epilepsy, depression and Parkinson’s disease, on our own or with strategic partners. In the event that we successfully complete one or more strategic partnering arrangements for AV-101, we plan is to utilizeuse the vast amount of information available in the public domain with respectnet proceeds from such an arrangement(s) to potentialexpand our stem cell technology-based drug rescue candidates.  We may also seek to acquire rights to drug rescue candidates that third-parties, including academic research institutions and biotechnology, medicinal chemistry and pharmaceutical companies have put on the shelf due to heart or liver toxicity.  In connection with our drug rescue programs, we will collaborate with contract medicinal chemistry and preclinical development service companies to generate a pipeline of proprietary small molecule drug rescue variants which may be as effective and commercially promising as the third-party’s original (toxic) drug candidate but without the toxicity that caused it to be put on the shelf.  We plan to have economic participation rights in each drug candidate that we generate in connection with our drug rescueregenerative medicine programs.

The Merger

VistaGen wasTherapeutics, Inc., a California corporation incorporated in California on May 26, 1998 (inception date).(VistaGen California), is our wholly-owned subsidiary. Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd. (“Excaliber”(Excaliber), a publicly-held company (formerly OTCBB: EXCA) was organized as aincorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada corporation on October 6, 2005. OnPursuant to a strategic merger transaction on May 11, 2011, Excaliber acquired all outstanding shares of VistaGen California in exchange for 6,836,452 shares of Excaliber’sour common stock (the “Merger”), and assumed VistaGen’sall of VistaGen California’s pre-Merger obligations to contingently issue common shares in accordance with stock option agreements, warrant agreements, and a convertible promissory note.  As part of the (the Merger Excaliber repurchased 5,064,207 shares of its common stock from two stockholders for a nominal amount, leaving 784,500 shares of Excaliber common stock outstanding at the date of the Merger.  The 6,836,452 shares issued to VistaGen stockholders in connection with the Merger represented approximately 90% of the outstanding shares of Excaliber’s common stock after the Merger.  As a result of the Merger, the business of VistaGen became the business of Excaliber.). Shortly after the Merger:

·  Each of the prior directors of VistaGen was appointed as a director of Excaliber;
·  The prior directors and officers of Excaliber resigned as officers and directors of Excaliber;
·  VistaGen’s prior officers were appointed as officers of like tenor of Excaliber;
·  Excaliber’s directors approved a two-for-one (2:1) forward stock split of Excaliber’s common stock;
·  
Excaliber’s directors approved an increase in the number of shares of common stock Excaliber was authorized to issue from 200 million to 400 million shares, (see Note 9, Capital Stock, Merger, Excaliber’s name was changed to “VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.” (a Nevada corporation).to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K);
·  Excaliber changed its name to “VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.”; and
·  Excaliber adopted VistaGen's fiscal year-end of March 31, with VistaGen as the accounting acquirer.
 
VistaGen California, as the accounting acquirer in the Merger, recorded the Merger as the issuance of common stock for the net monetary assets of Excaliber, accompanied by a recapitalization.  ThisThe accounting treatment for the transactionMerger was identical to that resulting from a reverse acquisition, except that we recorded no goodwill or other intangible assets were recorded.assets. A total of 1,569,000 shares of our common stock, representing the 784,500 shares held by stockholders of Excaliber immediately prior to the Merger and effected for thea post-Merger two-for-one forward(2:1) stock split, mentioned above, have been retroactively reflected as outstanding for the entire fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and for the period prior to the Merger in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 for purposes of determining basic and diluted loss per common shareall periods presented in the Consolidated Financial Statements of Operationsthe Company included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Additionally, the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets retroactively reflect the authorized capital stock and $0.001 par value of Excaliber’s common stock.
In October 2011, our stockholders amended our Articles of Incorporation to authorize us to issue up to 200 million shares of common stock and up to 10 million shares of preferred stock and to authorize our Board of Directors to prescribe the classes, series and the number of each class or series of preferred stock and the two-for one forwardvoting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of each class or series of preferred stock.  In December 2011, our Board of Directors authorized the creation of a series of up to 500,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 (Series A Preferred).  Pursuant to the Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement of October 11, 2012 (the October 2012 Agreement), as amended, between us and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC (Platinum), currently our largest institutional security holder, Platinum has the right and option to exchange the 500,000 shares of our Series A Preferred Stock that it holds for (i) 15,000,000 restricted shares of our common stock, split after the Merger.and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase 7,500,000 restricted shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share.

The financial statements included in this discussion and in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K  represent the activity of VistaGen (the California corporation) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and the pre-Merger portion of fiscal 2012from May 26, 1998, and the consolidated activity of VistaGen (the California corporation) and Excaliber (now VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation), from May 11, 2011 (the date of the Merger) through March 31, 2012.. The activitiesConsolidated Financial Statements also include the accounts of VistaGen California’s two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Artemis Neuroscience, Inc., a Maryland corporation (Artemis), and resultsVistaStem Canada, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of operations of Excaliber were not material in the pre-Merger periods presented.

Primary Merger-Related Transactions

Immediately preceding and concurrent with the Merger:

·  
VistaGen sold 2,216,106 Units, consisting of one share of VistaGen's common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase one-fourth (1/4) of one share of VistaGen common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share, at a price of $1.75 per Unit in a private placement for aggregate gross offering proceeds of $3,878,197, including $2,369,194 in cash (“2011 Private Placement”Ontario, Canada (VistaStem Canada).  See Note 9, Capital Stock, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, for a further description;
·  
Holders of certain promissory notes issued by VistaGen from 2006 through 2010 converted their notes totaling $6,174,793, including principal and accrued but unpaid interest, into 3,528,290 Units at $1.75 per Unit.  These Units were the same Units issued in connection with the 2011 Private Placement.  See Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K; and   
·  
All holders of VistaGen's then-outstanding preferred stock converted all 2,884,655 of their shares of VistaGen preferred stock into 2,884,655 shares of VistaGen common stock at a price of $1.75 per share.  See Note 9, Capital Stock, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Financial Operations Overview

Net Loss

We are in the development stage and, since inception, have devoted substantially all of our time and efforts to stem cellhPSC research and stem-cell based bioassay system development, small molecule drug development, creating, protecting and patenting intellectual property, recruiting personnel and raising working capital.  As of March 31, 2012,2014, we had an accumulated deficit of $54.8$70.6 million. Our net loss for the years ended March 31, 20122014 and 20112013 was $12.2$3.0 million and $9.5$12.9 million, respectively. We expect these conditions to continue for the foreseeable future as we expand our drug rescue activities and the capabilities of our Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™ platform.
 
Summary of Fiscal Year 2014
During fiscal 2014, our scientific personnel have continued to expand the drug rescue capabilities of CardioSafe 3D and further develop LiverSafe 3D. Our internal scientific operations were curtailed somewhat during our second fiscal quarter as we decommissioned our former lab space in preparation for the move to expanded lab and office facilities at the end of July 2013, and completed the corresponding relocation, recalibration and recertification of our laboratories and equipment following the move. Limited cash resources following the move, resulting in part from the failure to close the financing described below, continued to restrict certain scientific activities and collaborations for the remainder of the fiscal year. Nevertheless, we have continued to advance the capabilities of our heart and liver cells and pursue our internal evaluation of prospective drug rescue candidates. We successfully completed Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101 during our fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 and directed effort during the first quarter of fiscal 2014 to finalizing AV-101 Phase 1b clinical study reports, as required under the terms of our NIH grant awards and to facilitate further collaborative development of AV-101.

Throughout fiscal 2014, our executive management has been significantly focused on providing sufficient operating capital to advance our research and development objectives while meeting our continuing operational needs. To that end, in April 2013, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (as amended, Securities Purchase Agreement) with Autilion AG, a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland (Autilion), under which Autilion is contractually obligated to purchase an aggregate of 72.0 million restricted shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $0.50 per share for aggregate cash proceeds to us of $36.0 million (the Autilion Financing).  To date, Autilion has completed only a nominal closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement.  Therefore, Autilion is in default under the Securities Purchase Agreement and we can give no assurance that Autilion will complete a material closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement. 
To meet our working capital needs as a result of Autilion's default under the Securities Purchase Agreement, during June and July 2013, we offered certain warrant holders the opportunity to exercise outstanding warrants having an exercise price of $1.50 per share to purchase shares of our restricted common stock at a reduced exercise price of $0.50 per share. Participating warrant holders exercised modified warrants to purchase an aggregate of 528,370 restricted shares of our common stock and we received cash proceeds of $264,200.  In addition, certain long-term warrant holders exercised modified warrants to purchase 16,646 restricted shares of our common stock in lieu of payment by us in satisfaction of amounts due for professional services in the aggregate amount of $8,300. Additionally, in July 2013, we issued to Platinum a senior secured convertible note in the face amount of $250,000 (the July 2013 Note) and a five-year warrant to purchase 250,000 restricted shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share. Between August 2013 and March 14, 2014, we entered into securities purchase agreements with certain accredited investors pursuant to which we sold units of our securities (Units) consisting, in aggregate, of: (i) 10% convertible notes maturing on July 30, 2014 in the aggregate face amount of $1,007,500; (ii) an aggregate of 2,015,000 restricted shares of our common stock; and (iii) warrants exercisable through July 30, 2016 to purchase an aggregate of 2,015,000 restricted shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share.  We received cash proceeds of $1,007,500 from the sale of the Units, including $50,000 in lieu of repayment of previous advances made to us by one of our executive officers.
Between late-March 2014 and the date of this report, we have entered into subscription agreements with accredited investors, including Platinum, which has purchased $750,000 of such securities through June 19, 2014,  pursuant to which we sold Units of our securities consisting, in aggregate, of: (i) 10% convertible notes maturing on March 31, 2015 in the aggregate face amount of $1,515,000; (ii) an aggregate of 1,515,000 restricted shares of our common stock; and (iii) warrants exercisable through December 31, 2016 to purchase an aggregate of 1,515,000 restricted shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share.
Given our working capital constraints during fiscal 2014, we attempted to minimize cash commitments and expenditures for external research and development and general and administrative services to the greatest extent possible, particularly during the later portion of the fiscal year.  The following table summarizes the results of our operations for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 20112013 (amounts in $000):
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Revenues:      
 Grant revenue $-  $200 
Operating expenses:        
 Research and development  2,481   3,431 
 General and administrative  2,548   3,562 
  Total operating expenses  5,029   6,993 
Loss from operations  (5,029)  (6,793)
Other expenses, net:        
 Interest expense, net  (1,503)  (921)
 Change in warrant liabilities  3,567   (1,636)
 Loss on early extinguishment of debt  -   (3,568)
 Other income  -   35 
Loss before income taxes  (2,965)  (12,883)
Income taxes  (3)  (4)
Net loss $(2,968) $(12,887)
  Deemed dividend on Series A Preferred Stock  -   (10,193)
Net loss attributable to common stockholders $(2,968) $(23,080)

Revenue

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
Revenues:      
 Grant revenue $1,342  $2,071 
  Total revenues  1,342   2,071 
Operating expenses:        
 Research and development  5,389   3,678 
 General and administrative  4,997   4,958 
  Total operating expenses  10,386   8,636 
Loss from operations  (9,044)  (6,565)
Other expenses, net:        
 Interest expense, net  (1,893)  (3,119)
 Change in put and note extension option and warrant liabilities  (78)  204 
 Loss on early extinguishment of debt  (1,193)  - 
         
Loss before income taxes  (12,208)  (9,480)
Income taxes  (2)  (2)
Net loss $(12,210) $(9,482)
We have successfully completed our Phase I development of AV-101, our pro-drug candidate for the treatment of neuropathic pain and, potentially, depression and other neurological conditions. Our NIH grant related to AV-101 expired in its normal course on June 30, 2012.  We had drawn the maximum amount available under the grant prior to its expiration.  Revenue associated with our earlier subcontract research arrangement terminated in May 2012.  We had no other grant or contract revenue sources during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

Research and Development Expense
 
Revenue

Our primary sourcesResearch and development expense represented approximately 49% of revenueour operating expenses for each of the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011 were government grant awards from the NIH to pursue2013. Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development expense consists of both internal and external expenses incurred in sponsored stem cell research and drug development activities, costs associated with the development of AV-101 and from California Institutecosts related to the licensing, application and prosecution of Regenerative Medicine (“CIRM”)our intellectual property.  These expenses primarily consist of the following:
·
salaries, benefits, including stock-based compensation costs, travel and related expense for personnel associated with research and development activities;
·
fees to contract research organizations and other professional service providers for services related to the conduct and analysis of clinical trials and other development activities;
·
fees to third parties for access to licensed technology and costs associated with securing and maintaining patents related to our internally generated inventions:
·
laboratory supplies and materials;
·
leasing and depreciation of laboratory equipment; and
·
allocated costs of facilities and infrastructure.
General and Administrative Expense
General and administrative expense consists primarily of salaries and related expense, including stock-based compensation expense, for personnel in executive, finance and accounting, and other support functions. Other costs include professional fees for legal, investor relations and accounting services and other strategic consulting and public company expenses as well as facility costs not otherwise included in research and development expense.
Other Expenses, Net

In both fiscal 2014 and 2013, we incurred interest expense, including discount amortization with respect to developcertain notes, on the outstanding balances of our bioassay system for predictive liver toxicologySenior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum during fiscal 2013 and drug metabolism drug screening,in July 2013, on the new and from a strategic research contract with third parties.  The AV-101 grant from NIH accounted for 87%modified notes issued to Morrison &Foerster, Cato Research Ltd. and 69% of total revenue for fiscal yearUniversity Health Network during August and September 2012, and on various notes issued to certain service providers during fiscal years 2011 respectively.  The CIRM grant accounted for 6% and 26% of total revenue2012. Additionally, in fiscal year2014, we incurred interest expense and related discount amortization attributable to the convertible notes issued in connection with the sale of Units between August 2013 and March 2014.  In fiscal 2013, we incurred  non-cash losses on extinguishment of debt resulting from the modification of indebtedness to Platinum, Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd., and University Health Network, as well as the conversion by the holders of our 12% Convertible Promissory Notes issued in February 2012 into restricted shares of our common stock and 2011, respectively.warrants in November 2012.  In fiscal 2014 and 2013, we recorded income and expense, respectively, related to the changes in the fair values of the warrants issued or issuable in connection with the various Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum during fiscal 2013 and 2014.
In fiscal 2013, we also recorded a non-cash deemed dividend related to the modification of the exchange rights of our Series A Preferred Stock held by Platinum and the impact of the prospective issuance of a five-year warrant to purchase restricted shares of our common stock upon Platinum’s exercise of its Series A Preferred Stock exchange rights.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

We consider certain accounting policies related to revenue recognition, impairment of long-lived assets, research and development, stock-based compensation, and income taxes to be critical accounting policies that require the use of significant judgments and estimates relating to matters that are inherently uncertain and may result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. The currentpreparation of financial statements in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements. These estimates include useful lives for property and equipment and related depreciation calculations, and assumptions for valuing options, warrants and other stock-based compensation. Our actual results could differ from these estimates.

Revenue Recognition
Although we do not currently have any such arrangements, we have historically generated revenue principally from collaborative research and development arrangements, technology access fees and government grants.  We recognize revenue under the provisions of the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 104, Topic 13, Revenue Recognition Revised and Updated (SAB 104) and Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605-25, Revenue Arrangements-Multiple Element Arrangements (ASC 605-25). Revenue for arrangements not having multiple deliverables, as outlined in ASC 605-25, is recognized once costs are incurred and collectability is reasonably assured.

Revenue arrangements with multiple components are divided into separate units of accounting if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered component has stand-alone value to the customer. Consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting based on their respective selling prices.  The selling price for each unit is based on vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, if available, third party evidence if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor third party evidence is available.  The applicable revenue recognition criteria are then applied to each of the units.

We recognize revenue when the four basic criteria of revenue recognition are met: (i) a contractual agreement exists; (ii) the transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (iii) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (iv) collectability is reasonably assured. For each source of revenue, we comply with the above revenue recognition criteria in the following manner:
·Collaborative arrangements typically consist of non-refundable and/or exclusive technology access fees, cost reimbursements for specific research and development spending, and various milestone and future product royalty payments.  If the delivered technology does not have stand-alone value, the amount of revenue allocable to the delivered technology is deferred.  Non-refundable upfront fees with stand-alone value that are not dependent on future performance under these agreements are recognized as revenue when received, and are deferred if we have continuing performance obligations and have no objective and reliable evidence of the fair value of those obligations.  We recognize non-refundable upfront technology access fees under agreements in which we have a continuing performance obligation ratably, on a straight-line basis, over the period in which we are obligated to provide services.  Cost reimbursements for research and development spending are recognized when the related costs are incurred and when collectability is reasonably assured.  Payments received related to substantive, performance-based “at-risk” milestones are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone event specified in the underlying contracts, which represent the culmination of the earnings process.  Amounts received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue until the technology is transferred, costs are incurred, or a milestone is reached.

·Technology license agreements typically consist of non-refundable upfront license fees, annual minimum access fees and/or royalty payments. Non-refundable upfront license fees and annual minimum payments received with separable stand-alone values are recognized when the technology is transferred or accessed, provided that the technology transferred or accessed is not dependent on the outcome of the continuing research and development efforts. Otherwise, revenue is recognized over the period of our continuing involvement.

·Government grant awards, which support our research efforts on specific projects, generally provide for reimbursement of approved costs as defined in the terms of grant awards. We recognize grant revenue when associated project costs are incurred.


Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
In accordance with ASC 360-10, Property, Plant & Equipment—Overall, we review for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of property and equipment may not be recoverable. Determination of recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. In the event that such cash flows are not expected to be sufficient to recover the carrying amount of the assets, we write down the assets to their estimated fair values and recognize the loss in the statements of operations.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses include internal and external costs. Internal costs include salaries and employment related expenses of scientific personnel and direct project costs. External research and development expenses consist of sponsored stem cell research and development costs, costs associated with clinical and non-clinical development of AV-101, our lead drug candidate, and costs related to application and prosecution of patents related to our stem cell technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™, and AV-101. All such costs are charged to expense as incurred.

Stock-Based Compensation

We account for stock-based payment arrangements in accordance with ASC 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation and ASC 505-50, Equity-Equity Based Payments to Non-Employees which requires the recognition of compensation expense, using a fair-value based method, for all costs related to stock-based payments including stock options and restricted stock awards.  We recognize compensation cost for all share-based awards to employees based on their grant date fair value. Share-based compensation expense is recognized over the period during which the employee is required to perform service in exchange for the award, which generally represents the scheduled vesting period. We have no awards with market or performance conditions. For equity awards to non-employees, we re-measure the fair value of the awards as they vest and the resulting value is recognized as an expense during the period over which the services are performed.

We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock-based awards as of the grant date. The Black-Scholes model is complex and dependent upon key data input estimates. The primary data inputs with the greatest degree of judgment are the expected terms of the stock options and the estimated volatility of our stock price. The Black-Scholes model is highly sensitive to changes in these two inputs. The expected term of the options represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. We use the simplified method to estimate the expected term as an input into the Black-Scholes option pricing model. We determine expected volatility using the historical method, which, because of the limited period during which our stock has been publicly traded, is based on the historical daily trading data of the common stock of a peer group of public companies over the expected term of the option.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes using the asset and liability approach for financial reporting purposes. We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. Valuation allowances are established, when necessary, to reduce the deferred tax assets to an amount expected to be realized.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information on recent accounting pronouncements.
Results of Operations
Comparison of Years Ended March 31, 2014 and 2013

Revenue   

The following table compares our primary revenue sources between the periods (in $000):

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
NIH - AV-101 grant $-  $187 
Subcontract revenue  -   13 
         
Total Revenue $-  $200 

We have successfully completed our Phase I development of AV-101, our prodrug candidate for the treatment of neuropathic pain and, potentially, depression and other neurological conditions. Our NIH grant terminatesrelated to AV-101 expired in its normal course on June 30, 2012 and2012.  We had drawn the maximum amount available under the grant prior to its expiration.  Revenue associated with our CIRM grantearlier subcontract research arrangement terminated in September 2011.  Government grant revenue typically reimburses us for expenses incurred in the subject research area plus a nominal allocation or fee to cover our related administrative and infrastructure costs.May 2012.

Research and Development ExpenseExpenses

Research and development expense represented approximately 52% and 43% of total operating expenses for the years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development expense consists of bothinclude internal and external costs. Internal costs include salaries and employment related expenses incurred inof scientific personnel and direct project costs. External research and development expenses consist of sponsored stem cell research and development activities,costs, costs associated with the clinical and non-clinical development of AV-101, our lead drug candidate, and costs related to the licensing, application and prosecution of our intellectual property.  These expenses primarily consist of the following:
salaries, benefits, including stock-based compensation costs, travel and related expense for personnel associated with research and development activities;
fees paid to contract research organizations and other professional service providers for services related to the conduct and analysis of clinical trials and other development activities;
fees paid to third parties for access to licensed technology and costs associated with securing and maintaining patents related to our internally generated inventions:
laboratory suppliesstem cell technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™, and materials;
leasing and depreciation of laboratory equipment; and
allocatedAV-101. All such costs of facilities and infrastructure.
are charged to expense as incurred.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expense consists primarily of salaries and related expense, including stock-based compensation expense, for personnel in executive, finance and accounting, and other support functions. Other costs include professional fees for legal, investor relations and accounting services and other strategic consulting and public company expenses as well as facility costs not otherwise included in research and development expense.

During the second half of our fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, we expensed significant legal, accounting and other fees that we had incurred in anticipation of a potential listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange when, for strategic purposes, we refrained from pursuing a listing on that securities exchange due to market conditions..  Following the Merger in May 2011, we increased our administrative headcount and engaged certain consulting services to meet our obligations as a public reporting company.

Other Expenses, Net

We incurred interest expense on the outstanding balance of our convertible promissory notes issued beginning in 2006, substantially all of which were converted into Units in May 2011 at a price of $1.75 per Unit in connection with the Merger.  We also incurred interest expense on the Platinum Note prior to its exchange into our Series A Preferred Stock in December 2011, and on various notes issued to certain service providers during the years ended March 31, 2011 and 2012.
We recorded non-cash income in fiscal 2011 and non-cash expense in fiscal 2012 related to the change in the fair values of the derivatives associated with the Platinum Notes.  In fiscal 2012, we recorded a non-cash loss on early extinguishment of debt related to the exchange of the Platinum Note into shares of our Series A Preferred Stock under the terms of a note and warrant exchange agreement.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

We consider certain accounting policies related to revenue recognition, impairment of long-lived assets, research and development, stock-based compensation, and income taxes to be critical accounting policies that require the use of significant judgments and estimates relating to matters that are inherently uncertain and may result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements. These estimates include useful lives for property and equipment and related depreciation calculations, and assumptions for valuing options, warrants and other stock-based compensation. Our actual results could differ from these estimates.

Revenue RecognitionStock-Based Compensation

Our revenues consist primarilyWe account for stock-based payment arrangements in accordance with ASC 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation and ASC 505-50, Equity-Equity Based Payments to Non-Employees which requires the recognition of revenues from government grant awardscompensation expense, using a fair-value based method, for all costs related to stock-based payments including stock options and strategic collaborations.restricted stock awards.  We recognize revenue under the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 104, Topic 13, Revenue Recognition Revised and Updated (“SAB 104”) and Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 605-25, Revenue Arrangements-Multiple Element Arrangements (“ASC 605-25”). Revenuecompensation cost for arrangements not having multiple deliverables, as outlined in ASC 605-25, is recognized once costs are incurred and collectability is reasonably assured.

Revenue arrangements with multiple components are divided into separate units of accounting if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered component has stand-alone valueall share-based awards to the customer. Consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accountingemployees based on their respective selling prices.  The selling price for each unit is based on vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, if available, third party evidence if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor third party evidence is available.  The applicable revenue recognition criteria are then applied to each of the units.

We recognize revenue when the four basic criteria of revenue recognition are met: (1) a contractual agreement exists; (2) the transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. For each source of revenue, we comply with the above revenue recognition criteria in the following manner:

Collaborative arrangements typically consist of non-refundable and/or exclusive technology access fees, cost reimbursements for specific research and development spending, and various milestone and future product royalty payments.  If the delivered technology does not have stand-alone value, the amount of revenue allocable to the delivered technology is deferred.  Non-refundable upfront fees with stand-alone value that are not dependent on future performance under these agreements are recognized as revenue when received, and are deferred if we have continuing performance obligations and have no objective and reliable evidence of thegrant date fair value of those obligations.  We recognize non-refundable upfront technology access fees under agreements in which we have a continuing performance obligation ratably, on a straight-line basis, over the period in which we are obligated to provide services.  Cost reimbursements for research and development spending are recognized when the related costs are incurred and when collectability is reasonably assured.  Payments received related to substantive, performance-based “at-risk” milestones are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone event specified in the underlying contracts, which represent the culmination of the earnings process.  Amounts received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue until the technology is transferred, costs are incurred, or a milestone is reached.

Technology license agreements typically consist of non-refundable upfront license fees, annual minimum access fees and/or royalty payments. Non-refundable upfront license fees and annual minimum payments received with separable stand-alone values are recognized when the technology is transferred or accessed, provided that the technology transferred or accessed is not dependent on the outcome of the continuing research and development efforts. Otherwise, revenuevalue. Share-based compensation expense is recognized over the period during which the employee is required to perform service in exchange for the award, which generally represents the scheduled vesting period. We have no awards with market or performance conditions. For equity awards to non-employees, we re-measure the fair value of our continuing involvement.
the awards as they vest and the resulting value is recognized as an expense during the period over which the services are performed.

GovernmentWe use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock-based awards as of the grant awards, which support our research efforts on specific projects, generally provide for reimbursementdate. The Black-Scholes model is complex and dependent upon key data input estimates. The primary data inputs with the greatest degree of approved costs as defined injudgment are the expected terms of grant awards. We recognize grant revenue when associated project costs are incurred.

Impairmentthe stock options and the estimated volatility of Long-Lived Assets

In accordance with ASC 360-10, Property, Plant & Equipment—Overall, we review for impairment whenever events orour stock price. The Black-Scholes model is highly sensitive to changes in circumstances indicatethese two inputs. The expected term of the options represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. We use the carrying amountsimplified method to estimate the expected term as an input into the Black-Scholes option pricing model. We determine expected volatility using the historical method, which, because of property and equipment may not be recoverable. Determination of recoverabilitythe limited period during which our stock has been publicly traded, is based on an estimatethe historical daily trading data of undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the usecommon stock of a peer group of public companies over the expected term of the option.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes using the asset and its eventual disposition. Inliability approach for financial reporting purposes. We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities for the event that such cash flowsfuture tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are notmeasured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be sufficientrecovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. Valuation allowances are established, when necessary, to recoverreduce the carrying amount of the assets, we write down thedeferred tax assets to their estimated fair values and recognizean amount expected to be realized.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 3 to the lossconsolidated financial statements included in the statements of operations.
Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information on recent accounting pronouncements.

 
Results of Operations
Comparison of Years Ended March 31, 2014 and 2013

Revenue   

The following table compares our primary revenue sources between the periods (in $000):

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
NIH - AV-101 grant $-  $187 
Subcontract revenue  -   13 
         
Total Revenue $-  $200 

We have successfully completed our Phase I development of AV-101, our prodrug candidate for the treatment of neuropathic pain and, potentially, depression and other neurological conditions. Our NIH grant related to AV-101 expired in its normal course on June 30, 2012.  We had drawn the maximum amount available under the grant prior to its expiration.  Revenue associated with our earlier subcontract research arrangement terminated in May 2012.

ResearchGeneral and Development ExpensesAdministrative Expense

ResearchGeneral and development expenses include internaladministrative expense consists primarily of salaries and external costs. Internalrelated expense, including stock-based compensation expense, for personnel in executive, finance and accounting, and other support functions. Other costs include salariesprofessional fees for legal, investor relations and employment relatedaccounting services and other strategic consulting and public company expenses of scientific personnel and direct project costs. Externalas well as facility costs not otherwise included in research and development expenses consist of sponsored stem cell research and development costs, costs associated with clinical and non-clinical development of AV-101, our lead drug candidate, and costs related to application and prosecution of patents related to our stem cell technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™, and AV-101. All such costs are charged to expense as incurred.expense.
Other Expenses, Net

Stock-Based Compensation

We account for stock-based payment arrangementsIn both fiscal 2014 and 2013, we incurred interest expense, including discount amortization with respect to certain notes, on the outstanding balances of our Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum during fiscal 2013 and in accordance with ASC 718, Compensation-Stock CompensationJuly 2013, on the new and ASC 505-50, Equity-Equity Based Paymentsmodified notes issued to Non-Employees which requiresMorrison &Foerster, Cato Research Ltd. and University Health Network during August and September 2012, and on various notes issued to certain service providers during fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Additionally, in fiscal 2014, we incurred interest expense and related discount amortization attributable to the recognition of compensation expense, using a fair-value based method, for all costs related to stock-based payments including stock options and restricted stock awards.  We recognize compensation cost for all share-based awards to employees based on their grant date fair value. Share-based compensation expense is recognized over the period during which the employee is required to perform serviceconvertible notes issued in exchange for the award, which generally represents the scheduled vesting period. We have no awards with market or performance conditions. For equity awards to non-employees, we re-measure the fair value of the awards as they vest and the resulting value is recognized as an expense during the period over which the services are performed.

We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock-based awards as of the grant date. The Black-Scholes model is complex and dependent upon key data input estimates. The primary data inputsconnection with the greatest degreesale of judgment areUnits between August 2013 and March 2014.  In fiscal 2013, we incurred  non-cash losses on extinguishment of debt resulting from the expected termsmodification of indebtedness to Platinum, Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd., and University Health Network, as well as the stock options andconversion by the estimated volatilityholders of our stock price. The Black-Scholes model is highly sensitive to changes12% Convertible Promissory Notes issued in these two inputs. The expected term of the options represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. We use the simplified method to estimate the expected term as an inputFebruary 2012 into the Black-Scholes option pricing model. We determine expected volatility using the historical method, which is based on the historical daily trading datarestricted shares of our common stock overand warrants in November 2012.  In fiscal 2014 and 2013, we recorded income and expense, respectively, related to the expected termchanges in the fair values of the option.warrants issued or issuable in connection with the various Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum during fiscal 2013 and 2014.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes usingIn fiscal 2013, we also recorded a non-cash deemed dividend related to the assetmodification of the exchange rights of our Series A Preferred Stock held by Platinum and liability approach for financial reporting purposes. We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities for the future tax consequences attributable to differences betweenimpact of the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilitiesprospective issuance of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. Valuation allowances are established, when necessary,five-year warrant to reduce the deferred tax assets to an amount expected to be realized.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information on recent accounting pronouncements.

Resultspurchase restricted shares of Operationsour common stock upon Platinum’s exercise of its Series A Preferred Stock exchange rights.
 
Comparison of Years Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011

Revenue   

The following table compares the primary revenue sources between the periods (in $000):
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
NIH - AV-101 grant $1,163  $1,432 
CIRM grant  79   546 
Subcontract revenue  100   93 
         
Total Revenue $1,342  $2,071 

NIH grant revenue decreased as a result of decreases in our direct labor and third party billable expense reimbursements related to AV-101 grant-funded work as the grant award neared completion in June 2012.  Grant revenue from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine ("CIRM") project decreased as the grant reached completion in September 2011.
Research and Development Expense

Research and development expense increased by 46% to $5.4 million in fiscal 2012 compared to $3.7 million in fiscal 2011.  The following table compares the primary components of research and development expense between the periods (in $000):
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
Salaries and benefits $862  $576 
Stock-based compensation  477   475 
Consulting  179   - 
UHN research under SRCA  830   1,275 
Technology licenses and royalties  340   282 
Project-related third-party research and supplies:        
AV-101  2,191   819 
CIRM  37   87 
All other including CardioSafe and LiverSafe  231   30 
   2,459   936 
Rent  104   99 
Depreciation  37   37 
Warrant modification expense  101   - 
All other  -   (2)
         
Total Research and Development Expense $5,389  $3,678 
Salary and benefits expense increased due to the impact of new research stem cell research and development personnel added since December 2010 and a bonus granted in December 2011.  Consulting expense reflects the expense related to the grant of warrants to members of our Scientific Advisory Board, including our advisors who are former medicinal chemistry, drug safety and drug development experts from large pharmaceutical companies, as well as to other strategic consultants during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012.  Sponsored stem cell research and development expense associated with the laboratories of Dr. Gordon Keller at UHN reflect our strategic issuance in fiscal 2012 of $330,000 in (non-cash) stock-based compensation to UHN and $500,000 in research consulting expense to UHN to expand the scope and duration of our intellectual property rights under our long term stem cell research collaboration with Dr. Keller and UHN, as well as the execution of exclusive License Agreements for novel stem cell technology discovered and developed by Dr. Keller and his research team at UHN.  Fiscal 2011 UHN sponsored research expense associated with Dr. Keller’s laboratories includes a non-cash stock-based compensation charge of $1,050,000 plus payments for sponsored stem cell technology research services.  Technology licenses and royalty expense for fiscal 2011 reflected a decrease resulting from an adjustment of royalty expense to reflect a provision in one of our arrangements that permits an offset for patent prosecution costs we incur.  The increase in AV-101-related project expense reflects increased third-party costs of $1,372,000, including approximately $170,000 in grant–reimbursable costs related to the now-completed Phase 1a clinical study of AV-101 and approximately $300,000 for grant-reimbursable costs of the AV-101 Phase 1b clinical trials that were still in progress at March 31, 2012.  An additional component of the AV-101 project increase includes on-going non-grant-reimbursable efforts conducted by third-party collaborators, including Cato Research Ltd., whose efforts included costs of $539,000 for developing new NIH grant applications for subsequent phases of the project as well as for general project management.  The CIRM grant expired at the end of September 2011.  Other non-grant project expense includes $54,000 attributable to a new stem cell research collaboration in 2011.  Warrant modification expense is attributable to the Agreement Regarding Payment of Invoices and Warrant Exercises with Cato Holding Company described in Note 9, Capital Stock, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.  We do not track internal research and development expenses, including compensation costs, by project as we do not currently believe that such project accounting is feasible nor required given the overlap of project resources, including staffing, that are dedicated to our research and development projects.

 
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

We consider certain accounting policies related to revenue recognition, impairment of long-lived assets, research and development, stock-based compensation, and income taxes to be critical accounting policies that require the use of significant judgments and estimates relating to matters that are inherently uncertain and may result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements. These estimates include useful lives for property and equipment and related depreciation calculations, and assumptions for valuing options, warrants and other stock-based compensation. Our actual results could differ from these estimates.

Revenue Recognition
Although we do not currently have any such arrangements, we have historically generated revenue principally from collaborative research and development arrangements, technology access fees and government grants.  We recognize revenue under the provisions of the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 104, Topic 13, Revenue Recognition Revised and Updated (SAB 104) and Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605-25, Revenue Arrangements-Multiple Element Arrangements (ASC 605-25). Revenue for arrangements not having multiple deliverables, as outlined in ASC 605-25, is recognized once costs are incurred and collectability is reasonably assured.

Revenue arrangements with multiple components are divided into separate units of accounting if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered component has stand-alone value to the customer. Consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting based on their respective selling prices.  The selling price for each unit is based on vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, if available, third party evidence if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor third party evidence is available.  The applicable revenue recognition criteria are then applied to each of the units.

We recognize revenue when the four basic criteria of revenue recognition are met: (i) a contractual agreement exists; (ii) the transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (iii) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (iv) collectability is reasonably assured. For each source of revenue, we comply with the above revenue recognition criteria in the following manner:
·Collaborative arrangements typically consist of non-refundable and/or exclusive technology access fees, cost reimbursements for specific research and development spending, and various milestone and future product royalty payments.  If the delivered technology does not have stand-alone value, the amount of revenue allocable to the delivered technology is deferred.  Non-refundable upfront fees with stand-alone value that are not dependent on future performance under these agreements are recognized as revenue when received, and are deferred if we have continuing performance obligations and have no objective and reliable evidence of the fair value of those obligations.  We recognize non-refundable upfront technology access fees under agreements in which we have a continuing performance obligation ratably, on a straight-line basis, over the period in which we are obligated to provide services.  Cost reimbursements for research and development spending are recognized when the related costs are incurred and when collectability is reasonably assured.  Payments received related to substantive, performance-based “at-risk” milestones are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone event specified in the underlying contracts, which represent the culmination of the earnings process.  Amounts received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue until the technology is transferred, costs are incurred, or a milestone is reached.

·Technology license agreements typically consist of non-refundable upfront license fees, annual minimum access fees and/or royalty payments. Non-refundable upfront license fees and annual minimum payments received with separable stand-alone values are recognized when the technology is transferred or accessed, provided that the technology transferred or accessed is not dependent on the outcome of the continuing research and development efforts. Otherwise, revenue is recognized over the period of our continuing involvement.

·Government grant awards, which support our research efforts on specific projects, generally provide for reimbursement of approved costs as defined in the terms of grant awards. We recognize grant revenue when associated project costs are incurred.


Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
In accordance with ASC 360-10, Property, Plant & Equipment—Overall, we review for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of property and equipment may not be recoverable. Determination of recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. In the event that such cash flows are not expected to be sufficient to recover the carrying amount of the assets, we write down the assets to their estimated fair values and recognize the loss in the statements of operations.

General and Administrative Expense
General and administrative expense consists primarily of salaries and related expense, including stock-based compensation expense, for personnel in executive, finance and accounting, and other support functions. Other costs include professional fees for legal, investor relations and accounting services and other strategic consulting and public company expenses as well as facility costs not otherwise included in research and development expense.
Other Expenses, Net

In both fiscal 2014 and 2013, we incurred interest expense, including discount amortization with respect to certain notes, on the outstanding balances of our Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum during fiscal 2013 and in July 2013, on the new and modified notes issued to Morrison &Foerster, Cato Research Ltd. and University Health Network during August and September 2012, and on various notes issued to certain service providers during fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Additionally, in fiscal 2014, we incurred interest expense and related discount amortization attributable to the convertible notes issued in connection with the sale of Units between August 2013 and March 2014.  In fiscal 2013, we incurred  non-cash losses on extinguishment of debt resulting from the modification of indebtedness to Platinum, Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd., and University Health Network, as well as the conversion by the holders of our 12% Convertible Promissory Notes issued in February 2012 into restricted shares of our common stock and warrants in November 2012.  In fiscal 2014 and 2013, we recorded income and expense, respectively, related to the changes in the fair values of the warrants issued or issuable in connection with the various Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum during fiscal 2013 and 2014.
In fiscal 2013, we also recorded a non-cash deemed dividend related to the modification of the exchange rights of our Series A Preferred Stock held by Platinum and the impact of the prospective issuance of a five-year warrant to purchase restricted shares of our common stock upon Platinum’s exercise of its Series A Preferred Stock exchange rights.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

We consider certain accounting policies related to revenue recognition, impairment of long-lived assets, research and development, stock-based compensation, and income taxes to be critical accounting policies that require the use of significant judgments and estimates relating to matters that are inherently uncertain and may result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements. These estimates include useful lives for property and equipment and related depreciation calculations, and assumptions for valuing options, warrants and other stock-based compensation. Our actual results could differ from these estimates.

Revenue Recognition
Although we do not currently have any such arrangements, we have historically generated revenue principally from collaborative research and development arrangements, technology access fees and government grants.  We recognize revenue under the provisions of the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 104, Topic 13, Revenue Recognition Revised and Updated (SAB 104) and Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 605-25, Revenue Arrangements-Multiple Element Arrangements (ASC 605-25). Revenue for arrangements not having multiple deliverables, as outlined in ASC 605-25, is recognized once costs are incurred and collectability is reasonably assured.

Revenue arrangements with multiple components are divided into separate units of accounting if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered component has stand-alone value to the customer. Consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting based on their respective selling prices.  The selling price for each unit is based on vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, if available, third party evidence if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor third party evidence is available.  The applicable revenue recognition criteria are then applied to each of the units.

We recognize revenue when the four basic criteria of revenue recognition are met: (i) a contractual agreement exists; (ii) the transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (iii) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (iv) collectability is reasonably assured. For each source of revenue, we comply with the above revenue recognition criteria in the following manner:
·Collaborative arrangements typically consist of non-refundable and/or exclusive technology access fees, cost reimbursements for specific research and development spending, and various milestone and future product royalty payments.  If the delivered technology does not have stand-alone value, the amount of revenue allocable to the delivered technology is deferred.  Non-refundable upfront fees with stand-alone value that are not dependent on future performance under these agreements are recognized as revenue when received, and are deferred if we have continuing performance obligations and have no objective and reliable evidence of the fair value of those obligations.  We recognize non-refundable upfront technology access fees under agreements in which we have a continuing performance obligation ratably, on a straight-line basis, over the period in which we are obligated to provide services.  Cost reimbursements for research and development spending are recognized when the related costs are incurred and when collectability is reasonably assured.  Payments received related to substantive, performance-based “at-risk” milestones are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone event specified in the underlying contracts, which represent the culmination of the earnings process.  Amounts received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue until the technology is transferred, costs are incurred, or a milestone is reached.

·Technology license agreements typically consist of non-refundable upfront license fees, annual minimum access fees and/or royalty payments. Non-refundable upfront license fees and annual minimum payments received with separable stand-alone values are recognized when the technology is transferred or accessed, provided that the technology transferred or accessed is not dependent on the outcome of the continuing research and development efforts. Otherwise, revenue is recognized over the period of our continuing involvement.

·Government grant awards, which support our research efforts on specific projects, generally provide for reimbursement of approved costs as defined in the terms of grant awards. We recognize grant revenue when associated project costs are incurred.


Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
In accordance with ASC 360-10, Property, Plant & Equipment—Overall, we review for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of property and equipment may not be recoverable. Determination of recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. In the event that such cash flows are not expected to be sufficient to recover the carrying amount of the assets, we write down the assets to their estimated fair values and recognize the loss in the statements of operations.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses include internal and external costs. Internal costs include salaries and employment related expenses of scientific personnel and direct project costs. External research and development expenses consist of sponsored stem cell research and development costs, costs associated with clinical and non-clinical development of AV-101, our lead drug candidate, and costs related to application and prosecution of patents related to our stem cell technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™, and AV-101. All such costs are charged to expense as incurred.

Stock-Based Compensation

We account for stock-based payment arrangements in accordance with ASC 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation and ASC 505-50, Equity-Equity Based Payments to Non-Employees which requires the recognition of compensation expense, using a fair-value based method, for all costs related to stock-based payments including stock options and restricted stock awards.  We recognize compensation cost for all share-based awards to employees based on their grant date fair value. Share-based compensation expense is recognized over the period during which the employee is required to perform service in exchange for the award, which generally represents the scheduled vesting period. We have no awards with market or performance conditions. For equity awards to non-employees, we re-measure the fair value of the awards as they vest and the resulting value is recognized as an expense during the period over which the services are performed.

We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock-based awards as of the grant date. The Black-Scholes model is complex and dependent upon key data input estimates. The primary data inputs with the greatest degree of judgment are the expected terms of the stock options and the estimated volatility of our stock price. The Black-Scholes model is highly sensitive to changes in these two inputs. The expected term of the options represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. We use the simplified method to estimate the expected term as an input into the Black-Scholes option pricing model. We determine expected volatility using the historical method, which, because of the limited period during which our stock has been publicly traded, is based on the historical daily trading data of the common stock of a peer group of public companies over the expected term of the option.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes using the asset and liability approach for financial reporting purposes. We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. Valuation allowances are established, when necessary, to reduce the deferred tax assets to an amount expected to be realized.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information on recent accounting pronouncements.
Results of Operations
Comparison of Years Ended March 31, 2014 and 2013

Revenue   

The following table compares our primary revenue sources between the periods (in $000):

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
NIH - AV-101 grant $-  $187 
Subcontract revenue  -   13 
         
Total Revenue $-  $200 

We have successfully completed our Phase I development of AV-101, our prodrug candidate for the treatment of neuropathic pain and, potentially, depression and other neurological conditions. Our NIH grant related to AV-101 expired in its normal course on June 30, 2012.  We had drawn the maximum amount available under the grant prior to its expiration.  Revenue associated with our earlier subcontract research arrangement terminated in May 2012.

Research and Development Expense

Research and development expense decreased by 28% to $2.5 million in fiscal 2014 compared to $3.4 million in fiscal 2013.  The following table compares the primary components of research and development expense between the periods (in $000):
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Salaries and benefits $902  $792 
Stock-based compensation  453   510 
UHN research under SRCA  160   466 
Consulting services  53   14 
Technology licenses and royalties  484   136 
Project-related third-party research and supplies:        
AV-101  51   1,079 
All other including CardioSafe and LiverSafe  145   293 
   196   1,372 
Rent  185   115 
Depreciation  44   26 
All other  4   - 
         
Total Research and Development Expense $2,481  $3,431 
The increase in research and development salaries and benefits expense reflects the impact of (i) the addition of a research technician in April 2013; (ii) the partial restoration in April 2013 of an earlier voluntary salary reduction to below his contractual pay rates taken by our President and Chief Scientific Officer; and (iii) general annual increases in employee benefits costs. In addition to the ratable amortization of stock-based compensation expense over the requisite service period of the respective grants made in fiscal 2014 and in prior years, stock-based compensation expense for fiscal 2014 includes approximately $82,000 as the impact of October 2013 and December 2013 modifications to reduce the exercise price of certain outstanding option grants to $0.40 per share or $0.50 per share, as well as approximately $157,000 attributable to the expense resulting from the March 2014 and March 2013 grants of warrants to our President and Chief Scientific Officer that vest over three years, subject to certain vesting acceleration events. Stock-based compensation expense for fiscal 2013 includes approximately $89,000 from the impact of October 2012 modifications reducing the exercise price to $0.75 per share and reducing any remaining vesting period to two years for certain option grants having exercise prices between $1.13 per share and $2.58 per share made to certain scientific employees and consultants in prior years and approximately $268,000 attributable to the expense resulting from the March 2013 grant of a warrant to our President and Chief Scientific Officer. Our 2012/2013 sponsored research project budget under the collaboration agreement with Dr. Gordon Keller’s laboratory at UHN ended on September 30, 2013. We are currently in discussions with Dr. Keller and UHN regarding the scope of our 2013/2014 sponsored research project budget under the agreement, and we anticipate finalizing such budget in the near term. The expense recorded in fiscal 2013 reflects our stem cell research collaboration in accordance with our agreements with UHN made in the third and fourth quarters of our fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 and in a further modification effective beginning in October 2012. Technology license expense increased significantly in fiscal 2014 as a result of costs for patent prosecution and protection that we are required to fund under the terms of certain of our license agreements. We recognize these costs as they are invoiced to us by the licensors and they do not occur ratably throughout the year or between years. We began Phase 1b clinical trials of AV-101 early in calendar 2012, completing them by mid-year 2012. We recorded significant expense related to the trials during fiscal 2013.  AV-101 expenses in fiscal 2014 reflect the costs associated with finalizing the AV-101 clinical trial results, preparing the final clinical trial and other reports required under the terms of the NIH grant and monitoring for feedback related to the reports, activities performed primarily through our contract research collaborator, Cato Research Ltd.  We do not track internal research and development expenses, including compensation costs, by project as we do not currently believe that such project accounting is necessary given the level and overlap of project resources, including staffing, that are dedicated to our internal research and development projects. The increase in rent expense and depreciation in fiscal 2014 reflects increased rental costs and the amortization of tenant improvements related to our relocation to expanded facilities in late-July 2013.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expense was essentially unchanged at $5.0decreased by 29% to $2.5 million for the years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.in fiscal 2014 compared to $3.6 million in fiscal 2013.  The following table compares the primary components of general and administrative expense between the periods (in $000):

 Fiscal Years Ended March 31,  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
 2012  2011  2014  2013 
            
Salaries and benefits $875  $401  $675  $617 
Stock-based compensation  1,114   1,154   684   731 
Consulting services  558   88 
Consulting Services  94   157 
Legal, accounting and other professional fees  1,033   3,005   340   554 
Investor relations  343   16   120   622 
Insurance  101   16   130   122 
Travel and entertainment  68   70   18   37 
Rent and utilities  89   77   139   85 
Warrant modification expense  641   -   205   507 
All other expenses  175   131   143   130 
                
Total General and Administrative Expense $4,997  $4,958  $2,548  $3,562 

During fiscal 2011, we expensed $2,526,000 million of legal, accounting and other fees that we had incurred pursuing a potential listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange when we decided not to proceed with that initiative as a result of declining market conditions for initial public offerings.  Excluding the impact of that transaction, legal, accounting and professional fees have increased by approximately $550,000 in fiscal 2012, primarily as a result of (i) costs related to the Merger and becoming an SEC reporting public company in May 2011 and to maintaining our status as such and (ii) warrant and stock grants to legal and other strategic consultants aggregating $393,000 during fiscal 2012.  The increase in salaries and benefits expense in fiscal 2012 reflects the impact of headcount increases, reduced officer compensation levels in fiscal 2011 and payments aggregating $85,000 representing partial recovery of that reduction paid in May 2011, as well as $321,000 of compensation attributed to two officers related to the May 2011 the cancellation of certain notes receivable from the officers, as described in Note 14, Related Party Transactions, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.  During fiscal 2012, we also incurred increased consulting and other outside service costs related to expanded business development, investor relations and awareness initiatives.  Consulting expense includes $299,000 representing the fair value of warrants granted to members of our Board of Directors and other strategic consultants during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, in addition to fees for business development and other consulting and strategic services.  Non-cash expense related to stock-based compensation for fiscal 2012 includes the expense impact of options granted prior to fiscal 2011 and in fiscal year 2012 to employees and consultants as well as the impact of our increased stock price on the expense related to unvested non-employee option grants.  We granted no options during fiscal 2011.  Additionally, in fiscal year 2012, we incurred non-cash warrant modification expense of $641,000 related to reducing the exercise price and, in some cases, extending the term of certain outstanding warrants to purchase our common stock, as described in Note 9, Capital Stock, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Other Expense, Net   

Other expense, net for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 consists of the $1,193,500 loss on early debt extinguishment related to the December 2011 exchange of the Platinum Note and warrants for Series A Preferred Stock, as described in Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, interest expense of $1,893,000, and a $78,000 net charge for the increase in the fair value of the Platinum Notes extension option and warrant liability, both of which were terminated in conjunction with the May 2011 Merger and restructuring of the Platinum Notes.  Other expense for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 consisted of $3,119,000 of interest expense offset by a $204,000 benefit for the decrease in the fair value of the then-outstanding Platinum Notes extension option and warrant liability.  The decrease in interest expense between the periods resulted primarily from the conversion of convertible promissory notes into equity in connection with the Merger in May 2011 and the exchange of the Platinum Note for equity in December 2011.

Liquidity and Capital Resources
At March 31, 2012, we had cash and cash equivalents of $81,000 and our current liabilities exceeded our current assets by $2.9 million. During May and June 2012, warrant holders exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 539,554 shares of our common stock and we received cash proceeds and satisfaction of amounts due for services in lieu of our payments in the aggregate amount of $269,800.  On June 29, 2012, we entered into an agreement pursuant to which we will issue two secured three-year 10% convertible promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 to Platinum during July 2012.  See Note 16, Subsequent Events, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding the additional financing we have received since March 31, 2012.

 
The increase in administrative salaries and benefits expense reflects the impact of (i) the partial restoration in April 2013 of an earlier voluntary salary reduction to below his contractual pay rate taken by our Chief Executive Officer; (ii) the September 2012 conversion of our Chief Financial Officer from part-time consultant to full-time employee status; (iii) the April 2013 conversion of an administrative assistant from consultant to employee status, and (iv) general annual increases in employee benefits costs; all offset by the impact of voluntary resignations of certain administrative personnel. In addition to the ratable amortization of stock-based compensation expense over the requisite service period of the respective grants made in fiscal 2014 and in prior years, stock-based compensation expense for fiscal 2014 includes approximately $170,000 as the impact of October 2013 and December 2013 modifications to reduce the exercise price of certain outstanding option grants to $0.40 per share or $0.50 per share, as well as approximately $299,000 attributable to the expense resulting from the March 2014 and March 2013 grants of warrants vesting over three years, subject to certain vesting acceleration events, to certain members of our senior management and to the independent members of our Board of Directors.  Stock-based compensation expense for fiscal 2013 includes approximately $44,000 reflecting the impact of October 2012 modifications reducing the exercise price to $0.75 per share and reducing any remaining vesting period to two years for certain option grants having exercise prices between $1.13 per share and $2.58 per share made to certain administrative employees and consultants in prior years, and approximately $535,000 attributable to the expense resulting from the March 2013 grants of warrants to certain members of our senior management and to the independent members of our Board of Directors. The reduction in legal, accounting and other professional fees reflects the impact of converting our Chief Financial Officer from part-time consultant to full-time employee status, as noted above, a reduction in legal expenses and the absence in fiscal 2014 of non-cash expense related to the granting of warrants to certain administrative consultants and service providers. During fiscal 2013, we engaged third parties to provide us with investor relations services and to conduct market awareness initiatives, however, for strategic purposes, we significantly scaled back those initiatives during fiscal 2014. The fiscal 2014 increase in rent and utilities expenses reflects higher costs related to our relocation to expanded facilities in late-July 2013. Warrant modification expense for fiscal 2014 reflects the impact of October 2013, December 2013 and February 2014 strategic reductions in the exercise price of certain outstanding warrants, generally from $1.75 per share or $1.50 per share, to $0.50 per share, and in certain cases, the extension of the term of outstanding warrants by approximately one year. In fiscal 2013, we recorded warrant modification expense also related to the reduction of the exercise price of certain outstanding warrants.  The increase in other expenses for 2013 includes one-time costs associated with our late-July 2013 relocation to new facilities.
Other Expenses, Net   

In both fiscal 2014 and 2013, other expenses, net includes interest expense, including non-cash discount amortization, on our outstanding promissory notes, net of interest income, as well as the non-cash impact of changes in the fair value of the warrant liabilities related to warrants issued or issuable to Platinum as a result of the October 2012 Agreement with Platinum, as amended, and, in fiscal 2014, the warrant issued to Platinum in July 2013. In fiscal 2013, other expenses, net additionally includes the non-cash loss on extinguishment of debt resulting from the modification of indebtedness to Platinum, Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd., and University Health Network, as well as the conversion by the holders of our 12% Convertible Promissory Notes issued in February 2012 into restricted shares of our common stock and warrants in November 2012.
The following table compares the primary components of net interest expense between the periods (in $000):

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Interest expense on promissory notes, including discount amortization $1,547  $796 
Charge for fair value of replacement warrants issued in connection        
with exercise of modified warrants  -   36 
Charge related to losses on accounts payable settled by issuance        
of common stock or notes payable  -   80 
Charge for investment banker warrants related to February 2012 Convertible        
promissory notes  -   28 
Charge for legal fees related to issuance of Senior Secured Promissory        
Notes to Platinum under June and October 2012 agreements  -   59 
Other interest expense, including on capital leases and premium financing  15   5 
   1,562   1,004 
Effect of foreign currency fluctuations on notes payable  (49)  (53)
Interest Income  (10)  (30)
         
Interest Expense, net $1,503  $921 

The increase in interest expense is primarily attributable to the accrued interest and discount amortization recorded for the July 2012 through July 2013 issuances and restructuring of an aggregate of $3.5 million of 10% senior secured convertible notes to Platinum, including the $250,000 convertible note issued in July 2013, as well as the restructuring in September and October 2012 of an additional $3.9 million of debt into new convertible notes to other service providers, including Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd., and University Health Network. These transactions are described in greater detail in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In conjunction with the issuance to Platinum, pursuant to the October 2012 Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement, of certain Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes and the related Exchange Warrant and Investment Warrants in October 2012, February 2013 and March 2013, and in connection with the similar senior secured convertible promissory note and related warrant issued to Platinum in July 2013, (as described more completely in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K), and the contingent issuance of the Series A Exchange Warrant to Platinum upon Platinum’s exchange of shares of our Series A Preferred Stock held by Platinum into shares of our common stock, we determined that the warrants included certain exercise price adjustment features requiring the warrants to be treated as liabilities.  Accordingly, we recorded a non-cash warrant liability at its estimated fair value as of the date of warrant issuance or contract execution.  During fiscal 2014, we recognized non-cash income of $3,566,900 related to the net decrease in the estimated fair value of these liabilities since March 31, 2013, or issuance in the case of the warrant issued in July 2013, which resulted from a combination of both the decrease in the market price of our common stock during that period and an agreement with Platinum in May 2013 pursuant to which the stated exercise price of the warrants was reduced from $1.50 per share to $0.50 per share, and (ii).  During fiscal 2013, we recognized non-cash expense of $1,635,800 attributable to the net increase in the fair value of these liabilities between the issuance date of the warrants and March 31, 2013, primarily as the result of the increase in the market price of our common stock during that period.

During fiscal 2013, we recognized non-cash losses on the early extinguishment of debt in the aggregate amount of $3.6 million primarily as a result of the restructuring of notes payable to Platinum and Cato Holding Company, and the restructuring of accounts payable to Cato Research, Ltd. and University Health Network that were converted in to notes payable, as well as upon the conversion by the holders of our 12% Convertible Promissory Notes issued in February 2012 into restricted shares of our common stock and warrants, all of which were treated as extinguishment of debt for accounting purposes, all as described more completely in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In fiscal 2013, in connection with the October 2012 Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement we entered with Platinum, as described in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, and Note 10, Capital Stock, in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we recorded a non-cash deemed dividend of $10.2 million as a result of the modification of the exchange rights for the Series A Preferred Stock held by Platinum and the related contingent issuance of a five-year warrant to purchase shares of our common stock upon Platinum’s exercise of its Series A Preferred Stock exchange rights.

Liquidity and Capital Resources
Since our inception in May 1998 VistaGen hasthrough March 31, 2014, we have financed itsour operations technology development and technology acquisitions primarily through the issuance and sale of equity and equity-linkeddebt securities, for cash consideration andincluding convertible promissory notes and short-term promissory notes, for aggregate cash proceeds of approximately $26.0 million, as well as from an aggregate of approximately $16.4 million of government research grant awards, and strategic collaboration payments.

On May 11, 2011, immediatelypayments and other revenues. Additionally, we have issued equity securities with an approximate aggregate value at issuance of $12.6 million, primarily as compensation for professional services rendered to us since inception.  At March 31, 2014, we had negligible cash and cash equivalents. To meet our cash needs and fund our working capital requirements after March 31, 2014 and prior to the Merger,expected completion of the Autilion Financing (described below) or an alternate debt- or equity-based financing, through June 19, 2014, we entered into securities purchase agreements with accredited investors pursuant to which we sold 2,216,106to such accredited investors certain Units for aggregate cash proceeds of $1,465,000, consisting of: (i) 10% subordinate convertible promissory notes in the 2011 Private Placement at a priceaggregate face amount of $1.75 per Unit.  The Units consisted$1,465,000 maturing on March 31, 2015; (ii) an aggregate of one share1,465,000 restricted shares of our common stockstock; and one warrant entitling the holder(iii) warrants exercisable through December 31, 2016 to purchase one-fourth (1/4)an aggregate of one share1,465,000 restricted shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.50$0.50 per share.  The warrants, which collectively allow for the purchase of 554,013 shares of common stock, expire on May 11, 2014.  Proceeds from the sale of the Units were $2,369,194 in cash, a $500,000 note due on September 6, 2011, cancellation of $840,000 of our short-term notes payable due on April 30, 2011, a note cancellation premium of $94,500, and cancellation of $74,503 of accounts payable.  At September 30, 2011, the $500,000 promissory note due on September 6, 2011 remained unpaid.  In October 2011, we restructured the note receivable to require a series of monthly payments to us through September 2012 (see Note 9, Capital Stock, to the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K)  

At the time of the Merger, (i) outstanding convertible promissory notes in the amount of $6,174,793, including principal and accrued interest; and (ii) all 2,884,655 of our then-outstanding shares of preferred stock were converted into shares of common stock at a price of $1.75 per share.  The holders of the notes that converted and all holders of the preferred stock exchanged their securities for an aggregate of 6,412,945 shares of our common stock, which shares were part of the 6,836,452 shares of Excaliber’s common stock issued for the outstanding shares of VistaGen's common stock in connection with the Merger.

Subsequent to the Merger and through March 31, 2012, we have cancelled the $4.0 million principal balance of the previously outstanding convertible note payable to Platinum, as well as warrants to purchase 1,599,858 shares of our common stock held by Platinum in exchange for the issuance to Platinum of 437,055 shares of our  Series A preferred stock.  Additionally, we have modified the exercise price and, in some cases, the term of outstanding warrants and other warrant holders have exercised warrants to purchase 1,521,401 shares of our common stock. As a result of these exercises, we have received cash proceeds of $1,166,000, satisfied outstanding liabilities for services aggregating approximately $275,000 in lieu of payment in cash, and arranged equity-based satisfaction for future services of approximately $268,000 in lieu of cash payment, most of which services had been received by March 31, 2012.  We also sold 63,570 Units, each Unit consisting of one share of our common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase one-fourth (¼) of one share of our common stock, in a follow-on private placement and received cash proceeds of approximately $111,000.   Additionally, in February 2012, we issued 12% convertible promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 and received cash proceeds of $466,500 after expenses of the offering.  The notes mature in February 2014.  In connection with the notes, we also issued to the purchasers of the notes five-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 272,724 shares of our common stock at $2.75 per share.  Since March 31, 2012, we have received cash proceeds and satisfaction of amounts due for services in lieu of our payments in the aggregate amount of $269,800 as a result of the exercise of previously-outstanding warrants.  In June 2012, we entered into an agreement pursuant to which we will issue two secured three-year 10% convertible promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 to Platinum during July 2012.

We do not believe that our current cash and cash equivalents, including the cash proceeds from warrant exercises and the issuance of the convertible promissory note described above and in Note 16, Subsequent Events, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, will enable us to fund our operations through the next twelve months.  We anticipate that our cash expenditures during the next twelve months will be between approximately $4$4.0 to $6.0 million.
In April 2013, we entered into the Securities Purchase Agreement with Autilion, under which Autilion is contractually obligated to purchase an aggregate of 72.0 million restricted shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $0.50 per share for aggregate cash proceeds to us of $36.0 million.  To date, Autilion has completed only a nominal closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement.  Therefore, Autilion is in default under the Securities Purchase Agreement, and we can provide no assurance that Autilion will complete a material closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement.   In the event that Autilion does not complete a material closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement in the near term, we will need to obtain from $4.0 million to $6.0 million from alternative financing sources to execute our current business plan. Substantial additional financing may not be available to us on a timely basis, on terms acceptable to us, or at all. In the event we are unable to obtain substantial additional financing on a timely basis, our business, financial condition, and results of operations may be harmed, the price of our stock may decline, and we may not be able to continue as a going concern.
In the event Autilion completes a closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement in an amount exceeding $13.0 million, and $6 million. We have demonstrated the abilitywe issue to manage our costs aggressively and increase our operating efficiencies while advancing our stem cell technology platform and AV-101 development programs.  To further advance drug rescue applicationsAutilion over 26 million shares of our stem cell technology platform, pilot nonclinical cell therapy initiatives,restricted common stock in connection with such closing, Autilion will control in excess of 50% of our issued and clinical developmentoutstanding common stock, resulting in a change in control of AV-101,the Company.  In addition, substantial dilution to existing stockholders will occur upon completion of a material portion of the Autilion Financing, or completion of an alternate equity-based financing. 
If and as well as support our operating activities,necessary, we expect our monthly operating costs associated with salaries and benefits, regulatory and public company consulting, contract research and development, legal, accounting and other working capital costsmay seek to increase. In the past, we have relied primarily on government grant awards,complete a combination of additional private placements or public offerings of our securities, which may include both debt and equity securities, and strategic collaborations to meet our operating budget and achieve our business objectives, and we plan to continue that practice in the future. The general economic conditions during fiscal 2011 and 2012, including the tightening of available funding for micro-cap and small-cap biotechnology companies in the financial markets, delayed the extent of advancement on our stem cell technology-based research and development collaborations, stem cell technology and drug rescue programscandidate license fees and clinical development programs.government grant awards. Although we have been successful over the past fourteen yearssince May 1998 with raising sufficient capital to fundfor our operations, and we will continue to pursue additional financing opportunities as necessary to meet our business objectives, there can be no assurance that substantial additional capital will be available to us in sufficient amounts, in a timely manner and/or on terms favorable to us, and without substantial dilution to our current stockholders, if at all. If we are unable to complete one or more private placements near term,or public offerings, or otherwise obtain sufficient financing through strategic collaborations or government grant awards, we may be required to delay, scale back or discontinue certain drug rescue and/or research and development activities, and this may adversely affect our ability to operatecontinue as a going concern. If we obtain additional funds are obtainedfinancing by selling our equity or debt securities, we anticipate that substantial dilution to our existing stockholders maywill result. Our future working capital requirements will depend on many factors, including, without limitation, the scope and nature of strategic opportunities related to our stem cell technology platform, including drug rescue and cell therapy research and development efforts, the success of such programs, our ability to obtain government grant awards and our ability to enter into strategic collaborations with pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions on terms acceptable to us.


Cashour stem cell technology platform, as well as support our operating activities, we plan to continue to carefully manage our monthly operating costs associated with salaries and Cash Equivalentsbenefits, regulatory and public company consulting, contract research and development, legal, accounting and other working capital costs. 
 
The following table summarizes changes in cash and cash equivalents for the periods stated (in thousands):

  Fiscal Years Ended 
  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Net cash used in operating activities $(2,126) $(3,463)
Net cash used in investing activities  (10)  (135)
Net cash provided by financing activities  1,498   4,155 
         
 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  (638)  557 
 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period  638   81 
         
 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $-  $638 
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
Net cash used in operating activities $(3,566) $(841)
Net cash used in investing activities $(32) $(58)
Net cash provided by financing activities, including sale of Units, warrant exercises and issuance of notes in 2012 and issuance of notes and warrants in 2011 $3,540  $837 

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
 
Other than contractual obligations incurred in the normal course of business, we do not have any off-balance sheet financing arrangements or liabilities, guarantee contracts, retained or contingent interests in transferred assets or any obligation arising out of a material variable interest in an unconsolidated entity. We haveVistaGen California has two inactive, wholly-owned subsidiaries, Artemis Neuroscience, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and VistaStem Canada, Inc., an Ontario corporation.

Item7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

The disclosures in this section are not required since we qualify as a smaller reporting company.

Item 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

INDEXINDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
 

 
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.
(a development stage company)

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. (a development stage company) as of March 31, 20122014 and 20112013 and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, cash flows, preferred stock, and stockholders’ deficit for the years then ended, and for the period from May 26, 1998 (inception) through March 31, 2012.2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. (a development stage company) at March 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended, and for the period from May 26, 1998 (inception) through March 31, 2012,2014, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements at March 31, 2012 have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company is a development stage company, has not yet generated sustainable revenues, has suffered recurring losses from operations and has a stockholders’ deficit, all of which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
 
/s/ OUM & CO. LLP
 
San Francisco, California
July 2, 2012


VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Amounts in $100’s, except share amounts)

  March 31,  March 31, 
  2012  2011 
ASSETS 
 Current assets:      
 Cash and cash equivalents $81,000  $139,300 
 Unbilled contract payments receivable  106,200   42,200 
 Prepaid expenses  50,900   23,300 
 Total current assets  238,100   204,800 
 Property and equipment, net  74,500   87,700 
 Security deposits and other assets  29,000   31,100 
 Total assets $341,600  $323,600 
         
LIABILITIES, PREFERRED STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT 
 Current liabilities:        
 Accounts payable $1,750,800  $1,767,100 
 Accrued expenses  657,300   1,421,900 
 Notes payable and accrued interest  599,300   160,900 
 Notes payable and accrued interest to related parties  150,800   50,400 
 Put option and note term extension option liabilities  -   90,800 
 Capital lease obligations  10,500   30,100 
 Non-interest bearing promissory notes, net, including $525,000 to related parties  -   1,105,700 
 Deferred revenues  13,200   78,800 
 Convertible promissory notes, including $947,400 to related parties        
 at March 31, 2011  - current portion  -   4,809,200 
 Accrued interest on convertible promissory notes  -   1,310,800 
 Total current liabilities  3,181,900   10,825,700 
 Non-current liabilities:        
 Notes payable and accrued interest  2,667,500   2,106,200 
 Notes payable and accrued interest to related parties  125,100   210,800 
 Convertible promissory notes, net of current portion  700   3,326,000 
 Accrued interest on convertible promissory notes  5,300   585,400 
 Accrued officers’ compensation  57,000   57,000 
 Capital lease obligations  9,700   4,500 
 Accounts payable  -   1,140,600 
 Warrant liability  -   417,100 
 Total non-current liabilities  2,865,300   7,847,600 
 Total liabilities  6,047,200   18,673,300 
 Commitments and contingencies        
 Preferred stock, no par value;  no shares authorized at March 31, 2012; 20,000,000 shares        
         authorized at March 31, 2011; no shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2012;        
 2,884,655 shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2011  -   14,534,800 
 Stockholders’ deficit:        
      Preferred stock, $0.001 par value;  10,000,000 shares authorized at March 31, 2012;        
          no shares authorized at March 31, 2011; 437,055 Series A shares issued and outstanding        
 at March 31, 2012; no shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2011  400   - 
Common stock, $0.001 par value at March 31, 2012 and 2011; 200,000,000 and 400,000,000     
shares authorized at March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively; 18,704,267 and 5,241,110     
      shares issued at March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively  18,700   5,200 
 Additional paid-in capital  52,539,500   9,867,400 
 Treasury stock, at cost, 2,083,858 shares of common stock held at March 31, 2012; no        
       shares held at March 31, 2011  (3,231,700)  - 
Notes receivable from sale of common stock to unrelated parties at March 31, 2012 and upon     
      exercise of options and warrants by related parties at March 31, 2011  (250,000)  (184,100)
Deficit accumulated during development stage  (54,782,500)  (42,573,000)
 Total stockholders’ deficit  (5,705,600)  (32,884,500)
 Total liabilities, preferred stock and stockholders’ deficit $341,600  $323,600 

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

-51-

June 23, 2014
 
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Amounts in $100’s, except share and per share amounts)
        May 26, 1998 
        (Inception) 
     Through 
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31,  March 31, 
  2012  2011  2012 
Revenues:         
 Grant revenue $1,342,200  $2,071,000  $12,762,700 
 Collaboration revenue  -   -   2,283,600 
 Other  -   -   1,123,500 
  Total revenues  1,342,200   2,071,000   16,169,800 
Operating expenses:            
 Research and development  5,388,600   3,678,200   26,124,900 
 Acquired in-process research and development  -   -   7,523,200 
 General and administrative  4,997,000   4,957,700   27,118,400 
  Total operating expenses  10,385,600   8,635,900   60,766,500 
Loss from operations  (9,043,400)  (6,564,900)  (44,596,700)
Other expenses, net:            
 Interest expense, net  (1,893,200)  (3,119,400)  (9,441,500)
 Change in put and note extension option and          - 
       warrant liabilities  (78,000)  203,900   418,500 
  Loss on early extinguishment of debt  (1,193,500)  -   (1,193,500)
 Other income  200   (200)  47,500 
Loss before income taxes  (12,207,900)  (9,480,600)  (54,765,700)
Income taxes  (1,600)  (1,600)  (16,800)
Net loss $(12,209,500) $(9,482,200) $(54,782,500)
             
Basic and diluted net loss per common share $(0.83) $(1.81)    
Weighted average shares used in computing            
basic and diluted net loss per common share  14,736,651   5,241,110     

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Amounts in $100’s)
        Period From 
        May 26, 1998 
        (Inception) 
  Fiscal Years Ended  Through 
  March 31,  March 31, 
  2012  2011  2012 
 Cash flows from operating activities:         
  Net loss $(12,209,500) $(9,482,200) $(54,782,500)
  Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:            
   Depreciation and amortization  45,600   45,300   743,700 
   Amortization of discounts on 7%, 7.5% and 10% notes  57,200   71,000   259,200 
   Amortization of discounts on Platinum notes  909,000   1,376,600   3,548,700 
   Amortization of discounts on August 2010 short-term notes  14,300   557,700   572,000 
   Amortization of discounts on February 2012 12% convertible notes  (4,200)  -   (4,200)
   Change in put and note term extension option and warrant liabilities  77,900   (203,900)  (418,600)
   Fair value of Series C preferred stock, common stock, and warrants            
    granted for services prior to the Merger  131,200   -   1,056,600 
   Stock-based compensation  1,591,300   1,628,800   4,354,300 
   Loss on early extinguishment of debt  1,193,500   -   1,193,500 
   Expense related to modification of warrants  741,700   -   741,700 
   Fair value of common stock granted for services following the Merger  452,000   -   452,000 
   Fair value of warrants granted for services following the Merger  564,500   -   564,500 
   Fair value of additional warrants granted under Discounted Warrant            
       Exercise Program  138,100   -   138,100 
   Fair value of common stock issued for note term modification  22,400   -   22,400 
   Consulting services by related parties settled by issuing promissory notes  -   -   44,600 
   Acquired in-process research and development  -   -   7,523,200 
   Amortization of imputed discount on non-interest bearing notes  -   -   45,000 
   Gain on sale of assets  -   -   (16,800)
   Changes in operating assets and liabilities:            
    Unbilled contract payments receivable  (64,000)  205,000   (106,200)
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets  (1,900)  630,900   (4,500)
    Security deposits and other assets  2,100   4,500   (29,000)
    Accounts payable and accrued expenses  2,838,600   4,385,500   16,580,600 
    Deferred revenues  (65,600)  (60,500)  13,200 
     Net cash used in operating activities  (3,565,800)  (841,300)  (17,508,500)
             
 Cash flows from investing activities:            
  Purchases of equipment, net  (32,400)  (57,800)  (680,800)
     Net cash used in investing activities  (32,400)  (57,800)  (680,800)
             
 Cash flows from financing activities:            
  Net proceeds from issuance of common stock and warrants, including units  2,679,200   -   2,800,000 
  Proceeds from exercise of warrants under Discounted Warrant Exercise Program  1,166,300       1,166,300 
  Net proceeds from issuance of preferred stock and warrants  -   -   4,198,600 
  Proceeds from issuance of notes under line of credit  -   -   200,000 
  Proceeds from issuance of 7% note payable to founding stockholder  -   -   90,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of 7% convertible notes  -   -   575,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of 10% convertible notes and warrants  -   -   1,655,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of Platinum notes and warrants  -   -   3,700,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of 2008/2010 notes and warrants  -   270,000   2,971,800 
  Net proceeds from issuance of 2006/2007 notes and warrants  -   -   1,025,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of 7% notes payable  -   -   55,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of August 2010 short-term notes and warrants  -   800,000   800,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of February 2012 12% convertible notes and warrants  466,500   -   466,500 
  Repayment of capital lease obligations  (14,500)  (27,000)  (100,500)
  Repayment of notes  (757,600)  (205,600)  (1,332,400)
     Net cash provided by financing activities  3,539,900   837,400   18,270,300 
 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents  (58,300)  (61,700)  81,000 
 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period  139,300   201,000   - 
 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $81,000  $139,300  $81,000 
             
 Supplemental disclosure of cash flow activities:            
  Cash paid for interest $265,400  $147,400  $439,700 
  Cash paid for income taxes $1,600  $1,600  $16,800 
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (continued)BALANCE SHEETS
(Amounts in $100s,dollars, except share amounts)
  March 31,  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
ASSETS 
 Current assets:      
 Cash and cash equivalents $-  $638,100 
 Prepaid expenses and other current assets  40,500   33,700 
 Total current assets  40,500   671,800 
 Property and equipment, net  176,300   180,700 
 Security deposits and other assets  46,900   29,000 
 Total assets $263,700  $881,500 
         
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT 
 Current liabilities:        
 Accounts payable $2,443,900  $1,353,600 
 Accrued expenses  625,600   342,900 
 Advance from officer  3,600   - 
 Current portion of notes payable and accrued interest  1,442,300   617,200 
 Current portion of notes payable to related parties and accrued interest  290,400   93,000 
 Convertible promissory notes and accrued interest, net of discount of $697,400 at March 31, 2014  396,000   - 
 Capital lease obligations  3,900   7,600 
 Total current liabilities  5,205,700   2,414,300 
 Non-current liabilities:        
     Senior secured convertible promissory notes, net of discount of $2,085,900 at March 31, 2014 and $1,963,100 at March 31, 2013 and accrued interest  1,929,800   1,425,700 
 Notes payable, net of discount of $848,100 at March 31, 2014 and $1,142,600 at March 31, 2013 and accrued interest  1,797,600   2,091,800 
 Notes payable to related parties, net of discount of $103,200 at March 31, 2014 and $147,200 at March 31, 2013 and accrued interest  1,057,100   1,106,000 
 Warrant liability  2,973,900   6,394,000 
 Deferred rent liability  97,400   - 
 Capital lease obligations  2,100   6,100 
 Total non-current liabilities  7,857,900   11,023,600 
 Total liabilities  13,063,600   13,437,900 
         
 Commitments and contingencies        
         
 Stockholders’ deficit:        
      Preferred stock, $0.001 par value; 10,000,000 shares, including 500,000 Series A shares, authorized at March 31, 2014 and 2013; 500,000 Series A shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2014 and 2013  500   500 
 Common stock, $0.001 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized at March 31, 2014 and 2013; 26,200,185 and 23,480,169 shares issued at March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2013, respectively  26,200   23,500 
 Additional paid-in capital  61,976,500   59,266,000 
 Treasury stock, at cost, 2,713,308 shares of common stock held at March 31, 2014 and 2013  (3,968,100)  (3,968,100)
 Note receivable from sale of common stock  (198,100)  (209,100)
 Deficit accumulated during development stage  (70,636,900)  (67,669,200)
 Total stockholders’ deficit  (12,799,900)  (12,556,400)
 Total liabilities and stockholders’ deficit $263,700  $881,500 
 
        Period From 
        May 26, 1998 
        (Inception) 
  Fiscal Years Ended  Through 
  March 31,  March 31, 
  2012  2011  2012 
 Supplemental disclosure of noncash activities:         
  Forgiveness of accrued compensation and accrued interest         
  payable to officers transferred to equity $-  $-  $800,000 
  Exercise of warrants and options in exchange for debt cancellation $-  $-  $112,800 
  Settlement of accrued and prepaid interest by issuance of            
  Series C Preferred Stock $-  $-  $35,300 
  Conversion of 10% notes payable, net of discount, and            
  related accrued interest into Series C Preferred stock $-  $-  $2,050,300 
  Issuance of Series B-1 Preferred stock for acquired in-process            
   research and development $-  $-  $7,523,200 
  Conversion of 7% notes payable, net of discount, and            
  related accrued interest into Series B Preferred stock $-  $-  $508,000 
  Conversion of accounts payable into convertible promissory notes $-  $-  $893,700 
  Conversion of accounts payable into note payable $-  $1,126,200  $2,810,300 
  Conversion of accounts payable into common stock $275,400  $-  $1,824,100 
  Conversion of accrued interest on convertible promissory            
   notes into common stock $-  $-  $921,400 
  Notes receivable from sale of common stock to related parties            
  upon exercise of options and warrants $-  $-  $149,800 
  Capital lease obligations $19,000  $-  $139,700 
  Recognition of put option and note term            
  extension option liabilities upon issuance of Platinum Notes $-  $-  $141,200 
  Incremental fair value of put option and note term extension            
  option liabilities from debt modifications $-  $158,000  $479,400 
  Incremental fair value of note conversion option from debt            
  modification $-  $1,062,800  $1,891,200 
  Incremental fair value of warrant from debt modifications $-  $121,100  $276,700 
  Recognition of warrant liability upon adoption of new accounting standard $-  $-  $151,300 
 Fair value of warrants issued with August 2010 short term notes $-  $130,900  $130,900 
 Note Discount upon issuance of August 2010 short-term notes $-  $320,000  $320,000 
 Fair value of warrants issued with February 2012 12% convertible notes $542,000  $-  $542,000 
 Note Discount upon issuance of February 2012 12% convertible notes $495,200  $-  $495,200 

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS
(Amounts in dollars, except share amounts)

        May 26, 1998 
        (Inception) 
  Fiscal Years Ended  Through 
  March 31,  March 31, 
  2014  2013  2014 
Revenues:         
 Grant revenue $-  $200,400  $12,963,100 
 Collaboration revenue  -   -   2,283,600 
 Other  -   -   1,123,500 
  Total revenues  -   200,400   16,370,200 
Operating expenses:            
 Research and development  2,480,600   3,430,800   32,036,300 
 Acquired in-process research and development  -   -   7,523,200 
 General and administrative  2,548,300   3,562,700   33,229,400 
  Total operating expenses  5,028,900   6,993,500   72,788,900 
Loss from operations  (5,028,900)  (6,793,100)  (56,418,700)
Other expenses, net:            
 Interest expense, net  (1,503,000)  (920,700)  (11,865,200)
 Change in warrant and put and note extension option liabilities  3,566,900   (1,635,800)  2,349,600 
  Loss on early extinguishment of debt  -   (3,567,800)  (4,761,300)
 Other income  -   34,400   81,900 
Loss before income taxes  (2,965,000)  (12,883,000)  (70,613,700)
Income taxes  (2,700)  (3,700)  (23,200)
Net loss  (2,967,700)  (12,886,700)  (70,636,900)
             
  Deemed dividend on Series A Preferred stock  -   (10,193,200)  (10,193,200)
             
Net loss attributable to common stockholders $(2,967,700) $(23,079,900) $(80,830,100)
             
Basic net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share
 $(0.14) $(1.27)    
             
Diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share
 $(0.19) $(1.27)    
             
Weighted average shares used in computing:            
      Basic net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share
  21,973,149   18,108,444     
      Diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share
  21,973,149   18,108,444     
             
Comprehensive loss $(2,967,700) $(12,886,700) $(70,636,900)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Amounts in dollars)
        Period From May 26, 1998 (Inception) Through March 31, 2014 
         
         
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31,   
  2014  2013   
 Cash flows from operating activities:         
  Net loss $(2,967,700) $(12,886,700) $(70,636,900)
  Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:            
   Depreciation and amortization  54,600   33,800   832,100 
   Amortization of discounts on convertible and promissory notes  640,000   254,800   5,315,500 
   Change in warrant liability and put and note term extension option liabilities  (3,566,900)  1,635,800   (2,349,700)
   Stock-based compensation  1,137,300   1,241,300   6,732,900 
   Expense related to modification of warrants  204,300   508,200   1,454,200 
   Non-cash rent and relocation expense  56,800   -   56,800 
   Interest income on note receivable for stock purchase  (1,200)  (27,600)  (28,800)
   Fair value of common stock granted for services following the Merger  -   340,000   852,700 
   Fair value of warrants granted for services and interest following the Merger  60,700   183,800   748,300 
   Gain on currency fluctuation  (48,600)  (53,000)  (101,600)
Fair value of additional warrants granted pursuant to exercises of modified warrants  -   35,900   174,000 
   Loss on settlements of accounts payable  -   78,300   78,300 
   Acquired in-process research and development  -   -   7,523,200 
   Loss on early extinguishment of debt  -   3,567,800   4,761,300 
Fair value of Series C preferred stock, common stock, and warrants granted for services prior to the Merger  -   -   3,150,900 
   Fair value of common stock issued for note term modification  -   -   22,400 
   Consulting services by related parties settled by issuing promissory notes  -   -   44,600 
   Gain on sale of assets  -   -   (16,800)
   Changes in operating assets and liabilities:            
    Unbilled contract payments receivable  -   106,200   - 
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets  92,700   46,200   134,400 
    Security deposits and other assets  (17,900)  -   (46,900)
    Accounts payable and accrued expenses, including accrued interest  2,229,900   1,485,200   18,201,400 
    Deferred revenues  -   (13,200)  - 
     Net cash used in operating activities  (2,126,000)  (3,463,200)  (23,097,700)
             
 Cash flows from investing activities:            
  Purchases of equipment, net  (9,600)  (135,400)  (825,800)
     Net cash used in investing activities  (9,600)  (135,400)  (825,800)
             
 Cash flows from financing activities:            
  Net proceeds from issuance of common stock and warrants, including Units  1,075,500   1,185,100   5,060,600 
  Proceeds from exercise of modified warrants  264,200   262,100   1,692,600 
  Net proceeds from issuance of Platinum notes and warrants  250,000   3,222,100   7,172,100 
  Advance from officer  64,000   -   64,000 
  Proceeds from issuance of notes under line of credit  -   -   200,000 
  Proceeds from issuance of 7% note payable to founding stockholder  -   -   90,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of 7% convertible notes  -   -   575,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of 10% convertible notes and warrants  -   -   1,655,000 
  Net proceeds from issuance of preferred stock and warrants  -   -   4,198,600 
  Net proceeds from issuance of notes and warrants from 2006 to 2010  -   -   4,851,800 
  Net proceeds from issuance of February 2012 12% convertible notes and warrants  -   -   466,500 
  Repayment of capital lease obligations  (7,600)  (16,900)  (125,000)
  Repayment of notes  (148,600)  (496,700)  (1,977,700)
     Net cash provided by financing activities  1,497,500   4,155,700   23,923,500 
 Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents  (638,100)  557,100   - 
 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period  638,100   81,000   - 
 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $-  $638,100  $- 
             
 Supplemental disclosure of cash flow activities:            
  Cash paid for interest $21,000  $225,900  $686,600 
  Cash paid for income taxes $2,700  $3,700  $23,200 

VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (continued)
(Amounts in dollars, except share amounts)

        Period From 
        May 26, 1998 
        (Inception) 
  Twelve Months Ended March 31,  Through 
  2014  2013  March 31, 2014 
          
 Supplemental disclosure of noncash activities:         
    Forgiveness of accrued compensation and accrued interest payable to officers transferred to equity
 $-  $-  $800,000 
    Exercise of warrants and options in exchange for debt cancellation
 $-  $-  $112,800 
    Settlement of accrued and prepaid interest by issuance of Series C Preferred Stock
 $-  $-  $35,300 
Conversion of 10% notes payable, net of discount, and   related accrued interest of $408,600 into Series C Preferred stock $-  $-  $2,050,300 
Issuance of Series B-1 Preferred stock for acquired in-process    research and development $-  $-  $7,523,200 
Conversion of 7% notes payable, net of discount, and   related accrued interest of $3,800 into Series B Preferred stock $-  $-  $508,000 
    Conversion of accounts payable into convertible promissory notes
 $-  $-  $893,700 
    Conversion of accounts payable into note payable
 $-  $1,558,500  $4,368,800 
    Conversion of accounts payable into common stock
 $-  $103,200  $1,927,300 
Conversion of accrued interest on convertible promissory   notes into common stock $-  $-  $921,400 
    Notes receivable from sale of common stock to related parties upon exercise of options and warrants
 $-  $-  $149,800 
    Capital lease obligations
 $-  $-  $139,700 
Recognition of put option and note term extension option liabilities upon   issuance of Original Platinum Notes $-  $-  $141,200 
Incremental fair value of put option and note term extension   option liabilities from debt modifications $-  $-  $479,400 
    Incremental fair value of note conversion option from debt modification
 $-  $-  $1,891,200 
    Incremental fair value of warrant from debt modifications
 $-  $-  $276,700 
    Recognition of warrant liability upon adoption of new accounting standard
 $-  $-  $151,300 
    Fair value of warrants issued with August 2010 short term notes
 $-  $-  $130,900 
    Note discount upon issuance of August 2010 short term notes
 $-  $-  $320,000 
    Fair value of warrants issued with February 2012 12 % convertible notes
 $-  $-  $542,000 
    Note discount upon issuance of February 2012 12% convertible notes
 $-  $-  $495,200 
    Conversion of 2006/2007 and 2008/2010 Notes into Units, including accrued interest of $1,365,600
 $-  $-  $6,174,800 
    Conversion of all series of pre-Merger preferred stock into Units
 $-  $-  $14,534,800 
    Conversion of 2011 Platinum Note into Series A Preferred Stock, including accrued   interest of $611,100 and conversion premium
 $-  $-  $5,763,900 
    Conversion of 7% note payable and accrued interest of $11,500 into common stock and warrants
 $-  $-  $19,500 
    Conversion of accounts payable to Morrison & Foerster, McCarthy Tetrault and Desjardins into notes payable $-  $-  $1,603,400 
    Accounts payable and cancellation premium converted into 2011 Private Placement Units
 $-  $-  $169,000 
    Accrued interest on Cato Holding Company note converted to note payable
 $-  $-  $90,800 
    Accounts payable settled in December 2011 and May/June 2012 warrant exercises
 $-  $12,500  $280,100 
    Insurance premiums settled by issuing note payable
 $98,300  $110,100  $296,900 
    Conversion of accrued interest and fees on February 2012 Notes into 2012   Private Placement Units
 $-  $92,900  $92,900 
    Accrued interest on July and August 2012 Notes to Platinum converted into Exchange Note
 $-  $22,600  $22,600 
    Accounts payable settled by issuance of stock or notes payable and stock
 $-  $104,900  $104,900 
    Accounts payable converted into 2012 Private Placement Units
 $-  $50,000  $50,000 
Recognition of warrant liability upon issuance to Platinum of October 2012 Exchange Note and October 2012, February 2013 and March 2013 Investment Notes and July 2013 Convertible Note
 $146,800  $1,690,000  $1,836,800 
    Recognition of warrant liability for potential issuance to Platinum of Series A Exchange Warrant under the terms of the October 2012 Agreement
 $-  $3,068,200  $3,068,200 
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PREFERRED STOCK
Period from May 26, 1998 (inception) through March 31, 20122014
(Amounts in $100s,dollars, except share and per share amounts)

  Preferred  Series A  Series B  Series B-1  Series C  Total 
  Stock  Preferred  Preferred  Preferred  Preferred  Preferred 
  (Shares)  Stock  Stock  Stock  Stock  Stock 
                   
Balances at May 26, 1998 (inception)  -  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
Issuance of Series A preferred stock                        
 at $2.302 per share for cash, net of                        
 issuance costs of $24,000  429,350   964,200   -   -   -   964,200 
Balances at March 31, 2000  429,350   964,200   -   -   -   964,200 
Issuance of Series A preferred stock                        
 at $2.302 per share for cash, net of                        
 issuance costs of $5,500  2,580   500   -   -   -   500 
Issuance of Series B preferred stock at $5.545 per share for cash, including conversion of $575,000 face value of 7% convertible notes plus accrued interest of $3,800, net of unamortized discount of $70,800 and issuance costs of $39,800
  316,282   -   1,643,300   -   -   1,643,300 
Balances at March 31, 2001  748,212   964,700   1,643,300   -   -   2,608,000 
Issuance of Series B preferred stock                        
 at $5.545 per share for cash, net of                        
 issuance costs of $97,200  199,286   -   1,007,800   -   -   1,007,800 
Balances at March 31, 2002 and 2003  947,498   964,700   2,651,100   -   -   3,615,800 
Issuance of Series B-1 preferred
   stockat $5.545 for
   acquired in-process  research
   and development
                        
                        
  1,356,750   -   -   7,523,200   -   7,523,200 
Balances at March 31, 2004  2,304,248   964,700   2,651,100   7,523,200   -   11,139,000 
Issuance of Series C preferred stock at $6.00 per share for cash, including conversion of $1,655,000 face value of 10% convertible notes plus accrued interest of $408,600, net of unamortized note discount of $13,200 and issuance costs of $27,200
  390,327   -   -   -   2,301,500   2,301,500 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection with Series C preferred stock
  -   -   -   -   (25,500)  (25,500)
Balances at March 31, 2005  2,694,575   964,700   2,651,100   7,523,200   2,276,000   13,415,000 
Issuance of Series C preferred stock                        
 at $6.00 per share for cash, net of                        
 issuance costs of $20,700  143,331   -   -   -   839,300   839,300 
Issuance of Series C preferred stock                        
at $6.00 per share for services and in payment of interest on line of credit
  46,749   -   -   -   280,500   280,500 
Balances at March 31, 2006 through                        
 March 31, 2011  2,884,655   964,700   2,651,100   7,523,200   3,395,800   14,534,800 
Conversion of all series of preferred stock                     
     into VistaGen common stock in                        
    connection with the Merger  (2,884,655)  (964,700)  (2,651,100)  (7,523,200)  (3,395,800)  (14,534,800)
Balances at March 31, 2012  -  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
 
  Preferred  Series A  Series B  Series B-1  Series C  Total 
  Stock  Preferred  Preferred  Preferred  Preferred  Preferred 
  (Shares)  Stock  Stock  Stock  Stock  Stock 
                   
Balances at May 26, 1998 (inception)  -  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
Issuance of Series A preferred stock at $2.302 per share for cash, net of issuance costs of $29,500
  431,930   964,700   -   -   -   964,700 
Issuance of Series B preferred stock at $5.545 per share for cash, including conversion of $575,000 face value of 7% convertible notes plus accrued accrued interest of $3,800, net of unamortized note discount of $70,800 and issuance costs of $137,000
  515,568   -   2,651,100   -   -   2,651,100 
Issuance of Series B-1 preferred stock at $5.545 per share for acquired in-process research and development
  1,356,750   -   -   7,523,200   -   7,523,200 
Issuance of Series C preferred stock at $6.00 per share for cash, including conversion of $1,655,000 face value of 10% convertible notes plus accrued interest of $408,600, net of unamortized note discount of $13,200 and issuance costs of $47,900
  533,658   -   -   -   3,140,800   3,140,800 
Issuance of Series C preferred stock at $6.00 per share for services and in payment of interest on line of credit
  46,749   -   -   -   280,500   280,500 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection with Series C preferred stock
  -   -   -   -   (25,500)  (25,500)
Balances at March 31, 2006 through March 31, 2011  2,884,655   964,700   2,651,100   7,523,200   3,395,800   14,534,800 
Conversion of all series of VistaGen California preferred stock into common stock at May 11, 2011 in connection with the Merger
  (2,884,655)  (964,700)  (2,651,100)  (7,523,200)  (3,395,800)  (14,534,800)
Balances at May 11, 2011 through March 31, 2014  -  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT
Period from May 26, 1998 (inception) through March 31, 20122014
(Amounts in $100s,dollars, except share and per share amounts)

  Series A Preferred Stock  Common Stock  Additional Paid-in Capital  Treasury Stock   Notes Receivable from Sale of Stock  Deficit Accumulated During the Development Stage  Total Stockholders’ Deficit 
  Shares  Amount  Shares  Amount           
                            
Balances at May 26, 1998(inception)  -  $-   -  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
Sale of common stock for cash  -   -   1,211,086   1,200   24,900   -   -   -   26,100 
Fair value of common stock issued for services  -   -   403,375   400   359,400   -   -   -   359,800 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   481,700   -   -   -   481,700 
Common stock issued upon exercise of options from 1999 and 2008 Stock Incentive Plans and SAB Plan
  -   -   410,863   400   314,900   -   (149,800)  -   165,500 
Common stock issued for cancellation of accounts payable and accrued interest (FY 2010)
  -   -   1,646,792   1,600   2,468,600   -   -   -   2,470,200 
Accrued interest on notes receivable  -   -   -   -   -   -   (34,300)  -   (34,300)
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection with convertible and other notes issued in fiscal years 2001 through 2011, including Original Platinum Notes, and Series C preferred stock
  -   -   -   -   1,059,100   -   -   -   1,059,100 
Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   2,763,000   -   -   -   2,763,000 
Incremental fair value of note conversion options from debt modification (FY 2010 and 2011)
  -   -   -   -   1,891,200   -   -   -   1,891,200 
Forgiveness of accrued compensation and accrued interest payable to officers (FY 2007)
  -   -   -   -   799,900   -   -   -   799,900 
Effect of reverse stock split  (FY 2009)  -   -   (6)  -   -   -   -   -   - 
Effect of the Merger          1,569,000   1,600   (1,600)  -   -   -   - 
Cumulative effect of adopting new accounting standard  -   -   -   -   (293,700)  -   -   142,300   (151,400)
Net loss for fiscal years 1999 through 2011  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (42,715,300)  (42,715,300)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2011  -  $-   5,241,110  $5,200  $9,867,400  $-  $(184,100) $(42,573,000) $(32,884,500)
                                     
Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   1,591,300   -   -   -   1,591,300 
Accrued interest on notes receivable  -   -   -   -       -   (1,000)  -   (1,000)
Reclassification of warrant liability to equity  -   -   -   -   424,100   -   -   -   424,100 
Incremental value of Platinum note modification  -   -   -   -   1,070,600   -   -   -   1,070,600 
Incremental value of Morrison & Foerster warrant modification  -   -   -   -   58,700   -   -   -   58,700 
Stock issued in May 2011 Private Placement, net of $202,000 placement fees
  -   -   2,216,106   2,200   3,674,000   -   (500,000)  -   3,176,200 
Payments on note receivable for sale of stock  -   -                   250,000       250,000 
Stock issued upon conversion of convertible promissory notes  -   -   3,528,290   3,500   6,171,300   -   -   -   6,174,800 
Stock issued upon conversion of all series of VistaGen California preferred stock
  -   -   2,884,655   2,900   14,531,900   -   -   -   14,534,800 
Fair value of stock issued for services prior to the Merger  -   -   1,371,743   1,400   2,224,100   -   -   -   2,225,500 
Forgiveness of notes at the Merger  -   -   -   -   -   -   185,100   -   185,100 
Stock issued upon exercise of modified warrants (including Platinum exercises)
  -   -   3,121,259   3,100   3,426,200   -   -   -   3,429,300 
Incremental value of warrant modifications (including modification of Platinum warrants)
  -   -   -   -   1,028,900   -   -   -   1,028,900 
Fair value of bonus warrants under FY 2012 Discounted Warrant Exercise Program
  -   -   -   -   138,100   -   -   -   138,100 
Stock issued in Fall 2011 Follow-on Offering  -   -   63,570   100   111,200   -   -   -   111,300 
Stock issued upon exercise of options from the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan
  -   -   113,979   100   102,100   -   -   -   102,200 
Fair value of stock issued for services following the Merger  -   -   155,555   200   451,800   -   -   -   452,000 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   564,500   -   -   -   564,500 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued and beneficial conversion  feature in connection with 12% convertible notes
  -   -   -   -   461,700   -   -   -   461,700 
Stock issued in connection with note term extension  -   -   8,000   -   22,400   -   -   -   22,400 
Stock issued upon conversion of Platinum Note to equity (net of Platinum warrant exercise reflected above)
  231,090   200   -   -   3,387,700   -   -   -   3,387,900 
Common stock exchanged for Series A Preferred under agreements with Platinum: Common Stock Exchange Agreement
  45,980   -   -   -   750,600   (750,600)  -   -   - 
Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement  159,985   200   -       2,480,900   (2,481,100)          - 
Net loss for fiscal year 2012  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (12,209,500)  (12,209,500)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2012  437,055  $400   18,704,267  $18,700  $52,539,500  $(3,231,700) $(250,000) $(54,782,500) $(5,705,600)
                    
Notes
Receivable
  
Deficit Accumulated
    
  
Series A
Preferred Stock
  Common Stock  
Additional
Paid-in
  Treasury  from Sale of  
During the
Development
  
Total
Stockholders’
 
  Shares  Amount  Shares  Amount  Capital  Stock  Stock  Stage  Deficit 
Balances at May 26, 1998                           
 (inception)        -  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
Initial sale of common stock for cash to Founder  -   -   1,000,000   1,000   4,000   -   -   -   5,000 
Fair value of common stock issued for services  -   -   4,000   -   400   -   -   -   400 
Effect of the Merger          1,569,000   1,600   (1,600)  -   -   -   - 
Net loss for fiscal year 1999  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (230,900)  (230,900)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 1999  -   -   2,573,000   2,600   2,800   -   -   (230,900)  (225,500)
                                     
Sale of common stock for cash  -   -   200,000   200   19,800   -   -   -   20,000 
Fair value of common stock issued for services  -   -   104,375   100   21,800   -   -   -   21,900 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   39,500   -   -   -   39,500 
Net loss for fiscal year 2000  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (700,000)  (700,000)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2000  -   -   2,877,375   2,900   83,900   -   -   (930,900)  (844,100)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                                    
from 1999 Stock Incentive Plan  -   -   14,000   -   4,600   -   -   -   4,600 
Fair value of common stock issued for services  -   -   100,000   100   32,900   -   -   -   33,000 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   13,100   -   -   -   13,100 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection                                    
with 7% convertible notes  -   -   -   -   91,200   -   -   -   91,200 
Net loss for fiscal year 2001  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (1,809,000)  (1,809,000)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2001  -   -   2,991,375   3,000   225,700   -   -   (2,739,900)  (2,511,200)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                                    
from 1999 Stock Incentive Plan  -   -   1,511   -   500   -   -   -   500 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   33,100   -   -   -   33,100 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection                                    
with 10% convertible notes  -   -   -   -   7,300   -   -   -   7,300 
Net loss for fiscal year 2002  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (2,113,000)  (2,113,000)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2002  -   -   2,992,886   3,000   266,600   -   -   (4,852,900)  (4,583,300)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                                    
from 1999 Stock Incentive Plan  -   -   15,000   -   5,000   -   -   -   5,000 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   46,500   -   -   -   46,500 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection                                    
with 10% convertible notes  -   -   -   -   86,800   -   -   -   86,800 
Net loss for fiscal year 2003  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (502,600)  (502,600)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2003  -   -   3,007,886   3,000   404,900   -   -   (5,355,500)  (4,947,600)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                                    
stock options from 1999 Stock Incentive Plan  -   -   2,925   -   600   -   -   -   600 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   2,200   -   -   -   2,200 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection                                    
with 10% convertible notes  -   -   -   -   11,400   -   -   -   11,400 
Net loss for fiscal year 2004  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (8,755,500)  (8,755,500)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2004  -   -   3,010,811   3,000   419,100   -   -   (14,111,000)  (13,688,900)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                                    
from 1999 Stock Incentive Plan  -   -   10,708   -   4,800   -   -   -   4,800 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection                                    
with Series C preferred stock  -   -   -   -   25,500   -   -   -   25,500 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   1,500   -   -   -   1,500 
Net loss for fiscal year 2005  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (1,082,800)  (1,082,800)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2005  -   -   3,021,519   3,000   450,900   -   -   (15,193,800)  (14,739,900)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                                    
from 1999 Stock Incentive Plan  -   -   14,604   -   6,600   -   -   -   6,600 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   3,300   -   -   -   3,300 
Net loss for fiscal year 2006  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (1,772,100)  (1,772,100)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2006                                    
 (continued)  -  $-   3,036,123  $3,000  $460,800  $-  $-  $(16,965,900) $(16,502,100)
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT (continued)
Period from May 26, 1998 (inception) through March 31, 20122013
(Amounts in $100s, except share and per share amounts)
 
                    
Notes
Receivable
  
Deficit
Accumulated
    
  
Series A
Preferred Stock
  Common Stock  
Additional
Paid-in
  Treasury  from Sale of  
During the
Development
  
Total
Stockholders’
 
  Shares  Amount  Shares  Amount  Capital  Stock  Stock  Stage  Deficit 
Balances at March 31, 2006                           
 (continued)  -  $-   3,036,123  $3,000  $460,800  $-  $-  $(16,965,900) $(16,502,100)
Common stock issued upon exercise of options from                                    
1999 Stock Incentive
Plan and warrants for:
                                 
 Cash  -   -   33,465   100   27,600   -   -   -   27,700 
 Debt cancellation  -   -   108,418   100   112,700   -   -   -   112,800 
 Notes receivable  -   -   204,498   200   149,600   -   (149,800)  -   - 
Sale of common stock for cash  -   -   10,000   -   1,000   -   -   -   1,000 
Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   109,800   -   -   -   109,800 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   3,100   -   -   -   3,100 
Forgiveness of accrued compensation and                                    
accrued interest payable to officers  -   -   -   -   799,900   -   -   -   799,900 
Net loss for fiscal year 2007  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (1,999,800)  (1,999,800)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2007  -   -   3,392,504   3,400   1,664,500   -   (149,800)  (18,965,700)  (17,447,600)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                                    
from 1999 Stock Incentive Plan  -   -   2,234   -   1,900   -   -   -   1,900 
Common stock issued upon settlement of                                    
employment contract  -   -   20,000   -   42,000   -   -   -   42,000 
Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   247,600   -   -   -   247,600 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in                      -             
connection with Platinum Notes  -   -   -   -   221,000   -   -   -   221,000 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   224,000   -   -   -   224,000 
Accrued interest on notes receivable  -   -   -   -   -   -   (9,200)  -   (9,200)
Net loss for fiscal year 2008  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (5,446,700)  (5,446,700)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2008  -   -   3,414,738   3,400   2,401,000   -   (159,000)  (24,412,400)  (22,167,000)
                                     
Common stock issued upon exercise of options from                                    
2008 Stock Incentive
Plan and Scientific
                                 
Advisory Plan  -   -   3,500   -   1,000   -   -   -   1,000 
Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   108,200   -   -   -   108,200 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued in connection                                 
with Platinum Notes and incremental fair value                                 
of warrant modification  -   -   -   -   72,700   -   -   -   72,700 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   5,300   -   -   -   5,300 
Accrued interest on notes receivable  -   -   -   -   -   -   (7,900)  -   (7,900)
Effect of reverse stock split  -   -   (6)  -   -   -   -   -   - 
Net loss for fiscal year 2009  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (4,696,200)  (4,696,200)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2009  -   -   3,418,232   3,400   2,588,200   -   (166,900)  (29,108,600)  (26,683,900)
                                     
Cumulative effect of adopting new accounting                                    
standard  -   -   -   -   (293,700)  -   -   142,300   (151,400)
Common stock issued upon exercise of warrant  -   -   1,086   -   100   -   -   -   100 
Common stock issued for cancellation of                                    
accounts payable and accrued interest  -   -   1,646,792   1,600   2,468,600   -   -   -   2,470,200 
Incremental fair value of note conversion options                                 
from debt modification  -   -   -   -   828,500   -   -   -   828,500 
Common stock issued for services  -   -   175,000   200   262,300   -   -   -   262,500 
Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   668,500   -   -   -   668,500 
Fair value of warrants issued for services and                                    
incremental fair value of warrant modification  -   -   -   -   110,100   -   -   -   110,100 
Fair value of warrants issued in connection with                                    
7.5% Notes  -   -   -   -   291,200   -   -   -   291,200 
Accrued interest on notes receivable  -   -   -   -   -   -   (8,400)  -   (8,400)
Net loss for fiscal year 2010  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (4,124,500)  (4,124,500)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2010  -  $-   5,241,110  $5,200  $6,923,800  $-  $(175,300) $(33,090,800) $(26,337,100)
(continued)                                    
  Series A Preferred Stock  Common Stock  
Additional
Paid-in
  Treasury  
Notes
Receivable
from Sale of
  
Deficit
Accumulated
During the
Development
  
Total
Stockholders’
 
  Shares  Amount  Shares  Amount  Capital  Stock  Stock  Stage  Deficit 
Balances at March 31, 2012  437,055  $400   18,704,267  $18,700  $52,539,500  $(3,231,700) $(250,000) $(54,782,500) $(5,705,600)
                                     
Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   1,241,300   -   -   -   1,241,300 
Fair value of common stock issued for services  -   -   400,000   400   339,600   -   -   -   340,000 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -   -   -   -   106,200   -   -   -   106,200 
Shares issued upon exercise of modified warrants  -   -   549,056   500   274,000   -   -   -   274,500 
Incremental fair value of modified warrants  -   -   -   -   440,700   -   -   -   440,700 
Fair value of warrants issued upon exercise of moddified warrants  -   -   -   -   35,900   -   -   -   35,900 
Fair value of shares issued in settlement of accounts payable  -   -   103,235   100   103,100   -   -   -   103,200 
   
Common stock exchanged for Series A Preferred under 2012 Exchange Agreement with Platinum
  62,945   100   -   -   736,300   (736,400)  -   -   - 
Payment on note receivable from sale of stock  -   -   -   -   -   -   66,900   -   66,900 
Modification of note receivable from sale of stock  -   -   -   -   -   -   (26,000)  -   (26,000)
Incremental fair value of modified warrant and fair value of warrant issued in connection with Morrison & Foerster note payable restructuring
  -   -   -   -   998,500   -   -   -   998,500 
Fair value of warrant issued to Cato Holding Company in connection with note payable restructuring
  -   -   -   -   120,500   -   -   -   120,500 
Fair value of warrant issued to Cato Research, Ltd. in connection accounts payable restructuring
  -   -   -   -   486,200   -   -   -   486,200 
Fair value of warrant issued to University Health Network in connection with accounts payable restructure
  -   -   -   -   264,800   -   -   -   264,800 
Fair value of warrants issued to Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd. and University Health Network in connection with accrued interest on underlying notes
  -   -   -   -   49,400   -   -   -   49,400 
Sale of Units in Winter 2012 Private Placement, net  -   -   2,366,330   2,400   1,246,600   -   -   -   1,249,000 
Exchange of February 2012 convertible notes for Units  -   -   1,357,281   1,400   1,214,200   -   -   -   1,215,600 
Fair value of warrants issued to banker in connection with exchange of February 2012 convertible notes
  -   -   -   -   28,200   -   -   -   28,200 
Premium of fair value over face value of Exchange Note issued to Platinum in October 2012
  -   -   -   -   1,083,200   -   -   -   1,083,200 
Fair value of Series A Exchange Warrant issuable to Platinum recorded as a Warrant Liability
  -   -   -��  -   (3,068,200)  -   -   -   (3,068,200)
Proceeds allocated to beneficial conversion feature of Investment Notes issued to Platinum in October 2012, February 2013 and March 2013
  -   -   -   -   958,500   -   -   -   958,500 
Incremental fair value of warrant modifications in February 2013  -   -   -   -   67,500   -   -   -   67,500 
Net loss for fiscal year 2013  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (12,886,700)  (12,886,700)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2013  500,000  $500   23,480,169  $23,500  $59,266,000  $(3,968,100) $(209,100) $(67,669,200) $(12,556,400)
                                     
 Share-based compensation expense  -   -   -   -   1,137,300   -   -   -   1,137,300 
Proceeds from sale of common stock for cash, including exercises of warrants under Discount Warrant Exercise Program  -   -   655,016   700   335,200   -   -   -   335,900 
Beneficial conversion feature on note issued to Platinum in July 2013  -   -   -   -   100,700   -   -   -   100,700 
Payment on note receivable from sale of stock  -   -   -   -   -   -   11,000   -   11,000 
Allocated proceeds from sale of Units for cash under Winter 2013/2014 Private Placement, including beneficial conversion feature
  -   -   2,015,000   2,000   836,200   -   -   -   838,200 
Allocated proceeds from sale of Units for cash under Spring 2014 Private Placement, including beneficial conversion feature
  -   -   50,000   -   36,000               36,000 
 Incremental fair value of warrant modifications  -   -   -   -   204,300   -   -   -   204,300 
Fair value of warrants issued to Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd. and University Health Network in connection with accrued interest on underlying notes
  -   -   -   -   60,800   -   -   -   60,800 
 Net loss for fiscal year 2014  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (2,967,700)  (2,967,700)
                                     
Balances at March 31, 2014  500,000  $500   26,200,185  $26,200  $61,976,500  $(3,968,100) $(198,100) $(70,636,900) $(12,799,900)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT (continued)
Period from May 26, 1998 (inception) through March 31, 2012
(Amounts in $100s, except share and per share amounts)

                       
Notes
Receivable
  
Deficit
Accumulated
    
  
Series A
Preferred Stock
  Common Stock  
Additional
Paid-in
  Treasury  from Sale of  
During the
Development
  
Total
Stockholders’
 
  Shares     Amount  Shares  Amount  Capital  Stock  Stock  Stage  Deficit 
Balances at March 31, 2010                              
(continued)  -     $-   5,241,110  $5,200  $6,923,800  $-  $(175,300) $(33,090,800) $(26,337,100)
Share-based compensation expense  -      -   -   -   1,628,800   -   -   -   1,628,800 
Accrued interest on notes receivable  -      -   -   -   -   -   (8,800)  -   (8,800)
Fair value of warrants issued in connection with the August 2010                                       
Short-Term Notes  -      -   -   -   252,000   -   -   -   252,000 
Incremental fair value of note conversion options from debt                                       
modification  -      -   -   -   1,062,800   -   -   -   1,062,800 
Net loss for fiscal year 2011  -      -   -   -   -   -   -   (9,482,200)  (9,482,200)
                                        
Balances at March 31, 2011  -      -   5,241,110   5,200   9,867,400   -   (184,100)  (42,573,000)  (32,884,500)
                                        
Share-based compensation expense  -      -   -   -   1,591,300   -   -   -   1,591,300 
Accrued interest on notes receivable  -      -   -   -       -   (1,000)  -   (1,000)
Reclassification of warrant liability to equity  -      -   -   -   424,100   -   -   -   424,100 
Incremental value of Platinum note modification  -      -   -   -   1,070,600   -   -   -   1,070,600 
Incremental value of Morrison Foerster                                       
warrant modification  -      -   -   -   58,700   -   -   -   58,700 
Stock issued in May 2011 Private Placement, net of $202,000                                       
placement fees  -      -   2,216,106   2,200   3,674,000   -   (500,000)  -   3,176,200 
Payments on note receivable for sale of stock  -      -                   250,000       250,000 
Stock issued upon conversion of convertible                                       
promissory notes  -      -   3,528,290   3,500   6,171,300   -   -   -   6,174,800 
Stock issued upon conversion of all series                                       
of preferred stock  -      -   2,884,655   2,900   14,531,900   -   -   -   14,534,800 
Fair value of stock issued for services prior                                       
to the Merger  -   -   -   1,371,743   1,400   2,224,100   -   -   -   2,225,500 
Forgiveness of notes at the Merger  -       -   -   -   -   -   185,100   -   185,100 
Stock issued upon exercise of modified warrants (includes                                        
Platinum exercises)  -       -   3,121,259   3,100   3,426,200   -   -   -   3,429,300 
Incremental value of warrant modifications                                        
(including modification of Platinum warrants)  -       -   -   -   1,028,900   -   -   -   1,028,900 
Fair value of bonus warrants under Discounted                                        
Warrant Exercise Program  -       -   -   -   138,100   -   -   -   138,100 
Stock issued in Fall 2011 Follow-on Offering  -       -   63,570   100   111,200   -   -   -   111,300 
Stock issued upon exercise of options from the 1999 Stock                                        
Incentive Plan  -       -   113,979   100   102,100   -   -   -   102,200 
Fair value of stock issued for services                                        
following the Merger  -       -   155,555   200   451,800   -   -   -   452,000 
Fair value of warrants issued for services  -       -   -   -   564,500   -   -   -   564,500 
Proceeds allocated to warrants issued and                                        
beneficial conversion feature
in connection with
                                     
12% convertible notes  -       -   -   -   461,700   -   -   -   461,700 
Stock issued in connection with note term extension  -       -   8,000   -   22,400   -   -   -   22,400 
Stock issued upon conversion of Platinum Note to equity (net of  -       -                             
Platinum warrant                                        
exercise reflected above) 231,090       200   -   -   3,387,700   -   -   -   3,387,900 
Common stock exchanged
for Series A Preferred
                                     
under agreements with Platinum:                                        
Common Stock Exchange Agreement  45,980       -   -   -   750,600   (750,600)  -   -   - 
Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement  159,985       200   -       2,480,900   (2,481,100)          - 
Net loss for fiscal year 2012  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   (12,209,500)  (12,209,500)
                                         
Balances at March 31, 2012  437,055      $400   18,704,267  $18,700  $52,539,500  $(3,231,700) $(250,000) $(54,782,500) $(5,705,600)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(a development stage company)
NOTESS TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1.  Description of Business

VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“VistaGen”VistaGen or the “Company”Company”), is a biotechnology company focused on usingwith expertise in human proprietary pluripotent stem cell technology.  The Company is applying and developing its stem cell technology for drug rescue and cell therapy, was incorporated in Californiaregenerative medicine. The Company’s primary focus is on May 26, 1998 (inception date).  Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd. (“Excaliber”), a publicly-held company (formerly OTCBB: EXCA), was organized as a Nevada corporation on October 6, 2005 to market specialty gift baskets to real estate and health care professionals and organizations through the Internet.  Excaliber was not able to generate revenues from this concept and became inactive in 2007.

After assessing both the prospects associated withleveraging its original business plan and the strategic opportunities associated with a merger with a business seeking the perceived advantages of being a publicly held corporation, Excaliber’s Board of Directors agreed to pursue a strategic merger with VistaGen, as described in more detail below.

On May 11, 2011, Excaliber acquired all outstanding shares of VistaGen common stock for 6,836,452 shares of Excaliber common stock (the “Merger”), and assumed VistaGen’s pre-Merger obligations to contingently issue shares of common stock in accordance with stock option agreements, warrant agreements, and a convertible promissory note.  As part of the Merger, Excaliber repurchased 5,064,207 shares of its common stock from two stockholders for a nominal amount, leaving 784,500 shares of common stock outstanding at the date of the Merger.  The 6,836,452 shares issued to VistaGen stockholders in connection with the Merger represented approximately 90% of the outstanding shares of Excaliber’s common stock after the Merger.  As a result of the Merger, Excaliber adopted VistaGen’s business plan and  the business of VistaGen became the business of Excaliber. Shortly after the Merger:

·  Shawn K. Singh, J.D., Jon S. Saxe, J.D., H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D., Gregory A. Bonfiglio, J.D., and Brian J. Underdown, Ph.D., each a prior director of VistaGen, were appointed as directors of Excaliber;
·  Stephanie Y. Jones and Matthew L. Jones resigned as officers and directors of Excaliber;
·  The following persons were appointed as officers of Excaliber;
o  Shawn K. Singh, J.D., Chief Executive Officer,
o  H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D., President, Chief Scientific Officer, and
o  A. Franklin Rice, MBA, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary;
·  Excaliber’s directors approved a two-for-one (2:1) forward stock split of Excaliber’s common stock;
·  
Excaliber’s directors approved an increase in the number of shares of common stock Excaliber is authorized to issue from 200 million to 400 million shares, (see Note 9, Capital Stock);
·  Excaliber changed its name to “VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.”; and
·  Excaliber adopted VistaGen's fiscal year-end of March 31, with VistaGen as the accounting acquirer.

VistaGen, as the accounting acquirer in the Merger, recorded the Merger as the issuance of stock for the net monetary assets of Excaliber, accompanied by a recapitalization.  This accounting for the transaction was identical to that resulting from a reverse acquisition, except that no goodwill or other intangible assets were recorded.  A total of 1,569,000 shares of common stock, representing the 784,500 shares held by stockholders of Excaliber immediately prior to the Merger and effected for the post-Merger two-for-one forward stock split mentioned above, have been retroactively reflected as outstanding for all periods presented in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.  Additionally, the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets retroactively reflect the authorized capital stock and $0.001 par value of Excaliber’s common stock and the two-for one forward stock split after the Merger.

The consolidated financial statements in this report represent the activity of VistaGen (the California corporation) from May 26, 1998, and the consolidated activity of VistaGen (the California corporation) and Excaliber from May 11, 2011 (the date of the Merger) through March 31, 2012. The financial statements also include the accounts of VistaGen’s wholly-owned inactive subsidiaries, Artemis Neuroscience, Inc. (“Artemis”), a Maryland corporation, and VistaStem Canada, Inc., an Ontario corporation.

Primary Merger-Related Transactions

Immediately preceding and concurrent with the Merger:

·  
VistaGen sold 2,216,106 Units, consisting of one share of VistaGen's common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase one-fourth (1/4) of one share of VistaGen’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share, at a price of $1.75 per Unit in a private placement for aggregate gross offering proceeds of $3,878,197, including $2,369,194 in cash (“2011 Private Placement”).  See Note 9, Capital Stock, for a further description;

·  
Holders of certain promissory notes issued by VistaGen from 2006 through 2010 converted their notes totaling $6,174,793, including principal and accrued but unpaid interest, into 3,528,290 Units at $1.75 per Unit.  These Units were the same Units issued in connection with the 2011 Private Placement.  See Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable; and   
·  
All holders of VistaGen's then-outstanding 2,884,655 shares of preferred stock converted all of their preferred shares into 2,884,655 shares of VistaGen common stock.  See Note 9, Capital Stock.

VistaGen is a biotechnology company focused on using stem cell technology as a drug rescue product engineplatform, which it refers to generate new, safer variants (drug rescue variants) of once-promising small molecule drug candidates discovered, developed and ultimately discontinued by large pharmaceutical companies due to heart or liver toxicity concerns, despite positive efficacy data demonstrating their potential therapeutic and commercial benefits. thereby “rescuing” their substantial prior investment in research and development.  VistaGen plans to use its pluripotent stem cell technology to generate early indications, or predictions, of how humans will ultimately respond to new drug candidates before they are ever tested in humans.  In parallel with its drug rescue activities, VistaGen is funding pilot nonclinical studies focused on potential iPS Cell-based cell therapy applications of itsas Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube platform.

Early in, the first quarterhuman cells it produces, its novel, human cell-based bioassay systems, and medicinal chemistry to produce small molecule Drug Rescue Variants.  These are new, safer variants of calendar 2012, VistaGen began a Phase 1b clinical study of AV-101, apromising small molecule drug candidates previously discovered, developed and ultimately discontinued by pharmaceutical companies and others, after substantial investment and prior to market approval, due to unexpected heart or liver safety concerns.  The Company refers to these promising drug candidates that are now potentially suitable for drug rescue as Drug Rescue Candidates These Drug Rescue Candidates have already been tested extensively and validated by a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company for their therapeutic (efficacy) and commercial potential. The key commercial objective of the Company’s drug rescue strategy is to generate revenue from license, development and commercialization arrangements involving new, safer and proprietary Drug Rescue Variants that it produces with its contract medicinal chemistry collaborator and validates internally in its human cell-based bioassay systems prior to license. The Company anticipates that each validated lead Drug Rescue Variant will be suitable as a promising drug development program, either internally or in collaboration with a strategic partner. Through stem cell technology-based drug rescue, the Company intends to become a leading source of proprietary, small molecule drug candidates to the global pharmaceutical industry.
In parallel with its drug rescue activities, the Company is also interested in exploring ways to leverage its stem cell technology platform for regenerative medicine purposes, with emphasis on developing novel human disease models for discovery of small molecule drugs and biologics with regenerative and therapeutic potential. The Company’s regenerative medicine focus would be based on its expertise in human biology and differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells to develop functional adult human cells and tissues involved in human disease, including blood, bone, cartilage, heart, liver and insulin-producing pancreatic beta-islet cells. Among its key objectives will be to explore regenerative medicine opportunities through pilot nonclinical proof-of-concept studies, after which the Company intends to assess any potential opportunities for further development and commercialization of therapeutically and commercially promising regenerative medicine programs, either on its own or with strategic partners.
AV-101 is VistaGen's orally-available, small molecule prodrug candidate which has successfully completed Phase 1 clinical development in the Unites States for treatment of neuropathic pain. This study includes testing AV-101 in healthy volunteers using the intradermal capsaicin model of neuropathic pain.  This often-used induced neuropathic pain model will test whether AV-101 will reduce the increased pain sensitivity associated with a small injection under the skin of capsaicin, the material found in chili peppers. Neuropathic pain, a serious and chronic condition causing pain after an injury or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system that affects millions of people worldwide. The NIH awarded VistaGen approximately 1.8$8.8 million people in the U.S. alone. To date, VistaGen has been awarded over $8.9 million from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) for development of AV-101. VistaGen plans to completepreclinical and Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101. The Company intends to pursue potential opportunities for further clinical development and commercialization of AV-101 infor neuropathic pain, epilepsy and depression, on its own and with strategic partners. In the fourth quarter of calendar 2012, at which timeevent that it successfully completes a strategic partnering arrangement for AV-101, the Company will evaluateplans to use the net proceeds from such an arrangement to expand its strategic opportunities with respect to AV-101.stem cell technology-based drug rescue and regenerative medicine programs.

VistaGen is in the development stage and, since inception, has devoted substantially all of its time and efforts to human pluripotent stem cell technology research stem-cell basedand development, including, among other things, bioassay system development, small molecule drug development, creating, protecting and patenting intellectual property, recruiting personnel and raising working capital.


The Merger

VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a California corporation incorporated on May 26, 1998 (“VistaGen California”), is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd. (“Excaliber”), a publicly-held company (formerly OTCBB: EXCA) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on October 6, 2005. Pursuant to a strategic merger transaction on May 11, 2011, Excaliber acquired all outstanding shares of VistaGen California in exchange for 6,836,452 shares of the Company’s common stock and assumed all of VistaGen California’s pre-Merger obligations (the “Merger”). Shortly after the Merger, Excaliber’s name was changed to “VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.” (a Nevada corporation).

VistaGen California, as the accounting acquirer in the Merger, recorded the Merger as the issuance of common stock for the net monetary assets of Excaliber, accompanied by a recapitalization.  The accounting treatment for the Merger was identical to that resulting from a reverse acquisition, except that the Company recorded no goodwill or other intangible assets. A total of 1,569,000 shares of common stock, representing the shares held by stockholders of Excaliber immediately prior to the Merger and effected for a post-Merger two-for-one (2:1) stock split, have been retroactively reflected as outstanding for all periods presented in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company. Additionally, the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Company retroactively reflect the $0.001 par value of Excaliber’s common stock.
In October 2011, the Company’s stockholders amended the Company’s Articles of Incorporation to authorize the Company to issue up to 200 million shares of common stock and up to 10 million shares of preferred stock and to authorize the Company’s Board of Directors to prescribe the classes, series and the number of each class or series of preferred stock and the voting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of each class or series of preferred stock.  In December 2011, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the creation of a series of up to 500,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 (“Series A Preferred”), all of which are held by Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC (“Platinum”), currently the Company’s largest institutional security holder.  Pursuant to the Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement of October 11, 2012, as amended, between the Company and Platinum, Platinum has the right and option to exchange the 500,000 shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred it holds for (i) 15,000,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock, and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase 7,500,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share (see Note 10, Capital Stock).
The Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company in this Report represent the activity of VistaGen California from May 26, 1998, and the consolidated activity of VistaGen California and Excaliber (now VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation), from May 11, 2011 (the date of the Merger). The Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company included in this Report also include the accounts of VistaGen California’s two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Artemis Neuroscience, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“Artemis”), and VistaStem Canada, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Ontario, Canada (“VistaStem Canada”).

2.  Basis of Presentation and Going Concern

The accompanying consolidated financial statementsConsolidated Financial Statements of the Company have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. As a development stage company without sustainable revenues, VistaGen has experienced recurring losses and negative cash flows from operations. From inception through March 31, 2012,2014, VistaGen has a deficit accumulated during its development stage of $54,782,500.$70.6 million.  The Company expects these conditions to continue for the foreseeable future as it expands its Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™ platform and executes its drug rescue programs and, cell therapy businesspotentially, regenerative medicine programs.

Since its inception in May 1998 and through March 2014, the Company has financed its operations and technology acquisitions primarily through the issuance and sale of equity and debt securities, including convertible promissory notes and short-term promissory notes, for aggregate cash proceeds of approximately $26.0 million, as well as from an aggregate of approximately $16.4 million of government research grant awards, strategic collaboration payments and other revenues. Additionally, during the same period, the Company has issued equity securities with an approximate aggregate value at issuance of $12.6 million in non-cash settlements of certain liabilities, including liabilities for professional services rendered to the Company or as compensation for such services. At March 31, 2012 and 2011,2014, the Company had approximately $81,000 and $139,300, respectively, indid not have sufficient cash and cash equivalents. The Company does not believe such cash andor cash equivalents willto enable it to fund its operations, including expected cash expenditures of approximately $5 million, through the next twelve months. The Company anticipates that its cash expenditures during the next twelve months will be between $4 million and $6 million and it expects toTo meet its cash needs and fund its working capital requirements after March 31, 2014 and prior to a debt- or equity-based financing, through June 19, 2014, the Company entered into securities purchase agreements with accredited investors and institutions pursuant to which it sold to such accredited investors units of our securities (“Units”), for aggregate proceeds of $1,465,000, consisting of: (i) 10% subordinate convertible promissory notes in the aggregate face amount of $1,465,000 maturing on March 31, 2015; (ii) an aggregate of 1,465,000 restricted shares of its common stock; and (iii) warrants exercisable through December 31, 2016 to purchase an aggregate of 1,465,000 restricted shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share. 
In April 2013, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (as amended, “Securities Purchase Agreement”) with Autilion AG, a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland (“Autilion”), under which Autilion is contractually obligated to purchase an aggregate of 72.0 million restricted shares of the Company’s  common stock at a purchase price of $0.50 per share for aggregate cash proceeds to the Company of $36.0 million (the “Autilion Financing”).  To date, Autilion has completed only a nominal closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement. Therefore, Autilion is in default under the Securities Purchase Agreement, and the Company can provide no assurance that Autilion will complete a material closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement.   In the event that Autilion does not complete a material portion of the Autilion Financing pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement in the near term, the Company will need to obtain from $4.0 million to $6.0 million from alternative financing sources to execute its business plan over the next twelve to fifteen months. Substantial additional financing may not be available to the Company on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. In the event the Company is unable to obtain substantial additional financing on a timely basis, its business, financial condition, and results of operations may be harmed, the price of its stock may decline, and it may not be able to continue as a going concern.
To meet its working capital needs during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, the Company issued an additional Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note to Platinum, and sold Units consisting of convertible promissory notes, shares of its restricted common stock and warrants to purchase restricted shares of its common stock, to accredited investors in private placements as described more completely in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, and Note 10, Capital Stock. To provide working capital for operations from March 31, 2014 through the date of this report, the Company completed private placements of its securities to Platinum and other accredited investors resulting in aggregate cash proceeds of $1,465,000, as described in Note 17, Subsequent Events.
To the extent necessary, the Company may also seek to meet its future cash needs and fund its working capital requirements through a combination of additional private placements of its securities, which may include both debt and equity securities, research and development collaborations, license fees, and government grant awards. Alternatively, the Company may seek to raise additional capital through a registered public offering of its securities.  In May 2014, the Company filed a Registration Statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission covering the potential sale of shares of its common stock in a registered public offering. Additionally, the Company believes that its participation in strategic collaborations.collaborations, including licensing transactions, may provide additional cash in support of its future working capital requirements.  If the Company is unable to obtain sufficient financing from the Autilion Financing or alternative sources, it may be required to reduce, defer, or discontinue certain of its research and development activities or it may not be able to continue as a going concern entity.concern.  The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Since March 31, 2012, the Company has received cash proceeds and satisfaction of amounts due for services in lieu of payments by the Company in the aggregate amount of $269,800 as a result of the exercise of previously-outstanding warrants by certain warrant holders.  In June 2012, the Company entered into an agreement pursuant to which it will issue two secured convertible promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 to Platinum during July 2012.  See Note 16, Subsequent Events, for a further description of these transactions.

 
3.  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.  Significant estimates include, but are not limited to, those relating to stock-based compensation, revenue recognition, share-based compensation, and the assumptions used to value warrants, warrant modifications and the previous put option, note term extension, and warrant liabilities.

Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the Company’s accounts, and the accounts of itsVistaGen California’s wholly-owned inactive subsidiaries, Artemis Neuroscience, Inc. (“Artemis”), a Maryland corporation,Neurosciences and VistaStem Canada, Inc., an Ontario corporation.Canada.
 
Reverse Stock Split and Change in Authorized Number of Shares

Upon the recommendation of VistaGen’s Board of Directors and the approval of its shareholders at its Annual Shareholders Meeting on December 19, 2008, VistaGen filed an Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation on January 20, 2009 pursuant to which each outstanding share of common stock was reverse-split and exchanged for one-tenth of a share of common stock, and each outstanding share of preferred stock was reverse-split and exchanged for one-tenth of a preferred share. Following that reverse stock split, VistaGen was authorized to issue up to 75,000,000 shares of its common stock and 20,000,000 shares of its preferred stock.  All pre-Merger share and per share information in the accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes reflects the reverse stock split.

Effective with the Merger, the Company was authorized to issue up to 400,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value and no shares of preferred stock.  On October 28, 2011, the Company held a special meeting of its stockholders at which the stockholders approved a proposal to amend the Company’s Articles of Incorporation to (1) reduce the number of authorized shares of the Company’s common stock from 400,000,000 shares to 200,000,000 shares; (2) authorize the Company to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock; and (3) authorize the Company’s Board of Directors to prescribe the classes, series and the number of each class or series of preferred stock and the voting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of each class or series of preferred stock.  In December 2011, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the creation of a series of up to 500,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, par value $0.001.  See Note 9, Capital Stock.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents are considered to be highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment is stated at cost. Repairs and maintenance costs are expensed in the period incurred. Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The estimated useful lives of property and equipment range from five to seven years.

Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets

The Company evaluates its long-lived assets, for impairment, primarily property and equipment, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying value may not be recoverable from the estimated future cash flows expected to result from their use or eventual disposition. If the estimates of future undiscounted net cash flows are insufficient to recover the carrying value of the assets, the Company records an impairment loss in the amount by which the carrying value of the assets exceeds their fair value. If the assets are determined to be recoverable, but the useful lives are shorter than originally estimated, the Company depreciates or amortizes the net book value of the assets over the newly determined remaining useful lives. The Company has not recorded any impairment charges to date.


Revenue Recognition

TheAlthough the Company generatesdoes not currently have any such arrangements, it has historically generated revenue principally from collaborative research and development arrangements, technology access fees,transfer agreements, including strategic licenses, and government grants. Revenue arrangements with multiple components are divided into separate units of accounting if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered component has stand-alone value to the customer. Consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting based on their respective selling prices.  The selling price for each unit is based on vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, if available, third party evidence if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor third party evidence is available.  The applicable revenue recognition criteria are then applied to each of the units.

The Company recognizes revenue when the four basic criteria of revenue recognition are met: (1)(i) a contractual agreement exists; (2)(ii) the transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (3)(iii) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (4)(iv) collectability is reasonably assured. For each source of revenue, the Company complies with the above revenue recognition criteria in the following manner:

Collaborative arrangements typically consist of non-refundable and/or exclusive up front technology access fees, cost reimbursements for specific research and development spending, and various milestone and future product royalty payments.  If the delivered technology does not have stand-alone value, the amount of revenue allocable to the delivered technology is deferred.  Non-refundable upfront fees with stand-alone value that are not dependent on future performance under these agreements are recognized as revenue when received, and are deferred if the Company has continuing performance obligations and has no objective and reliable evidence of the fair value of those obligations.  The Company recognizes non-refundable upfront technology access fees under agreements in which it has a continuing performance obligation ratably, on a straight-line basis, over the period in which the Company is obligated to provide services.  Cost reimbursements for research and development spending are recognized when the related costs are incurred and when collectability is reasonably assured.  Payments received related to substantive, performance-based “at-risk” milestones are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone event specified in the underlying contracts, which represent the culmination of the earnings process.  Amounts received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue until the technology is transferred, costs are incurred, or a milestone is reached.

Technology license agreements typically consist of non-refundable upfront license fees, annual minimum access fees, development and/or regulatory milestone payments and/or royalty payments. Non-refundable upfront license fees and annual minimum payments received with separable stand-alone values are recognized when the technology is transferred or accessed, provided that the technology transferred or accessed is not dependent on the outcome of the continuing research and development efforts. Otherwise, revenue is recognized over the period of the Company’s continuing involvement.
involvement, and, in the case of development and/or regulatory milestone payments, when the applicable event triggering such a payment has occurred.

Government grants, which support the Company’s research efforts on specific projects, generally provide for reimbursement of approved costs as defined in the terms of grant awards. Grant revenue is recognized when associated project costs are incurred.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses include internal and external costs. Internal costs include salaries and employment related expenses of the Company’s internal scientific personnel and direct project costs. External research and development expenses consist of sponsored stem cell research and development costs, costs associated with non-clinical and clinical drug rescue and non-clinicaldevelopment activities, including development of AV-101, the Company’s lead drug development candidate which has successfully completed Phase 1 development, and costs related to protection of the Company’s intellectual property, including, but not limited to, application and prosecution of patents related to the Company’s stem cell technology platform, Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube, and AV-101. All such research and development costs are charged to expense as incurred.

Share-BasedStock-Based Compensation

The Company recognizes compensation cost for all share-basedstock-based awards to employees in its financial statements based on their grant date fair value. Share-basedStock-based compensation expense is recognized over the period during which the employee is required to perform service in exchange for the award, which generally represents the scheduled vesting period.period of options and warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company has no awards with market or performance conditions. For equitystock-based awards to non-employees, the Company re-measures the fair value of thesuch awards as they vest and the resulting value is recognized as an expense during the period over which theapplicable services are performed.

Corporate Financing and Merger Costsperformed by the recipient.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, general and administrative expenses include $2.5 million in costs associated with the Company’s corporate financing and merger activities focused on becoming a public company.
Income Taxes

The Company accounts for income taxes using the asset and liability approach for financial reporting purposes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. Valuation allowances are established, when necessary, to reduce the deferred tax assets to an amount expected to be realized.

Concentrations of Credit Risk

Financial instruments, which potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk, consist principally of cash and cash equivalents. The Company’s investment policies limit any such investments to short-term, low-risk investments. The Company deposits cash and cash equivalents with quality financial institutions and is insured to the maximum of federal limitations. Balances in these accounts may exceed federally insured limits at times.

Comprehensive Loss

There are no components of other comprehensive loss other than net loss, and accordingly the Company’s comprehensive loss is equivalent to net loss for the periods presented.

Loss per Common Share

Basic loss per share of common stock excludes dilution and is computed by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period. Diluted loss per share of common stock reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue shares of common stock were exercised or converted into shares of common stock. For all periods presented, potentially dilutive securities are excluded from the computation in loss periods, as their effect would be antidilutive.  A total of 1,569,000 shares of common stock, representing the 784,500 shares held by stockholders of Excaliber immediately prior to the Merger and effected for the post-Merger two-for-one forward stock split described in Note 1, Description of Business, have been retroactively reflected as outstanding for the entire fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and for the period prior to the Merger in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 for purposes of determining basic and diluted loss per common share in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Potentially dilutive securities excluded in determining diluted net loss per common share are as follows:

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
All series of preferred stock issued and outstanding  4,370,550   2,884,655 
Outstanding options under the 2008 and 1999 Stock Incentive Plans and 1998 Scientific Advisory Board Plan  4,805,771   3,949,153 
Outstanding warrants to purchase common stock  4,126,589   2,265,598 
         
Total  13,302,910   9,099,406 


Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

Effective April 1, 2011, the Company adopted the Accounting Standards Update, (“ASU”) No. 2009-13 Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements (“ASU No. 2009-13”) on a prospective basis. ASU No. 2009-13 applies to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements that are currently within the scope of ASC Topic 605-25. ASU No. 2009-13 provides principles and application guidance on whether multiple deliverables exist and how the arrangement should be separated and the consideration allocated. ASU No. 2009-13 requires an entity to allocate revenue in an arrangement using estimated selling prices of deliverables, if a vendor does not have vendor-specific objective evidence or third party evidence of selling price. The update eliminates the use of the residual method and requires an entity to allocate revenue using the relative selling price method and also significantly expands the disclosure requirements for multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. The adoption of ASU No. 2009-13 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012. However, the adoption of ASU No. 2009-13 may result in different accounting treatment for future collaboration arrangements than the accounting treatment applied to previous and existing collaboration arrangements.

Effective April 1, 2011, the Company adopted ASU No. 2010-17, Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition. Under the milestone method, contingent consideration received from the achievement of a substantive milestone is recognized in its entirety in the period in which the milestone is achieved. A milestone is defined as an event (i) that can only be achieved based in whole or in part on either the entity’s performance or on the occurrence of a specific outcome resulting from the entity’s performance, (ii) for which there is substantive uncertainty at the date the arrangement is entered into that the event will be achieved, and (iii) that would result in additional payments being due to the entity. A milestone does not include events for which the occurrence is contingent solely on the passage of time or solely on a collaboration partner’s performance. A milestone is substantive if the consideration earned from the achievement of the milestone is consistent with the Company’s performance required to achieve the milestone or the increase in value to the collaboration resulting from the Company’s performance, relates solely to the Company’s past performance, and is reasonable relative to all of the other deliverables and payments within the arrangement. The adoption of ASU No. 2010-17 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income,” which was issued to enhance comparability between entities that report under U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), and to provide a more consistent method of presenting non-owner transactions that affect an entity’s equity. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity and requires an entity to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement or in two separate but consecutive statements. This pronouncement is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption of the new guidance is permitted and full retrospective application is required. The Company does not expect that the adoption of this ASU will have any material impact on its results of operations or financial position.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “ Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). ” This pronouncement was issued to provide a consistent definition of fair value and ensure that the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are similar between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. ASU 2011-04 changes certain fair value measurement principles and enhances the disclosure requirements particularly for Level 3 fair value measurements. This pronouncement is effective for reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011, with early adoption prohibited. The new guidance will require prospective application. The Company is currently evaluating the impact, if any, that the adoption of this pronouncement may have on its results of operations or financial position.

4.  Fair Value Measurements

On April 1, 2008, the Company adopted the principles of fair value accounting as they relate to its financial assets and financial liabilities. Fair value is defined as the estimated exit price received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date rather than an entry price which represents the purchase price of an asset or liability. Where available, fair value is based on observable market prices or parameters or derived from such prices or parameters. Where observable prices or inputs are not available, valuation models are applied. These valuation techniques involve some level of management estimation and judgment, the degree of which is dependent on several factors, including the instrument’s complexity. The required fair value hierarchy that prioritizes observable and unobservable inputs used to measure fair value into three broad levels is described as follows:

Level 1 — Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for assets or liabilities. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 inputs.

Level 2 — Inputs other than Level 1 that are observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs (i.e., inputs that reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in estimating the fair value of an asset or liability) are used when little or no market data is available. The fair value hierarchy gives the lowest priority to Level 3 inputs.

A financial instrument’s categorization within the valuation hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Where quoted prices are available in an active market, securities are classified as Level 1 of the valuation hierarchy. If quoted market prices are not available for the specific financial instrument, then the Company estimates fair value by using pricing models, quoted prices of financial instruments with similar characteristics or discounted cash flows. In certain cases where there is limited activity or less transparency around inputs to valuation, financial assets or liabilities are classified as Level 3 within the valuation hierarchy.

The Company does not use derivative instruments for hedging of market risks or for trading or speculative purposes. In conjunction with the issuance of the Platinum Notes (see Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable), the Company determined that i) the cash payment option or put option, which provided the lender with the right to require the Company to repay part of the debt at a 25% premium, and ii) the note term extension option, which provided the lender with the right to extend the maturity date one year, are embedded derivatives that should be bifurcated and accounted for separately as liabilities. Also, in conjunction with the Platinum Notes, the Company issued warrants to purchase 560,000 shares of its common stock. These warrants included certain exercise price adjustment features pursuant to which the Company determined that the warrants were liabilities to be recorded at their estimated fair value. The Company determined the fair value of the i) put option and note term extension option using an internal valuation model with Level 3 inputs and ii) warrants using a lattice model with Level 3 inputs. Inputs used to determine fair value included the estimated value of the underlying common stock at the valuation measurement date, the remaining contractual term of the notes, risk-free interest rates, expected volatility of the price of the underlying common stock, and the probability of a qualified financing. Changes in the fair value of these liabilities were recognized as a non-cash charge or income in other income (expense) in the consolidated statements of operations.
The fair value hierarchy for liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis is as follows:

     
Fair Value Measurements at Reporting
Date Using
 
     Quoted Prices       
     in Active  Significant    
     Markets for  Other  Significant 
  Total  Identical  Observable  Unobservable 
  Carrying  Assets  Inputs  Inputs 
  Value  (Level 1)  (Level 2)  (Level 3) 
March 31, 2012:            
             
     Put option and note term extension option liabilities
 $-  $-  $-  $- 
 Warrant liability $-  $-  $-  $- 
March 31, 2011:                
                 
     Put option and note term extension option liabilities
 $90,800  $-  $-  $90,800 
 Warrant liability $417,100  $-  $-  $417,100 
During the fiscal years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, there were no significant changes to the valuation models used for purposes of determining the fair value of the Level 3 put option and note term extension option liabilities and warrant liability.

The changes in Level 3 liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows:
  Fair Value Measurements Using Significant 
  Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) 
  Put Option and       
  Note Term       
  Extension Option  Warrant    
  Liabilities  Liability  Total 
Balance at March 31, 2010 $150,200  $403,600  $553,800 
             
 Mark to market (gain) loss included in net loss  (217,400)  13,500   (203,900)
 Recognition of liability and note discount upon modification of Platinum Notes  158,000   -   158,000 
             
Balance at March 31, 2011  90,800   417,100   507,900 
             
 Mark to market loss included in net loss  71,000   7,000   78,000 
 Reclassification of liability to note discount on Platinum Notes upon Merger  (161,800)  -   (161,800)
 Reclassification of remaining warrant liability to equity  -   (424,100)  (424,100)
             
Balance at March 31, 2012 $-  $-  $- 

No assets or other liabilities were carried at fair value as of March 31, 2012 or 2011.

5.  Property and Equipment

Property and equipment consists of the following:

  March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
 Laboratory equipment $515,800  $494,900 
 Computers and network equipment  12,900   60,700 
 Office furniture and equipment  75,600   75,100 
   604,300   630,700 
         
 Accumulated depreciation and amortization  (529,800)  (543,000)
         
 Property and equipment, net $74,500  $87,700 

In February 2004, the Company granted a security interest covering its laboratory and computer equipment in conjunction with notes payable under a line of credit agreement.  The security interest was released in April 2011 in connection with the consolidation of certain notes payable (see Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable).

6.  AV-101 Acquisition

In November 2003, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Agreement”), the Company acquired Artemis, a private company also in the development stage, for the purpose of acquiring exclusive licenses to patents related to the use and function of AV-101, a drug candidate then in preclinical development which may have the potential to treat  neuropathic pain and other neurological diseases depression, epilepsy, Huntington’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Pursuant to the Agreement, each share of common stock of Artemis was converted into the right to receive 0.9045 shares of the Company’s Series B-1 preferred stock, resulting in the Company’s issuing 1,356,750 shares of its Series B-1 preferred stock. The shares of Series B-1 preferred stock were valued at $5.545 per share, and accordingly the purchase price of all outstanding shares of Artemis was $7,523,200. The total purchase price was allocated to AV-101 acquired in-process research and development and was expensed subsequent to the acquisition, since AV-101 required further research and development before the Company could commence clinical trials and did not have any proven alternative future uses.

The NIH awarded the Company $4.3 million to support preclinical development of AV-101 during fiscal years 2006 through 2008, culminating in the submission in November 2008 of its Investigational New Drug ("IND") application to conduct Phase 1 human clinical testing of AV-101 for neuropathic pain. In April 2009, the NIH awarded the Company a $4.2 million grant to support the Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101, and subsequently increased the grant to $4.6 million in July 2010. The Company completed the Phase 1a clinical trial of AV-101 during the third calendar quarter of 2011 and initiated Phase 1b clinical testing in the first calendar quarter of 2012.

7.  Accrued Expenses

Accrued expenses consist of: 

  March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
 Accrued professional services $107,400  $88,200 
 Accrued research and development expenses        
    (including $1,050,000 payable to UHN by        
    issuance of 700,000 shares of stock in 2011)  237,500   1,089,000 
 Accrued vacation pay and other compensation  229,900   234,900 
 Accrued placement agent fees  50,000   - 
 All other  32,500   9,800 
         
  $657,300  $1,421,900 
8.  Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable
The following table summarizes the loan activity for the Company’s convertible promissory notes and other notes payable:
                 Conversion to/       
  Balance              Exchange for  Balance  
Accrued
Interest
 
  3/31/2011  Additions  Payments  Amortization  Reclassifications  Equity  3/31/2012  3/31/2012 
Convertible Promissory Notes:                        
2006/2007 Notes $1,837,400  $-  $-  $-  $-  $(1,837,400) $-  $- 
Platinum Notes  4,000,000   -   -   -   -   (4,000,000)  -   - 
Note discounts  (674,000)  (908,900)  -   908,900   -   674,000   -   - 
Platinum Notes, net  3,326,000   (908,900)  -   908,900   -   (3,326,000)  -   - 
2008/2010 Notes  2,971,800   -   -   -   -   (2,971,800)  -   - 
12% convertible
promissory notes
  -   500,000   -   -   -   -   500,000   5,300 
Note discount  -   (495,100)  -   (4,200)  -   -   (499,300)  - 
12% convertible notes, net  -   4,900   -   (4,200)  -   -   700   5,300 
                                 
Total convertible promissory notes, net $8,135,200  $(904,000) $-  $904,700  $-  $(8,135,200) $700  $5,300 
Non-interest bearing promissory notes                             
August 2010 Short-Term Notes $1,120,000  $-  $-  $-  $(280,000) $(840,000) $-  $- 
Note discount  (14,300)  -   -   14,300   -   -   -   - 
Non-interest bearing notes, net $1,105,700  $-  $-  $14,300  $(280,000) $(840,000) $-  $- 
Other Notes Payable                                
 Related parties:                                
7% Notes payable to Officer and                                
Directors for
legal and consulting
                             
services (1)
 $34,400  $5,100  $(26,400) $-  $-  $(13,100) $-  $- 
7 % Note payable to Cato Holding Co. -   90,800   (72,500)  -   149,900   -   168,200   6,900 
Note discount  -   (35,900)  -   11,600   -   -   (24,300)  - 
Total current notes payable to                             
related parties $34,400  $60,000  $(98,900) $11,600  $149,900  $(13,100) $143,900  $6,900 
Notes payable to Cato BioVentures                             
                under line of credit, non-current $170,000  $-  $-  $-  $(170,000) $-  $-  $- 
7 % Note payable to
Cato Holding Co.
                             
    non-current $-  $-  $-  $-  $125,100  $-   125,100  $- 
Accrued officer’s compensation                             
Non-interest bearing notes payable to                                
                Officer for deferred salary $57,000  $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $57,000  $- 
                                 
Unrelated parties, current portion:                                
7.0% Notes payable $-  $7,200  $(118,400) $-  $175,000  $-  $63,800  $400 
7.5% Notes payable to vendors for                             
ac                accounts payable
                    converted to notes
                             
                payable:                                
Burr, Pilger, Mayer  5,600   -   -   -   500   -   6,100   - 
Desjardins  -   -   -   -   67,000   -   67,000   - 
McCarthy Tetrault  -   -   -   -   182,800   -   182,800   - 
Morrison Foerster  -   -   -   -   111,800   -   111,800   - 
   5.5%  and 10% Notes payable to insurance                                
premium
financing
company
  5,400   88,500   (89,300)  -   -   -   4,600   - 
10% Notes payable
to vendors for
                             
accounts payable converted to notes                             
payable  140,500   11,400   (66,000)  -   60,100   -   146,000   16,800 
Total current notes payable to                             
unrelated
parties
 $151,500  $107,100  $(273,700) $-  $597,200  $-  $582,100  $17,200 
Unrelated parties, long term portion:                             
7.5% Notes payable to vendors for                             
accounts payable
converted to notes
                             
payable:                                
Burr, Pilger, Mayer $92,700  $7,100  $(12,000) $-  $(500) $-  $87,300  $1,100 
Desjardins  -   262,300   (38,000)  -   (67,000)  -   157,300   2,800 
McCarthy Tetrault  -   554,400   (95,000)  -   (182,800)  -   276,600   5,700 
Morrison Foerster  2,133,400   526,700   (240,000)  -   (111,800)  -   2,308,300   37,900 
Note discount  (236,600)  (58,700)  -   66,400   -   -   (228,900)  - 
7.5% Notes, net  1,989,500   1,291,800   (385,000)  66,400   (362,100)  -   2,600,600   47,500 
10% Notes payable
to vendors for
                             
accounts payable
converted to notes
                             
payable  79,500   -   -   -   (60,100)  -   19,400   - 
Total long term
notes payable to
                             
     unrelated parties $2,069,000  $1,291,800  $(385,000) $66,400  $(422,200) $-  $2,620,000  $47,500 
(1)     Includes two notes with principal balances of $26,400 and $8,000 and corresponding accrued interest of $9,600 and $6,400, respectively, as of March 31, 2011.

2006/2007 Notes

During 2006 and 2007, the Company issued an aggregate of $1,837,400 in convertible promissory notes (the “2006/2007 Notes”), including $1,025,000 to individual investors, and $812,400 to Cato BioVentures (“CBV”), a related party, which agreed to convert $812,400 of the Company’s accounts payable and accrued interest into the notes as partial payment for contract research services rendered by Cato Research Ltd. (“CRL”), an affiliate of CBV (see Note 14, Related Party Transactions). The 2006/2007 Notes were to bear interest at an annual rate of 10%, were unsecured, and had an original maturity date of August 31, 2007, which was subsequently extended to April 30, 2011. The 2006/2007 Notes and accrued interest were to automatically convert into shares of equity securities issued upon the closing of an equity or equity based financing or series of equity based financings resulting in gross proceeds to the Company totaling at least $5.0 million and whereby the Company became a publicly traded company (a “Qualified Financing”) or upon the sale of the Company or its assets. The 2006/2007 Notes and accrued interest would convert into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price per share equal to the price per share of the stock sold in the Qualified Financing or, in the case of a sale of the Company or substantially all of its assets, at $6.00 per share.

Along with the issuance of the 2006/2007 Notes, each noteholder was also issued a contingently exercisable warrant to purchase that number of shares of common stock determined by dividing the principal amount of such noteholder’s 2006/2007 Notes by the price per share sold in the Qualified Financing. The warrants were exercisable upon a Qualified Financing at an exercise price equal to the lower of: (i) $6.00; or (ii) the price per share in a Qualified Financing. The warrants expire on December 31, 2013 or 10 days preceding the closing date of the sale of the Company or its assets. The Company determined that the warrants should be accounted for as equity and had a nominal value at the date of issuance.
As a condition of the Company’s issuance of the Platinum Notes (as described below), the holders of the 2006/2007 Notes agreed to (i) extend the maturity date of the Notes to June 30, 2008; (ii) use the definition of “Qualified Financing” included in the Platinum Notes for automatic conversion; (iii) extend the expiration of the Warrants to June 30, 2012 to be co-terminus with the warrants issued with the Platinum Notes; (iv) eliminate a provision causing the Warrants to expire upon completion of the Company’s initial public offering; (v) have a warrant exercise price equal to the lesser of $6.00 or the share price in a Qualified Financing; and (vi) incorporate the “call” feature into the Warrants.

On May 16, 2008, in conjunction with the issuance by the Company of the 2008/2010 Notes (described below), the 2006/2007 Noteholders agreed to further extend the maturity of the 2006/2007 Notes to December 31, 2009 and the expiration date of the Warrants to December 31, 2013. On December 9, 2009, the Company and the Noteholders amended the 2006/2007 Notes to extend the maturity date to December 31, 2010. In December 2010, the Company and the Noteholders again amended the 2006/2007 Notes to extend the maturity date to April 30, 2011.  The modifications to the 2006/2007 Notes and warrants did not have any accounting consequence as the Notes and warrants were contingently convertible and exercisable, and the effect of the modification on the fair value of the note conversion feature and warrants was not significant. The effective annual interest rate on the Notes was 8.52% as a result of the May 16, 2008 modification, 7.71% as a result of the December 15, 2009 modification and 7.32% as a result of the December 2010 modification.

On May 11, 2011, and concurrent with the Merger, the 2006/2007 Notes in the amount of $2,559,584, including principal and accrued interest, were converted into 1,462,559 Units (as described in Note 9, Capital Stock), at a price of $1.75 per Unit, consisting of 1,462,559 shares of the Company’s common stock and three-year warrants to purchase 365,640 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.  The warrants expire on May 11, 2014.  The associated contingently exercisable warrants, originally issued with the 2006/2007 Notes, became exercisable for 1,049,897 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $1.75 per share.

Platinum Notes

On June 19, 2007, the Company completed a $2.5 million convertible promissory note offering that was funded by a single investor, Platinum Long Term Growth Fund VII (“Platinum”). On July 2, 2007, the Company completed an additional $1.25 million convertible promissory note offering with the same investor (collectively, the “2007 Platinum Notes”). The 2007 Platinum Notes were to bear interest at an annual rate of 10%, were unsecured and had an original maturity date of June 30, 2008. On May 16, 2008, in conjunction with the issuance of the 2008/2010 Notes (described below), the maturity date of the 2007 Platinum Notes was extended to December 31, 2009. On December 30, 2009, Platinum agreed to extend the maturity date of the 2007 Platinum Notes to December 31, 2010. In December 2010, Platinum agreed to extend the maturity date of the 2007 Platinum Notes to June 30, 2011, and in May 2011 Platinum agreed to extend the maturity date to June 30, 2012.  Under the terms of the 2007 Platinum Notes, Platinum had the right, in its sole discretion, to extend the note maturity by one year, to June 30, 2013

On May 16, 2008, the Company issued an additional $250,000 convertible promissory note to Platinum (the “2008 Platinum Note”, and together with the 2007 Platinum Notes, the “Original Platinum Notes”). The terms of the 2008 Platinum Note were substantially the same as those of the 2007 Platinum Notes, with a maturity date of December 31, 2009, which was later extended to December 31, 2010. In December 2010, the 2008 Platinum Note maturity date was extended to June 30, 2011, and in May 2011, the maturity date was extended to June 30, 2012.  The 2006/2007 Notes, the 2007 Platinum Notes, and the 2008/2010 Notes (as defined below) ranked senior in preference or priority to all outstanding and future indebtedness of the Company. The agreement pursuant to which the Original Platinum Notes were issued contained certain restrictive covenants which, among other things, prohibited the Company from incurring certain amounts of indebtedness, paying dividends or redeeming its preferred or common stock without Platinum’s prior written consent.

Principal and interest of the 2007 Platinum Notes was to be automatically converted, subject to certain conditions, upon the closing of a Qualified Financing. The number of shares issuable to Platinum upon conversion of the 2007 Platinum Notes was to be determined in accordance with one of the following two formulas, as selected by Platinum in its sole discretion: (i) the outstanding principal plus accrued but unpaid interest of each 2007 Platinum Note as of the closing of the Qualified Financing multiplied by 1.25 and divided by the per share price of shares sold in the Qualified Financing; or (ii) the outstanding principal plus accrued but unpaid interest of each 2007 Platinum Note as of the closing of the Qualified Financing divided by the per share price of a share assuming the Company’s pre-Qualified Financing value was $30 million, on a fully-diluted basis. In lieu of converting the then current outstanding balance due under the 2007 Platinum Notes, Platinum could, at its option, elect before converting to receive a cash payment as partial satisfaction of the outstanding balance of the 2007 Platinum Notes. The cash payment was either $750,000 or $1,125,000, depending on the amount that would have been raised in a Qualified Financing and would result in a corresponding principal reduction of either $600,000 or $900,000, respectively. The 2007 Platinum Notes were voluntarily convertible, at the option of Platinum, at any time prior to a Qualified Financing or their maturity date, into shares of common stock generally at the lesser of (i) the price per share of the Company’s most recent equity financing; (ii) the price per share of any subsequent equity financing; or (iii) the price per share assuming a $30 million valuation of the Company on a fully diluted basis.
In connection with the issuance of the 2007 Platinum Notes, Platinum was issued warrants to purchase up to 525,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $6.00 per share, subject to adjustment downwards in the event that the Company issued additional shares of common stock at a per share price lower than $6.00 per share at any time prior to the Company becoming a public company. The warrant exercise price was subsequently amended to $1.50 per share. The warrants had an original expiration date of June 30, 2012, which was subsequently extended to December 31, 2013. The warrants were also subject to a “call” feature whereby the Company had the right to call the warrants at a price of $0.10 per share if shares of the Company’s common stock traded publicly at a per share price greater than $15.00 for at least 15 consecutive trading days, subject to certain other conditions as described in the warrants. The Company used the lattice method to determine the fair value of the warrants.

In connection with the issuance and sale of the 2007 Platinum Notes, the Company engaged a placement agent. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement with the placement agent, the Company paid a cash fee of 8% of the gross proceeds received in the financings.  Additionally, the Company issued to the placement agent a warrant to purchase 120,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $6.00 and an expiration date of June 30, 2012. On March 12, 2010, the exercise price of these warrants was amended to $2.25, and the incremental fair value of the amended warrant was charged to interest expense in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. The Company valued the warrants at a fair value of $0.97 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions: fair value of common stock — $2.10 per share; risk-free interest rate — 4.97%; volatility — 97%; contractual term — 5.00 years.
The Company determined that i) the cash payment option, or put option, which provides the lender with the right to require the Company to repay part of the debt at a 25% premium upon the closing of a Qualified Financing, and ii) the term extension option, which provides the lender with the right to extend the maturity date one year, were embedded derivatives that should be bifurcated and accounted for separately. Accordingly, the Company recorded the fair value of the derivatives at their inception, as liabilities which were required to be marked to market at each balance sheet date with the changes in fair value recorded as other income and expense. At March 31, 2011, the fair value of the derivatives was $90,800.
The Company allocated the proceeds from the 2007 Platinum Notes and warrants based on their relative fair values. The relative fair value attributable to the warrants was $221,000, which was recorded as a discount to the 2007 Platinum Notes and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital. The Company also recorded an additional note discount for the fair value of the derivative liabilities of $85,200 and $42,700 at June 18, 2007 and July 2, 2007, respectively, or a total of $127,900, plus $300,000 in cash placement fees and $116,800 as the fair value of warrants issued for placement fees. The note discount totaling $765,700 was amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the original one year term of the 2007 Platinum Notes. The original effective interest rate on the note was 32.27% based on the stated interest rate, the amount of amortized discount, and its term.

As indicated previously, on May 16, 2008, the Company issued an additional $250,000 convertible promissory note to Platinum.  In lieu of the automatic conversion of the entire outstanding balance due under the 2008 Platinum Note pursuant to a Qualified Financing, Platinum had the option to elect, before automatic conversion, to receive a cash payment as partial satisfaction of the outstanding balance of the note. The cash payment was either $50,000 or $75,000, depending on the amount that would have been raised in a Qualified Financing and would result in a corresponding reduction of the note balance of either $40,000 or $60,000, respectively. The Company also issued to Platinum a warrant to purchase up to 35,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $6.00 per share, subject to adjustment downwards in the event that the Company issued additional shares of common stock at a per share price lower than $6.00 per share at any time prior to the Company becoming a public company. This warrant expires December 31, 2013.
In connection with the issuance and sale of the 2008 Platinum Note the Company engaged a placement agent. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement with the placement agent, the Company was obligated to pay a cash fee of 8% of the gross proceeds received from the financing in excess of $250,000 (“threshold amount”).  Additionally, the Company agreed to issue to the placement agent warrants to purchase 16,000 shares of the Company’s common stock with an exercise price of $6.00 and an expiration date of June 28, 2012. On March 12, 2010, the exercise price of warrants to purchase 2,400 of the 16,000 shares of common stock was amended to $2.25, and the incremental fair value of the amended warrant was charged to interest expense in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. The Company also agreed to issue the placement agent warrants to purchase 0.032 shares of the Company’s common stock for each dollar of gross proceeds in excess of the threshold amount. The Company valued these warrants at a fair value of $0.08 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions: fair value of common stock — $0.60 per share; risk-free interest rate — 4.12%; volatility — 77%; contractual term — 4.00 years.

The Company allocated the note proceeds from the 2008 Platinum Note and associated warrant based on their relative fair values. The relative fair value attributable to the warrant was $7,100, which the Company recorded as a discount to the 2008 Platinum Note and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital. The Company recorded an additional note discount of $13,300 for the fair value of the put option and term extension option liabilities and $1,300 for the fair value of warrants issued for placement fees. The note discount totaling $21,700 was amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the term of the 2008 Platinum Note. The original effective interest rate on the 2008 Platinum Note was 14.98% based on the stated interest rate, the amount of amortized discount, and its term.
Extension of Maturity Date

On May 16, 2008, in conjunction with the 2008/2010 Note financing on that date, the maturity date of the 2007 Platinum Notes was extended to December 31, 2009 from June 30, 2008, and the expiration date of the associated warrants was extended to December 31, 2013. On December 30, 2009, Platinum agreed to extend the maturity date of the Original Platinum Notes to December 31, 2010. The Company also reduced the exercise price of the associated warrants from $6.00 to $1.50 per share. In December 2010, the maturity date of the Original Platinum Notes was extended to June 30, 2011 from December 31, 2010.  In May 2011, the maturity date of the Original Platinum Notes was extended to June 30, 2012.
The Company evaluated the extension of the maturity dates of the Original Platinum Notes and modifications to the associated warrants and determined that the modifications were to be accounted for as a troubled debt restructuring on a prospective basis. The Company recorded discounts to the Platinum Notes of $65,600 and $90,000, respectively, which amounts were equal to the incremental fair value of the modified warrants under the May 16, 2008 and December 30, 2009 modifications, with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital under the May 16, 2008 modification, and to warrant liability under the December 30, 2009 modification. The incremental fair value of the cash payment and note term extension options under the May 16, 2008, December 30, 2009, and December 2010 modifications were $199,300, $122,100, and $158,000, respectively, and were recorded as a note discount, with a corresponding credit to the related liability for these derivatives. The incremental fair value of the conversion option of the Original Platinum Notes was not significant under the May 16, 2008 modification and was $828,500 and $1,062,800 under the December 30, 2009 and December 31, 2010 modifications, respectively, which was recorded as a note discount with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital. The note discount was amortized as non-cash interest expense over the remaining term of the Platinum Notes using the effective interest method. The effective annual interest rate of the extended Original Platinum Notes was 14.65% under the May 16, 2008 modification, 27.50% under the December 30, 2009 modification and 26.96% under the December 2010 modification.

May 2011 Amendment

On May 5, 2011, the Original Platinum Notes were amended, restated and consolidated into a single note (the “New Platinum Note”) with a principal balance of $4.0 million (“May 2011 Amendment”).  The following paragraphs describe the May 2011 Amendment.  In December 2011, the Company and Platinum entered into a Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement pursuant to which the New Platinum Note was cancelled and all warrants issued to Platinum were exercised in exchange for a new series of the Company’s preferred stock.  See Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement below.

As a result of the May 2011 Amendment, the maturity date of the New Platinum Note became June 30, 2012, a one-year extension from the June 30, 2011 maturity date of the Original Platinum Notes.  The New Platinum Note continued to bear interest at an annual rate of 10%. Platinum retained the right, in its sole discretion, to extend the maturity date of the New Platinum Note by one year to June 30, 2013.  The New Platinum Note would have been automatically converted, subject to certain conditions, upon the last to occur of (i) the closing of an equity or equity-based financing or series of equity or equity-based financings after May 1, 2011 resulting in gross proceeds to the Company totaling at least $5.0 million, including the 2011 Private Placement (see Note 9, Capital Stock) and cancellation of debt not otherwise convertible; and (ii) the Company becoming a publicly traded company ("Amended Qualified Financing").  The number of shares issuable to Platinum upon the automatic conversion of the Platinum Note would have been determined in accordance with one of the following three formulas, as selected by Platinum in its sole discretion: (i) the outstanding principal plus accrued but unpaid interest  ("Outstanding Balance") as of the closing of the Amended Qualified Financing multiplied by 1.25 and divided by $1.75 per share; (ii) the Outstanding Balance as of the closing of the Amended Qualified Financing multiplied by 1.25 and divided by the per share price of shares sold in the Amended Qualified Financing; or (iii) the Outstanding Balance as of the closing of the Amended Qualified Financing divided by the Company's per share price assuming a pre-Amended Qualified Financing valuation of the Company of $30 million on a fully-diluted basis, subject to certain exclusions.  Under the New Platinum Note, the cash payment option previously included in the Original Platinum Notes was eliminated. In the event the Company completed an Amended Qualified Financing prior to December 31, 2011, interest accrued on the New Platinum Note from May 5, 2011 through the date of the closing of the Amended Qualified Financing would have been forgiven.

The Platinum Note would have been voluntarily convertible, at the option of Platinum, at any time prior to an Amended Qualified Financing or its maturity date into shares of common stock determined by multiplying the Outstanding Balance being converted by 1.25 and dividing by the lesser of (i) $1.75 per share; (ii) the per share price in any subsequent equity financing; or (iii) the per share price assuming a $30 million valuation of the Company on a fully diluted basis (subject to certain exclusions).  Platinum could have elected to convert the New Platinum Note at any time, but was not obligated to convert the New Platinum Note until the shares issuable upon conversion of the note were freely tradable pursuant to an effective registration statement or could have been sold in any ninety day period without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), in compliance with Rule 144. Additionally, Platinum could not have converted the New Platinum Note if the shares issuable upon conversion would result in it beneficially owning in excess of 9.99% of the then outstanding shares of the Company's common stock. However, Platinum could have waived this condition upon giving 61 days’ notice to the Company.

In connection with the issuance of the New Platinum Note, the Company issued to Platinum a three-year warrant to purchase 825,574 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.  The warrant would have expired on May 5, 2014, and become exercisable upon Platinum’s conversion of the New Platinum Note and would have been exercisable for one-fourth (1/4) of the number of shares issued in the conversion. The Company valued the warrant at a fair value of $0.69 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions:  fair value of common stock - $1.58; risk-free rate – 0.96%; volatility – 85%; contractual term – 3.00 years.

The Company evaluated the extension of the maturity date of the Original Platinum Notes along with the issuance of the new three-year warrant and determined that the modifications are to be accounted for as a troubled debt restructuring on a prospective basis.  The Company recorded a discount of $908,900 to the New Platinum Note which is equal to the incremental fair value of the note conversion feature and the cash payment option liability, and the fair value of the new warrant.  The note discount was to be amortized as non-cash interest expense over the remaining term of the New Platinum Note using the effective interest method.  The effective annual interest rate of the New Platinum Note was determined to be 17.3%, based on the amortization of the note discount, the stated interest rate, and the note term.

Warrant Liability

The Company has issued certain warrants issued withto Platinum and, subject to Platinum’s exercise of its rights to exchange shares of the OriginalCompany’s Series A Preferred that it holds, the Company is also obligated to issue an additional warrant to Platinum, Notes included certainthat contain an exercise price adjustment features and accordingly were not deemed to be indexed tofeature in the Company’s common stock. On April 1, 2009,event the Company recordedsubsequently issues additional equity instruments at a price lower than the estimatedexercise price of the warrants. The Company accounts for these warrants as non-cash liabilities and estimates their fair value as described in Note 4, Fair Value Measurements; Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, and Note 10, Capital Stock. The Company computes the fair value of the warrant liability of $151,300 as a non-current liabilityat each reporting period and the change in the consolidated balance sheet. Changesfair value is recorded as non-cash expense or non-cash income. The key component in determining the estimatedfair value of the warrant and the related liability is the Company‘s stock price, which is subject to significant fluctuation and is not under the Company’s control. The resulting change in the fair value of the warrant liability were recorded inon the Company’s net income or loss is therefore also subject to significant fluctuation and will continue to be so until all of the warrants are issued and exercised, amended or expire. Assuming all other income (expense)fair value inputs remain generally constant, the Company will record an increase in the consolidated statement of operations. warrant liability and non-cash expense when its stock price increases and a decrease in the warrant liability and non-cash income when its stock price decreases.

Comprehensive Loss

The Company continuedhas no components of other comprehensive loss other than net loss, and accordingly the Company’s comprehensive loss is equivalent to record adjustmentsits net loss for the periods presented.

Loss per Common Share

Basic income (loss) per share of common stock excludes the effect of dilution and is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period. Diluted income (loss) per share of common stock reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue shares of common stock were exercised or converted into shares of common stock. In calculating diluted net income (loss) per share, the Company adjusts the numerator for the change in the fair value of the warrant liability attributable to outstanding warrants, untilonly if dilutive, and increases the closingdenominator to include the number of the Merger on May 11, 2011, when the amended warrants no longer contained the exercise price adjustment features, at which time the warrants were deemedpotentially dilutive common shares assumed to be indexed tooutstanding during the Company’s commonperiod using the treasury stock and therefore no longer treated asmethod. As a liability.  The warrant liability was recorded at its fair value of $424,100 at May 11, 2011, which resulted in a non-cash expense of $7,000 that was charged to other income (expense) in the three-month period ended June 30, 2011.  As of May 11, 2011, $424,100, the then-current aggregate fair value of these warrants, was reclassified from warrant liability to additional paid-in capital, a component of stockholders’ deficit.

Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement

On December 29, 2011, the Company and Platinum entered into a Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement pursuant to which the New Platinum Note and outstanding warrants issued to Platinum to purchase an aggregate of 1,599,858 sharesresult of the Company’s common stocknet loss for both periods presented, potentially dilutive securities were cancelled in exchange for 391,075 shares ofexcluded from the Company’s newly-created Series A Preferred Stock (“Series A Preferred”).  Each share of Series A Preferred is convertiblecomputation, as their effect would be antidilutive.  Additionally, no potentially dilutive securities were assumed to be converted into ten shares of the Company’s common stock (see Note 9, Capital Stock).  The Company issued 231,090 shares of Series A Preferred to Platinum in connection with the note cancellation based on the sum of the $4,000,000 principal balance of the Platinum Note plus accrued but unpaid interest through May 11, 2011 adjusted for a 125% conversion premium, net of the $1,719,800 aggregate exercise price of the outstanding 1,599,858 warrants held by Platinum, and a contractual conversion basis of $1.75 per common share, all adjusted for the 1:10 Series A Preferred to common exchange ratio.  An additional 159,985 shares of Series A Preferred were issued to Platinum in connection with the warrant exercise and exchange to acquire the common shares issued upon the warrant exercise.and outstanding during either period for purposes of calculating diluted earnings per share.

The Company determined that the cancellation of the Platinum Note and exercise of the warrants pursuant to the Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement should be accounted for as a debt extinguishment.  The Company estimated the fair value of the shares of Series A Preferred stock tendered to Platinum for the cancellation of the Platinum Note under the terms of the agreement at $15.51 per share ($1.55 on a per common share equivalent basis).  The Company recorded a loss of $1,193,500 attributable to the early debt extinguishment, reported in Other expenses, net in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.  The loss includes $287,278, calculated using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model, representing the incremental fair value of the warrants exercised by Platinum as modified to reduce their exercise price.  (See Discounted Warrant Exercise Program in Note 9, Capital Stock, for a description of the modification of warrant exercise prices and the resulting valuation that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2011.)  The common shares issued in connection with the warrant exercise that were exchanged for shares of Series A Preferred Stock are treated as Treasury Stock in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2012.

2008/2010 Notes

Between May 2008 and March 31, 2010, the Company raised $2,701,800 in convertible promissory notes (the “2008/2010 Notes”) including a third party vendor conversion of $81,300 of the Company’s accounts payable and accrued expenses into the 2008/2010 Notes.  Between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, the Company raised an additional $270,000 by issuing convertible promissory notes of like tenor, resulting in an aggregate issuance of $2,971,800 of 2008/2010 Notes. The 2008/2010 Notes accrued interest at an annual rate of 10%, were unsecured, and had an original maturity date of December 31, 2009 prior to an extension of the maturity date to December 31, 2010, and, later, to April 30, 2011. The outstanding principal balance of the 2008/2010 Notes and accrued interest would have automatically converted into shares of common stock upon the occurrence of an equity or equity based financing or series of equity based financings resulting in gross proceeds to the Company totaling at least $3 million (“$3 Million Qualified Financing”) or a sale of the Company or substantially all of its assets. The automatic conversion price per share would have been equal to the price of the common stock sold in the $3 Million Qualified Financing, or $6.00 per share upon a sale of the Company or its assets, whichever occurs first. The noteholder could voluntarily elect to convert the note and accrued interest at $6.00 per share any time prior to a $3 Million Qualified Financing or the note maturity date.

 
Each holder of 2008/2010 Notes was also  issued warrantsBasic and diluted net loss attributable to purchase that number of shares of common stock equal to the number of shares determined by dividing the principal amount of such holder’s 2008/2010 Notes by the pricestockholders per share sold in a $3 Million Qualified Financing and then multiplying the quotient by 50%.  The warrants expire on December 31, 2013 or 10 days preceding the closing date of the sale of the Company or its assets. The warrants are exercisable at an exercise price equal to the price per share paid in the $3 Million Qualified Financing multiplied by 1.5. The Company determined that the warrants should be accounted forwas computed as equity and had nominal value at the date of issuance.follows:

  Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
 Numerator:      
 Net loss attributable to common stockholders for basic earnings per share $(2,967,700) $(23,079,900)
 less: change in fair value of warrant liability attributable to Exchange,        
 Investment and July 2013 Warrants issued to Platinum  (1,219,500)  - 
         
 Net loss for diluted earnings per share attributable to common stockholders $(4,187,200) $(23,079,900)
         
 Denominator:        
 Weighted average basic common shares outstanding  21,973,149   18,108,444 
    Assumed conversion of dilutive securities:        
 Warrants to purchase common stock  -   - 
 Potentially dilutive common shares assumed converted  -   - 
         
 Denominator for diluted earnings per share - adjusted        
 weighted average shares  21,973,149   18,108,444 
         
         
 Basic net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share $(0.14) $(1.27)
         
 Diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share $(0.19) $(1.27)
 
On December 15, 2009,Potentially dilutive securities excluded in determining diluted net loss per common share for the Company amended the terms of the 2008/2010 Notes to increase the maximum allowable indebtedness under the 2008/2010 Notes to $5,000,000 from $2,000,000; to extend the maturity date of the 2008/2010 Notes to Decemberfiscal years ended March 31, 2010 from December 31, 2009;2014 and to use the current definition of $3 Million Qualified Financing. The Company also amended the related warrants to increase the number of shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants2013 are as reflected in the formula in the preceding paragraph. The exercise price of the warrants was also modified to reflect the formula indicted in the preceding paragraph.  The modifications to the 2008/2010 Notes and warrants did not have any accounting consequence, as the notes were contingently convertible and the warrants contingently exercisable so that the effect of the modifications on the fair value of the note conversion feature and warrants was not significant.
follows:
In December 2010, the Company amended the terms of the 2008/2010 Notes to extend the maturity date to April 30, 2011 from December 31, 2010.  The December 2010 modification, consistent with the above, did not have any accounting consequence as the notes were contingently convertible and the warrants contingently exercisable so that the effect of the modifications on the fair value of the note conversion feature and warrants was not significant.
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Series A preferred stock issued and outstanding (1)
  15,000,000   15,000,000 
         
Warrant shares issuable to Platinum upon exercise of common stock warrants by Platinum upon exchange of Series A preferred stock under the terms of the October 11, 2012 Note Purchase and Exchange Agreement  7,500,000   7,500,000 
         
Outstanding options under the 2008 and 1999 Stock Incentive Plans  4,249,271   4,912,604 
         
Outstanding warrants to purchase common stock  17,095,633   14,660,335 
         
10% convertible Exchange Note and Investment Notes issued to Platinum in October 2012, February 2013 and March 2013, including accrued interest through March 31, 2014 (2)
  7,495,957   6,775,682 
         
10% convertible note issued to Platinum on July 26, 2013, including accrued interest through March 31, 2014  535,506   - 
         
10% convertible notes issued as a component of Unit Private Placements, including accrued interest through March 31, 2014  2,186,811   - 
         
Total  54,063,178   48,848,621 
____________

(1)  Assumes exchange under the terms of the October 11, 2012  Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement with Platinum
(2)  Assumes conversion under the terms of the October 11, 2012  Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement with Platinum and the terms of the individual notes
On May 11, 2011, and concurrent with the Merger, the 2008/2010 Notes in the amount of $3,615,200, including principal and accrued interest, were converted into 2,065,731 Units, at a price of $1.75 per Unit, consisting of 2,065,731 shares of common stock of the Company and three-year warrants to purchase 516,415 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.  The warrants expire on May 11, 2014. The associated contingently exercisable warrants, originally issued with the 2008/2010 Notes, became exercisable for 848,998 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.62 per share.

August 2010 Short-Term Notes

In August of 2010, the Company issued short-term, non-interest bearing, unsecured promissory notes (“August 2010 Short-Term Notes”) having an aggregate principal amount of $1,064,000 for a purchase price of $800,000.  The August 2010 Short-Term Notes were due and payable at the earlier of (i) ten business days following the Closing Date of an initial public offering or (ii) December 1, 2010.

Each holder of August 2010 Short-Term Notes was also issued warrants to purchase the number of shares of common stock equal to 0.33 times the dollars invested.  The warrants expire three years from the date of issuance and have an exercise price of $3.00 per share.  The Company valued the resulting 264,000 warrants at a fair value of $0.50 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:  fair value of common stock - $1.48 per share; risk-free interest rate – 0.86%; volatility - 78.29%; contractual term – 3 years.  The Company recorded the fair value of the warrants as a discount to the notes with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital.  The note discount was to be amortized as non-cash interest expense over the term of the August 2010 Short-Term Notes using the effective interest method.  The effective annual interest rate of the August 2010 Short-Term Notes was 151.04% based on the amortization of the note discount, the stated interest rate, and the note term.
In November 2010, the Company amended the August 2010 Short-Term Notes to extend the maturity date to December 31, 2010 from December 1, 2010, increased the number of warrants to purchase the number of shares of common stock to equal 0.50 times the dollars invested from 0.33 times the dollars invested and reduced the exercise price to $2.00 per share from $3.00 per share.  This increased the number of warrants related to this financing to 400,000 from 264,000.  The Company evaluated the extension of the maturity dates of the August 2010 Short-Term Notes and modifications to the associated warrants and determined that the modification should be accounted for as a troubled debt restructuring on a prospective basis.  The Company recorded a discount to the August 2010 Short-Term Notes of $121,100, which amount was equal to the incremental fair value of the modified warrants under the November 2010 modification, with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital.


Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in ASC 605, Revenue Recognition. This ASU is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The ASU also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. The effective date will be the first annual period beginning after December 15, 2016, using one of two retrospective application methods. The Company is currently evaluating the impact on its Consolidated Financial Statements of adopting this ASU.
In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-10, Development Stage Entities (Topic 915): Elimination of Certain Financial Reporting Requirements, Including an Amendment to Variable Interest Entities Guidance in Topic 810, Consolidation. The amendments in this ASU remove all incremental financial reporting requirements for development stage entities.  Among other changes, this ASU will no longer require development stage entities to present inception-to-date information about income statement line items, cash flows, and equity transactions. The presentation and disclosure requirements in Topic 915 will no longer be required for the first annual period beginning after December 15, 2014.  The Company’s adoption of this ASU will result in the elimination of the inception-to-date information currently included in its Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss, Cash Flows and Stockholders’ Deficit effective with the fiscal year beginning in April 2015.
4.  Fair Value Measurements

The Company follows the principles of fair value accounting as they relate to its financial assets and financial liabilities. Fair value is defined as the estimated exit price received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date, rather than an entry price that represents the purchase price of an asset or liability.  Where available, fair value is based on observable market prices or parameters, or derived from such prices or parameters.  Where observable prices or inputs are not available, valuation models are applied.  These valuation techniques involve some level of management estimation and judgment, the degree of which is dependent on several factors, including the instrument’s complexity.  The required fair value hierarchy that prioritizes observable and unobservable inputs used to measure fair value into three broad levels is described as follows:

Level 1 — Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for assets or liabilities. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 inputs.

Level 2 — Inputs other than Level 1 that are observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs (i.e., inputs that reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in estimating the fair value of an asset or liability) are used when little or no market data is available. The fair value hierarchy gives the lowest priority to Level 3 inputs.

A financial instrument’s categorization within the valuation hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.  Where quoted prices are available in an active market, securities are classified as Level 1 of the valuation hierarchy. If quoted market prices are not available for the specific financial instrument, then the Company estimates fair value by using pricing models, quoted prices of financial instruments with similar characteristics or discounted cash flows. In certain cases where there is limited activity or less transparency around inputs to valuation, financial assets or liabilities are classified as Level 3 within the valuation hierarchy.
 
The Company does not use derivative instruments for hedging of market risks or for trading or speculative purposes. In December 2010,conjunction with the Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes and related Exchange Warrant and Investment Warrants issued to Platinum in October 2012, February 2013 and March 2013 (see Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable), and the potential issuance of the Series A Exchange Warrant (see Note 10, Capital Stock), all pursuant to the October 2012 Agreement, and the Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note and related warrant issued to Platinum in July 2013,  the Company determined that the warrants included certain exercise price adjustment features requiring the warrants to be treated as liabilities, which were recorded at their estimated fair value. The Company determined the fair value of the warrant liability using a Monte Carlo simulation model with Level 3 inputs. Inputs used to determine fair value include the remaining contractual term of the notes, risk-free interest rates, expected volatility of the price of the underlying common stock, and the probability of a financing transaction that would trigger a reset in the warrant exercise price, and, in the case of the Series A Exchange Warrant, the probability of Platinum’s exchange of the shares of Series A Preferred it holds into shares of common stock. Changes in the fair value of these warrant liabilities have been recognized as non-cash income or expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013.

The fair value hierarchy for liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis is as follows:

     Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using 
  Total Carrying Value  Quoted Prices inActive Markets forIdentical Assets  Significant Other Observable Inputs  Significant Unobservable Inputs 
         
    (Level 1)  (Level 2)  (Level 3) 
March 31, 2014:            
 Warrant liability $2,973,900  $-  $-  $2,973,900 
March 31, 2013:                
 Warrant liability $6,394,000  $-  $-  $6,394,000 
During the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, there were no significant changes to the valuation models used for purposes of determining the fair value of the Level 3 warrant liability.

The changes in Level 3 liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows:

  (Level 3) 
  Warrant Liability 
    
Balance at March 31, 2012 $- 
     
Recognition of warrant liability upon issuance of Exchange and Investment Warrants to Platinum under October 2012 Agreement
  1,690,000 
Recognition of warrant liability in connection with Series A Exchange Warrant potentially issuable to Platinum under October 2012 Agreement
  3,068,200 
Mark to market loss included in net loss  1,635,800 
     
Balance at March 31, 2013  6,394,000 
     
Recognition of warrant liability upon issuance of Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note and warrant to Platinum on July 26, 2013
  146,800 
Mark to market gain included in net loss  (3,566,900)
     
Balance at March 31, 2014 $2,973,900 
     
No assets or other liabilities were measured on a recurring basis at fair value at March 31, 2014 or 2013.

5.  Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets

Prepaid expenses and other current assets consist of the following:
  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Insurance $21,800  $19,700 
Legal fees  3,400   3,400 
         
Interest receivable on note receivable from sale of common stock  2,800   1,600 
Technology license fees and all other  12,500   9,000 
         
  $40,500  $33,700 
6.  Property and Equipment

Property and equipment consists of the following:
  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
 Laboratory equipment $653,600  $649,500 
 Tenant improvements  27,000   - 
 Computers and network equipment  32,100   12,900 
 Office furniture and equipment  69,600   69,600 
   782,300   732,000 
         
 Accumulated depreciation and amortization  (606,000)  (551,300)
         
 Property and equipment, net $176,300  $180,700 
In connection with the issuance of Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes to Platinum in July and August 2012,  and under the October 2012 Agreement with Platinum, the Company entered into a Security Agreement with Platinum under which the repayment of all amounts due under the terms of the various Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes is secured by the Company’s assets, including its tangible and intangible personal property, licenses, patent licenses, trademarks and trademark licenses (see Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable).

7.  AV-101 Acquisition

In November 2003, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Artemis Agreement”), the Company acquired Artemis Neurosciences (“Artemis”), a privately-held company also in the development stage, for the purpose of acquiring exclusive licenses to patents and other intellectual property related to the use and function of AV-101, a prodrug candidate then in nonclinical development, with the potential to treat neuropathic pain, depression, and other neurological diseases and disorders, epilepsy, Huntington’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Pursuant to the Artemis Agreement, all shares of Artemis common stock were converted into shares of VistaGen California’s Series B-1 Preferred Stock, resulting in VistaGen California’s pre-merger issuance of 1,356,750 shares of its Series B-1 Preferred Stock, valued, pre-merger, at $5.545 per share, resulting in the pre-merger purchase price of all outstanding shares of Artemis of $7,523,200. The total purchase price was allocated to AV-101 acquired in-process research and development and was expensed concurrent with the Artemis acquisition, since AV-101 required further amendedresearch and development before the Company could commence clinical trials and did not have any proven alternative future uses.
To date, the Company has received an aggregate of $8.8 million from the NIH for non-clinical and clinical development of AV-101. The Company successfully completed a Phase 1a clinical trial of AV-101 during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 and successfully completed a Phase 1b clinical trial of AV-101 in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

8.  Accrued Expenses

Accrued expenses consist of:
  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
 Accrued professional services $135,700  $67,800 
 Accrued compensation  489,900   219,300 
 Accrued royalties and license fees  -   25,000 
 All other  -   30,800 
         
  $625,600  $342,900 

9.  Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable
         The following table summarizes the components of the Company’s convertible promissory notes and other notes payable:
  March 31, 2014  March 31, 2013 
  Principal  Accrued     Principal  Accrued    
  Balance  Interest  Total  Balance  Interest  Total 
Senior Secured 10% Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum:
                  
Exchange Note issued on October 11, 2012 $1,272,600  $203,400  $1,476,000  $1,272,600  $61,700  $1,334,300 
Investment Note issued on October 11, 2012  500,000   79,900   579,900   500,000   24,200   524,200 
Investment Note issued on October 19, 2012  500,000   78,600   578,600   500,000   23,000   523,000 
Investment Note issued on February 22, 2013  250,000   29,400   279,400   250,000   2,600   252,600 
Investment Note issued on March 12, 2013  750,000   84,100   834,100   750,000   4,700   754,700 
   3,272,600   475,400   3,748,000   3,272,600   116,200   3,388,800 
                         
Convertible promissory note issued on July 26, 2013  250,000   17,700   267,700   -   -   - 
    Total Senior notes  3,522,600   493,100   4,015,700   3,272,600   116,200   3,388,800 
                         
Aggregate note discount  (2,085,900)  -   (2,085,900)  (1,963,100)  -   (1,963,100)
    Net Senior notes (non-current) $1,436,700  $493,100  $1,929,800  $1,309,500  $116,200  $1,425,700 
                         
                         
10% Convertible Promissory Notes (Unit Notes)                        
2013/2014 Unit Notes, due 7/31/14 $1,007,500  $35,700  $1,043,200  $-  $-  $- 
2014 Unit Note, due 3/31/15  50,000   200   50,200   -   -   - 
   1,057,500   35,900   1,093,400   -   -   - 
 Note discounts  (697,400)  -   (697,400)  -   -   - 
    Net convertible notes (all current) $360,100  $35,900  $396,000  $-  $-  $- 
                         
                         
Notes Payable to unrelated parties:                        
  7.5% Notes payable to service providers for                        
accounts payable converted to notes payable:                        
     Burr, Pilger, Mayer $90,400  $6,800  $97,200  $90,400  $-  $90,400 
     Desjardins  178,600   14,100   192,700   194,100   800   194,900 
     McCarthy Tetrault  360,900   24,800   385,700   403,100   1,700   404,800 
     August 2012 Morrison & Foerster Note A  918,200   87,900   1,006,100   937,400   -   937,400 
     August 2012 Morrison & Foerster Note B (1)
  1,379,400   195,200   1,574,600   1,379,400   60,100   1,439,500 
     University Health Network  (1)
  549,500   60,600   610,100   549,500   19,400   568,900 
   3,477,000   389,400   3,866,400   3,553,900   82,000   3,635,900 
        Note discount  (848,100)  -   (848,100)  (1,142,600)  -   (1,142,600)
   2,628,900   389,400   3,018,300   2,411,300   82,000   2,493,300 
 less: current portion  (1,130,100)  (133,600)  (1,263,700)  (450,300)  (2,500)  (452,800)
     non-current portion and discount $1,498,800  $255,800  $1,754,600  $1,961,000  $79,500  $2,040,500 
                         
   5.75%  and 10.25% Notes payable to insurance                        
premium financing company (current) $4,900  $-  $4,900  $4,200  $-  $4,200 
                         
  10% Notes payable to vendors for accounts                        
payable converted to notes payable $119,400  $34,700  $154,100  $128,800  $23,300  $152,100 
 less: current portion  (119,400)  (34,700)  (154,100)  (128,800)  (23,300)  (152,100)
     non-current portion $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
                         
  7.0% Note payable (August 2012) $58,800  $3,800  $62,600  $59,400  $-  $59,400 
 less: current portion  (15,800)  (3,800)  (19,600)  (8,100)  -   (8,100)
  7.0% Notes payable - non-current portion $43,000  $-  $43,000  $51,300  $-  $51,300 
                         
  Total notes payable to unrelated parties $3,660,100  $427,900  $4,088,000  $3,746,300  $105,300  $3,851,600 
 less: current portion  (1,270,200)  (172,100)  (1,442,300)  (591,400)  (25,800)  (617,200)
     non-current portion  2,389,900   255,800   2,645,700   3,154,900   79,500   3,234,400 
 less: discount  (848,100)  -   (848,100)  (1,142,600)  -   (1,142,600)
  $1,541,800  $255,800  $1,797,600  $2,012,300  $79,500  $2,091,800 
                         
                         
Notes payable to related parties:                        
  October 2012 7.5% Note to Cato Holding Co. $293,600  $30,800  $324,400  $293,600  $7,400  $301,000 
  October 2012 7.5% Note to Cato Research Ltd. (1)
  1,009,000   117,300   1,126,300   1,009,000   36,200   1,045,200 
   1,302,600   148,100   1,450,700   1,302,600   43,600   1,346,200 
            Note discount  (103,200)  -   (103,200)  (147,200)  -   (147,200)
     Total notes payable to related parties  1,199,400   148,100   1,347,500   1,155,400   43,600   1,199,000 
 less: current portion  (259,600)  (30,800)  (290,400)  (85,600)  (7,400)  (93,000)
    non-current portion and discount $939,800  $117,300  $1,057,100  $1,069,800  $36,200  $1,106,000 
____________                        
(1) Note and interest payable solely in restricted shares of the Company's common stock.
         
Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issued to Platinum

On July 2, 2012 and on August 31, 2012, the Company issued to Platinum senior secured convertible promissory notes in the principal amount of $500,000 (the “July 2012 Platinum Note”) and $750,000 (the "August 2012 Platinum Note"), respectively.  The July 2012 Platinum Note and the August 2010 Short-Term2012 Platinum Note each accrued interest at the rate of 10% per annum and were due and payable on July 2, 2015.  The July 2012 Platinum Note and the August 2012 Platinum Note were each mandatorily convertible into securities that the Company might have issued in an equity, equity-based, or debt financing, or series of financings, subsequent to the issuance of the note resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of at least $3,000,000, excluding any additional investment by Platinum.

On October 11, 2012, the Company and Platinum entered into a Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement (the “October 2012 Agreement”) in which the July 2012 Platinum Note and the August 2012 Platinum Note (together, the “Existing Notes”), as well as the related accrued interest, were consolidated into and exchanged for a single senior secured convertible note in the amount of $1,272,577 (the “Exchange Note”) and Platinum agreed to extend the maturity date to April 30, 2011 from December 31, 2010 and increasedpurchase four additional 10% senior secured convertible promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount to $1,120,000 from $1,064,000.of $2.0 million (the “Investment Notes”), issuable over four separate $500,000 tranches between October 2012 and December 2012.  The first and second $500,000 Investment Notes, in the aggregate principal amount of $1.0 million, were purchased by Platinum on October 11, 2012 and October 19, 2012, respectively. The Company evaluatedand Platinum also entered into an amended and restated Security Agreement to secure repayment of all obligations due and payable under the extensionterms of the maturity dates of the August 2010 Short-TermInvestment Notes and modifications to the associated principal amount and determined that the modification should be accounted for as a troubled debt restructuring on a prospective basis.  The Company recorded a discount to the August 2010 Short-Term Notes of $56,000, which amount is equal to the increased principal amount, with a corresponding credit to debt. The effective interest rate on the August 2010 Short-Term Notes subsequent to these modifications was 63.64% from the original effective interest rate of 151.04%.Exchange Note.

In May 2011,On November 14, 2012 and January 31, 2013, the Company and Platinum entered into amendments to the October 2012 Agreement (the “NEPA Amendments”), pursuant to which the final two $500,000 tranches contemplated by the October 2012 Agreement were combined into a single Investment Note in connection with the 2011 Private Placement describedaggregate principal amount of $1.0 million (the “$1.0 Million Note”). Under the terms and conditions of the NEPA Amendment, Platinum agreed to purchase the $1.0 Million Note within five business days of the Company's notice to Platinum of the consummation of a debt or equity financing, or combination of financings, prior to February 15, 2013, resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of at least $1.0 million (the “Additional Financing Requirement”).  The Company satisfied the Additional Financing Requirement on February 12, 2013 (See Note 9,10, Capital Stock a total of $840,000 of).  Effective February 22, 2013, the aggregate $1,120,000 outstanding principalCompany and Platinum entered into an additional amendment to the October 2012 Agreement pursuant to which Platinum agreed to purchase an Investment Note in the face amount of $250,000 on February 22, 2013 and an additional Investment Note in the August 2010 Short-Term Notes, plus a note cancellation premiumface amount of $94,500, were converted into 534,000 Units,$750,000 on or before March 12, 2013, which Investment Note was issued by the Company and purchased by Platinum on March 12, 2013.

The Exchange Note and each Investment Note (together, the “Notes”) accrue interest at a pricerate of $1.7510% per Unit, consisting of 534,000annum and, subject to certain limitations and exceptions set forth in the Notes, unless converted earlier and voluntarily by Platinum, will be due and payable in restricted shares of the Company’s common stock on October 11, 2015, or three years from the date of issuance, as determined by the terms of the Investment Notes. Subject to certain terms and three-yearconditions, at maturity, all principal and accrued interest under the Notes will be paid by the Company through the issuance of restricted shares of common stock to Platinum.  Subject to certain potential adjustments set forth in the Notes, the number of restricted shares of common stock issuable as payment in full for each of the Notes at maturity will be calculated by dividing the outstanding Note balance plus accrued interest by $0.50 per share. Prior to maturity, the outstanding principal and any accrued interest on the Exchange Note and each of the Investment Notes is convertible, in whole or in part, at Platinum’s option into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $0.50 per share, subject to certain adjustments. The conversion feature in each of the Notes constituted a beneficial conversion feature at the date of issuance.
As additional consideration for the purchase of the Investment Notes, the Company issued to Platinum warrants to purchase 133,500an aggregate of 2,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, issuable in separate tranches together with each Investment Note, of which a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares was issued to Platinum on October 11, 2012 and on October 19, 2012, a warrant to purchase 250,000 shares was issued to Platinum on February 22, 2013 and a warrant to purchase 750,000 shares was issued to Platinum on March 12, 2013 (each an “Investment Warrant”). In addition, the Company issued Platinum a warrant to purchase 1,272,577 shares of the Company’s common stock in connection with the issuance of the Exchange Note (the “Exchange Warrant”). At issuance, the Platinum Exchange Warrant and each Investment Warrant had a term of five years and an exercise price of $1.50 per share, subject to certain adjustments. Effective on May 24, 2013, the Company and Platinum entered into an Amendment and Waiver pursuant to which the Company agreed to reduce the exercise price of the Exchange Warrant and the Investment Warrants from $1.50 per share to $0.50 per share in consideration for Platinum’s agreement to waive its rights for any increase in the number of shares of common stock issuable under the adjustment provisions of the Exchange Warrant and the Investment Warrants that would otherwise occur from certain issuances and prospective issuances of Company securities, including issuances pursuant to the Autilion Financing and the 2012 Private Placement of Units (see Note 10, Capital Stock), at a price of less than $1.50 per share.
On July 26, 2013, the Company issued an additional senior secured convertible promissory note in the principal amount of $250,000 to Platinum (the “July 2013 Note”). The July 2013 Note matures on July 26, 2016 and accrues interest at a rate of 10% per annum. Subject to certain terms and conditions, at maturity, all principal and accrued interest under the July 2013 Note will be paid by the Company through the issuance of restricted shares of common stock to Platinum. Subject to certain potential adjustments set forth in the July 2013 Note, the number of restricted shares of common stock issuable as payment in full for the July 2013 Note at maturity will be calculated by dividing the outstanding balance plus accrued interest of the July 2013 Note by $0.50 per share. In the same manner as the Exchange Note and the Investment Notes, prior to maturity, the outstanding principal and any accrued interest on the July 2013 Note is convertible, in whole or in part, at Platinum’s option into shares of the Company’s restricted common stock at a conversion price of $0.50 per share, subject to certain adjustments. The conversion feature in the July 2013 Note constituted a beneficial conversion feature at the date of issuance. As additional consideration for the purchase of the July 2013 Note, the Company issued to Platinum a five-year warrant to purchase 250,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50$0.50 per share; $105,000 of such amount was converted into a long-term note issued to Cato Holding Company; and $175,000 of such amount was not converted.  In April 2011, the Company and the holder of the $175,000 note amended the note, whereby the Company paid $50,000 of the note balance within three days of the closing of the 2011 Private Placement, and was to make four monthly payments of $5,000 between May 2011 and August 2011, an additional nine monthly payments of $11,125 per month for the period from September 1, 2011 through May 1, 2012, plus a final payment on May 2, 2012 equal to any remaining balance.  The amended note bears interest at 7% per annum. The note cancellation premium was recorded as interest expense.  In September 2011, the Company and the holder agreed to further modify the payment schedule to require payments of $5,000 per month through November 1, 2011, six monthly payments of $11,125 for the period from December 1, 2011 through May 1, 2012, an additional payment of $11,125 on May 2, 2012, plus a final payment on June 30, 2012 equal to any remaining balance. The Company did not make the February 2012 and March 2012 payments as scheduled. In March 2012, the Company and the note holder again agreed to modify the payment schedule to require seven monthly payments of $9,171 beginning June 1, 2012 with the final payment on December 1, 2012 to include interest accrued after March 2012.share (the “July 2013 Warrant”).

7%As a result of the beneficial conversion feature in the Exchange Note and the issuance of the Exchange Warrant, the Company determined that the cancellation of the Existing Notes Payableand the issuance of the Exchange Note should be accounted for Consulting Servicesas an extinguishment of debt.  The Company determined that the fair value of the Exchange Note, including the beneficial conversion feature, was $2,355,800 using a Monte Carlo simulation model and inception-date assumptions including market price of common stock of $0.75 per share; stock price volatility of 85%; risk-free interest rate of 0.67%; conversion price of $0.50 per share; note term of 3 years; 75% probability that conversion would occur at or immediately prior to maturity; and 25% probability that an event requiring either the repayment of the Exchange Note or its conversion into common stock would occur prior to maturity.  The fair value of the Exchange Note at inception represented a substantial premium over its face value.  In accordance with the provisions of ASC 470-20, Debt with Conversion and Other Options, the Company recognized the premium in excess of the face value, $1,083,200, as a non-cash charge to loss on early extinguishment of debt in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended March 31, 2013 and as a credit to additional paid-in capital and recorded the liability for the Exchange Note at its face value.

DuringSubject to limited exceptions, which include issuances of common stock pursuant to the period from2012 Private Placement of Units (see Note 10, Capital Stock), the Exchange Warrant, each of the Investment Warrants and the July 2000 to April 2003,2013 Warrant include certain exercise price reset and anti-dilution protection features in the event that the Company engaged certain members of the Board of Directors to provide consulting services outside of their responsibilities as Board members. In exchange for these services the Company issued promissory notes and warrants. The notes originally accrued interest at an annual rate of 7%. Effective January 2006, the Company and the individuals agreed that no further interest would accrue on the notes and unpaid accrued interest. The notes payable and accrued interest totaled $50,400 at March 31, 2011.

On May 11, 2011, and concurrent with the Merger, the note payable to a director for principal and accrued interest totaling $14,400, plus a $5,100 note cancellation premium, was converted into 11,142issues other shares of common stock during the five-year term of the warrants at a price less than their initial $1.50 per share, or  $0.50 per share in the case of the July 2013 Warrant, exercise price. As a result of these provisions, the Exchange Warrant, the Investment Warrants and the July 2013 Warrant do not meet the criteria set forth in ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, to be treated as equity instruments. Consequently, the Company recorded the Exchange Warrant, each of the Investment Warrants and the July 2013 Warrant as liabilities at their fair value, which was estimated at the issuance date using a three-year warrant to purchase 2,785 sharesMonte Carlo simulation model and the following assumptions:
                 July 2013 
  Exchange  Investment Warrants Issued on:  Warrant 
  Warrant  10/11/2012  10/19/2012  2/22/2013  3/12/2013  7/26/2013 
                   
Market price of common stock $0.75  $0.75  $0.75  $0.60  $0.80  $0.75 
Exercise price $1.50  $1.50  $1.50  $1.50  $1.50  $0.50 
Risk-free interest rate  0.67%  0.67%  0.67%  0.84%  0.88%  1.36%
Volatility  85.0%  85.0%  85.0%  85.0%  85.0%  96.9%
Term (years)  5.0   5.0   5.0   5.0   5.0   5.0 
Dividend rate  0%  0%  0%  0%  0%  0%
                         
Fair value per share $0.53  $0.53  $0.53  $0.39  $0.52  $0.59 
Number of shares  1,272,577   500,000   500,000   250,000   750,000   250,000 
Fair value at date of issuance $672,000  $264,000  $264,000  $97,000  $393,000  $146,800 

The fair value of the Exchange Warrant at an exercise pricethe date of $2.50 per share.  The related note cancellation premiumissuance was recorded as interest expense. Also,a liability and as a corresponding charge to loss on May 11, 2011,early extinguishment of debt in the 7%accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended March 31, 2013.  The fair value of each Investment Warrant and the July 2013 Warrant at the date of issuance was recorded as a liability and as a corresponding discount to the related Investment Note or the July 2013 Note.  Subject to limitations of the absolute amount of discount attributable to each Investment Note and the July 2013 Note, the Company treated the issuance-date intrinsic value of the beneficial conversion feature embedded in each Investment Note and the July 2013 Note as an additional component of the discount attributable to each note payableand recorded a discount attributable to an officer and director including principal and accrued interest totaling $36,000 was paid.

Notes payablethe beneficial conversion feature for each note.  The Company amortizes the aggregate discount attributable to Cato Holding Company, doing business as Cato BioVentures, under lineeach of credit and August 2010 Short Term Notes; Partial cancellation of August 2010 Short-Termthe Investment Notes and Issuance of Long-Term Promissorythe July 2013 Note to Cato Holding Company

In February 2004, the Company entered into a loan agreement that established a revolving line of credit facility for up to $200,000 with Cato Holding Company, doing business as Cato BioVentures (“CBV”), a related party, which was increased in 2006 to $400,000. Between June 2004 and October 2004, the Company drew down an aggregate amount of $200,000. Loans made pursuant to the loan agreement accrued interest at the rate of prime plus 1% and were due to mature on February 3, 2007. In September 2005, the Company paid all interest accrued to that date and prepaidusing the interest payable throughmethod over the maturity date,respective term of each note.  The table below summarizes the components of the discount and the effective interest rate at inception for the Exchange Note, each of the Investment Notes and the July 2013 Note.
  Inception Date Carrying Value of 
  Exchange  Investment Notes Issued on:  July 2013 
  Note  10/11/2012  10/19/2012  2/22/2013  3/12/2013  Note 
                   
Face value $1,272,600  $500,000  $500,000  $250,000  $750,000  $250,000 
Discount attributable to:                        
   Fair value of warrant  -   (264,000)  (264,000)  (97,000)  (393,000)  (146,800)
   Beneficial conversion feature  -   (231,000)  (231,000)  (147,000)  (349,500)  (100,700)
                         
Inception date carrying value $1,272,600  $5,000  $5,000  $6,000  $7,500  $2,500 
                         
Effective Interest Rate  10.00%  159.05%  159.05%  127.27%  159.05%  159.05%
The fair value of the Exchange Warrant, the Investment Warrants and the July 2013 Warrant was re-measured as of March 31, 2014 and 2013 at an aggregate of approximately $35,300, by issuing 5,883$915,300 and $1,988,000; respectively. The aggregate decrease in fair value since March 31, 2013, or inception in the case of the July 2013 Warrant, of $1,219,500 and the aggregate increase in fair value of $298,000 from inception through March 31, 2013 is reflected in the Change in Warrant Liability in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013.

10% Convertible Notes Issued in Connection with 2013/2014 Unit Private Placement
As described more completely in the section entitled 2013/2014 Unit Private Placement in Note 10, Capital Stock, between August 2013 and March 2014, the Company issued to accredited investors 10% convertible promissory notes (the “2013/2014Unit Notes”) in an aggregate face amount of $1,007,500 in connection with its private placement of Units. The 2013/2014 Unit Notes mature on July 30, 2014 and each 2013 Unit Note and its related accrued interest is convertible into shares of the Company’s Series C preferred stock.common stock at a fixed conversion price of $0.50 per share at or prior to maturity, at the option of the accredited investor.  The Company expensedhas the prepaid interest overright to prepay the scheduled remaining term of the notes. Pursuant to the loan agreement, the Company granted CBV a continuing security2013 Unit Notes and accrued interest in the Company’s personal property and equipment, excluding intellectual property. In August 2006 and February 2007, the loan agreement was modifiedcash prior to extend the maturity date of the outstanding balance to December 31, 2009 and to increase the amount available to the Company under the credit facility from $200,000 to $400,000. The annual interest rate on the loans made pursuant to the loan agreement was 4.25% at March 31, 2011.without penalty.

 
On December 31, 2009,
The Company allocated the proceeds from the sale of the units to the 2013/2014 Unit Notes, the common stock and the warrants comprising the Units based on the relative fair value of the individual securities in each Unit on the dates of the Unit sales. Based on the short-duration of the 2013/2014 Unit Notes and their other terms, the Company amended its loan agreement with CBV to extenddetermined that the maturityfair value of the 2013/2014 Unit Notes at the date of issuance was equal to their face value. Accordingly, the loans made pursuantCompany recorded an initial discount attributable to each 2013/2014 Unit Note for an amount representing the difference between the face value of the 2013/2014 Unit Note and its relative value. Additionally, the 2013/2014 Unit Notes contain an embedded conversion feature, certain of which had an intrinsic value at the issuance date, which value the Company treated as an additional discount attributable to those 2013/2014 Unit Notes, subject to limitations on the absolute amount of discount attributable to each 2013/2014 Unit Note. The Company recorded a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital, an equity account in the Consolidated Balance Sheet, attributable to the agreement from December 31, 2009beneficial conversion feature. The Company amortizes the aggregate discount attributable to each of the 2013/2014 Unit Notes using the interest method over the respective term of each Unit Note.  Based on their respective discounts, the weighted average effective interest rate attributable to the earlier2013/2014 Unit Notes is 464.1%.

10% Convertible Note Issued in Connection with 2014 Unit Private Placement

As described more completely in the section entitled 2014 Unit Private Placement in Note 10, Capital Stock, during March 2014, the Company issued to an accredited investor a 10% convertible note (the “2014Unit Note”) in the face amount of December$50,000 in connection with its private placement offering of Units. (See Note 17, Subsequent Events, for information regarding additional notes issued in connection with the 2014 Unit Private Placement.) The 2014 Unit Note matures on March 31, 2010 or ninety days after2015 (“Maturity”) and the initial public offering2014 Unit Note and its related accrued interest (the “Outstanding Balance”) is convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock.stock at a conversion price of $0.50 per share at or prior to maturity, at the option of the investor, or, upon the Company’s consummation of either (i) an equity or equity-based public offering registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), or (ii) an equity or equity-based private financing, or series of such financing transactions, not registered with the SEC, in each case resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of at least $10.0 million prior to Maturity (a “Qualified Financing”), the Outstanding Balance of the 2014 Unit Note will automatically convert into the securities sold in the Qualified Financing, based on the following formula: (the Outstanding Balance as of the closing of the Qualified Financing) x 1.25 / (the per security price of the securities sold in the Qualified Financing). This automatic conversion feature results in a contingent beneficial conversion feature which will be recorded upon the consummation of a Qualified Financing.

On December 28, 2010,The Company allocated the proceeds from the sale of the 2014 unit to the 2014 Unit Notes, the common stock and the warrants comprising the units based on the relative fair value of the individual securities in the unit on the date of the unit sale. Based on the short-duration of the 2014 Unit Note and its other terms, the Company againdetermined that the fair value of the 2014 Unit Note at the date of issuance was equal to its face value. Accordingly, the Company recorded an initial discount attributable to the 2014 Unit Note for an amount representing the difference between the face value of the 2014 Unit Note and its relative value. Additionally, the 2014 Unit Note contains an embedded conversion feature which had an intrinsic value at the issuance date.  The Company treated the intrinsic value of the conversion feature as an additional discount to the 2014 Unit Note. The Company recorded a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital, an equity account in the Consolidated Balance Sheet, attributable to the beneficial conversion feature. The Company amortizes the aggregate discount attributable to the 2014 Unit Note using the interest method over the term of the note.  Based on its aggregate discount, the effective interest rate attributable to the 2014 Unit Note is 123.8%.
2012 Convertible Promissory Notes

On February 28, 2012, the Company completed a private placement of convertible promissory notes to accredited investors in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 (the "2012 Notes").  Each 2012 Note accrued interest at the rate of 12% per annum and was to mature on the earlier of (i) twenty-four months from the date of issuance, or (ii) the consummation of an equity, equity-based, or series of equity-based financings resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of at least $4.0 million (the “Qualified Financing Threshold”).  The holders of the 2012 Notes had the right to voluntarily convert the outstanding principal amount of the 2012 Notes and all accrued and unpaid interest (the “Outstanding Balance”) at any time prior to maturity into that number of restricted shares of the Company’s common stock equal to the Outstanding Balance, divided by $3.00 (the "Conversion Shares").  In addition, in the event the Company consummated a financing equal to or exceeding the Qualified Financing Threshold, and the price per unit of the securities sold, or price per share of common stock issuable in connection with such financing, was at least $2.00 (a “Qualified Financing”), the Outstanding Balance would have automatically converted into such securities, including warrants, that were issued in the Qualified Financing, the amount of which would have been determined according to the following formula: (Outstanding Balance at the closing date of the Qualified Financing) x (1.25) / (the per security price of the securities sold in the Qualified Financing).
On November 15, 2012, the holders of the 2012 Notes entered into an Exchange Agreement with the Company (the "Exchange Agreement"). Under the terms of the Exchange Agreement, (i) the current amount due under the terms of the 2012 Notes, $678,600, which amount included all accrued interest as well as additional consideration for the conversion, was exchanged for a total of 1,357,281 restricted shares of the Company's common stock and five-year warrants to purchase 678,641 restricted shares of the Company's common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share (the "Note Exchange Securities"). Additionally, the Company issued a five-year warrant to purchase 72,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share as partial compensation to a placement agent that had placed certain of the 2012 Notes. The Company recorded the issuance of the warrants with a charge to interest expense of $28,200 and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital.

The Company determined that the exchange of the 2012 Notes into restricted shares of its common stock should be accounted for as an extinguishment of debt.  The Company recognized as consideration in the exchange the sum of (i) the fair value of the restricted common stock issued in the exchange at the quoted market price of $0.70 per share on the date of the exchange, or $950,100, and (ii) the fair value of the warrants, which was determined to be $0.39 per share, or $265,500, using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions: market price per share: $0.70; exercise price per share: $1.50; risk-free interest rate: 0.62%; contractual term: 5 years; volatility: 89.5%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The aggregate consideration less the net carrying value of the 2012 Notes, including accrued interest, resulted in the recognition of $1,145,100 as a non-cash loss on early extinguishment of debt in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.  The warrants issued to the placement agent were valued using the same assumptions as used for the warrants issued to the exchanging note holders.
Restructuring of Note Payable to Morrison & Foerster

On May 5, 2011, the Company and Morrison & Foerster LLP (“Morrison & Foerster”), then the Company’s general corporate and intellectual property counsel, amended a previously outstanding note (the “Original Note”) issued by the Company in payment of legal services (the “Amended Note”).  Under the Amended Note, the principal balance of the Original Note was increased to $2,200,000, interest accrued at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and the Company was required to make an additional payment of $100,000 within three business days of the date of the Amended Note. The Company made the required $100,000 payment in a timely manner.

On August 31, 2012, the Company restructured the Amended Note (the “Restructuring Agreement”).  Pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement, the Company issued to Morrison & Foerster two new unsecured promissory notes to replace the Amended Note, one in the principal amount of $1,000,000 ("Replacement Note A") and the other in the principal amount of $1,379,400 ("Replacement Note B") (together, the "Replacement Notes"); amended an outstanding warrant to purchase restricted shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Amended M&F Warrant”); and issued a new warrant to purchase restricted shares of the Company’s common stock (the “New M&F Warrant”).  Under the terms of the Restructuring Agreement, the Amended Note was cancelled and all of the Company's past due payment obligations under the Amended Note were satisfied.  The Company made a payment of $155,000 to Morrison & Foerster on August 31, 2012 pursuant to the terms of the Amended Note, and issued the Replacement Notes, each dated as of August 31, 2012.  Both Replacement Notes accrue interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and are due and payable on March 31, 2016.  Replacement Note A required monthly payments of $15,000 per month through March 31, 2013, and requires $25,000 per month thereafter until maturity.  Payment of the principal and interest on Replacement Note B will be made solely in restricted shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to Morrison & Foerster’s surrender from time to time of all or a portion of the principal and interest balance due on Replacement Note B in connection with its loan agreement with CBVexercise of the New M&F Warrant, at an exercise price of $1.00 per share,and concurrent cancellation of indebtedness and surrender of Replacement Note B; provided, however, that Morrison & Foerster shall have the option to require payment of Replacement Note B in cash upon the occurrence of a change in control of the Company or an event of default, and only in such circumstances. 

The Company treated the aggregate of the incremental value of the Amended M&F Warrant and the fair value of the New M&F Warrant as a discount to the Replacement Notes.  Under the terms of the Amended M&F Warrant, the Company amended the warrant to purchase 425,000 restricted shares of its common stock originally issued to Morrison & Foerster on March 15, 2010 to extend the maturityexpiration date of the loans made pursuant to the loan agreementwarrant from December 31, 20102014 to September 15, 2017 and to provide for exercise by paying cash or by the cancellation in whole or in part of the Company’s indebtedness under either of the Replacement Notes.  The Company determined that the incremental value of the Amended M&F Warrant was $121,650 at the modification date using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:

Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share
 
$
0.94
  
$
0.94
 
Exercise price per share
 
$
2.00
  
$
2.00
 
Risk-free interest rate
  
0.25%
   
0.60%
 
Expected term in years
  
2.33
   
5.04
 
Volatility
  
77.9%
   
88.8%
 
Dividend rate
  
0.0%
   
0.0%
 
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share
 
$
0.24
  
$
0.52
 

The New M&F Warrant is exercisable for the number of restricted shares of the Company’s common stock equal to the principal and accrued interest due under the terms of Replacement Note B divided by the warrant exercise price of $1.00 per share.  At the August 31, 2012 date of grant, the New M&F Warrant was exercisable to purchase 1,379,376 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock.  The New M&F Warrant effectively permits exercise only by the cancellation in whole or in part of the Company’s indebtedness under either of the Replacement Notes. The New M&F Warrant expires on September 15, 2017. The Company determined the fair value of the New M&F Warrant to be $0.64 per share, or $876,800, at the date of grant using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:  market price per share: $0.94; exercise price per share: $1.00; risk-free interest rate: 0.61%; contractual term: 5.04 years; volatility: 88.8%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The note discounts totaling $1,197,900, including the $199,500 remaining unamortized discount recorded prior to the modification, will be amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the term of the Replacement Notes. The aggregate amount of the incremental fair value of the Amended M&F Warrant and the fair value of the New M&F Warrant, $998,450, was recognized as equity and was credited to additional paid-in capital in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The effective interest rate on the Replacement Notes at the date of issuance was 32.3%, based on the stated interest rate, the amount of discount, and the term of the Replacement Notes. Through March 31, 2014, the Company has adjusted the New M&F Warrant to increase the number of restricted shares available for purchase by 195,191 shares, based on interest accrued on Replacement Note B through that date. The Company has recorded the fair value of the additional shares as a charge to interest expense and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital.

Restructuring of Accounts Payable to Cato Research Ltd.

On October 10, 2012, the Company issued to Cato Research Ltd ("CRL"), a contract research and development partner and a related party: (i) an unsecured promissory note in the initial principal amount of $1,009,000, which is payable solely in restricted shares of the Company’s common stock and which accrues interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, compounded monthly (the “CRL Note”), as payment in full for all contract research and development services and regulatory advice (“CRO Services”) rendered by CRL to the Company and its affiliates through December 31, 2012 or ninety days followingwith respect to the closingnon-clinical and clinical development of an offeringAV-101, and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase, at a price of $5,000,000 or more in$1.00 per share, 1,009,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock, the amount equal to the sum of the principal amount of the CRL Note, plus all accrued interest thereon, divided by $1.00 per share (the “CRL Warrant”). The principal amount of the CRL Note may, at the Company’s option, be automatically increased as a result of future CRO Services rendered by CRL to the Company and its affiliates from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013.  The CRL Note is due and payable on March 31, 2016 and is payable solely by CRL's surrender from time to time of all or a portion of the closingprincipal and interest balance due on the CRL Note in connection with its concurrent exercise of the CRL Warrant, provided, however, that CRL will have the option to require payment of the CRL Note in cash upon the occurrence of a reverse merger into a public shell company whose common stock tradedchange in control of the Company or an event of default, and only in such circumstances.

The Company determined that the cancellation of the accounts payable to CRL for CRO Services and the related issuance of the CRL Note should be accounted for as an extinguishment of debt.  Accordingly, the Company recorded the CRL Note at its fair value of $857,900 based on the OTC Bulletin Board.present value of its scheduled cash flows and assumptions regarding market interest rates for unsecured debt of similar quality. The Company determined the fair value of the CRL Warrant to be $0.48 per share, or $486,164, using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions: market price per share: $0.75; exercise price per share: $1.00; risk-free interest rate: 0.66%; contractual term: 5 years; volatility: 89.9%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The Company recognized the difference between the sum of the fair values of the CRL Note and the CRL Warrant less the accounts payable balance due to CRL, $335,100, as a non-cash loss on early extinguishment of debt in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended March 31, 2013.  The fair value of the warrant, $486,164, which is treated as an equity instrument, was credited to additional paid in capital at the issuance date. The difference between the face value of the CRL Note and its fair value, $151,100, has been treated as a discount to the note and is being amortized over the term of the note using the interest method, resulting in an effective interest rate of 12.1% on the CRL Note.  Through March 31, 2014, the Company has adjusted the CRL Warrant to increase the number of restricted shares available for purchase by 117,329 shares, based on interest accrued on the CRL Note through that date. The Company has recorded the fair value of the additional shares as a charge to interest expense and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital.

OnIssuance and Restructuring of Long-Term Promissory Note to Cato Holding Company

In April 29, 2011, all amounts owed by the Company to Cato Holding Company ("CHC"CHC") orand its affiliates, which include CBV, including the $105,000 principal balance of August 2010 Short Term Notes and the $170,000 principal balance payable under the line of credit, were consolidated into a single note, in the principal amount of $352,273.  Additionally,$352,300 (the “2011 CHC Note”).  Concurrently, CHC released the 2004 CBVall of its security interests in certain of the Company’s personal property.  

On October 10, 2012, the Company and CHC restructured the 2011 CHC Note.  The consolidated2011 CHC Note was cancelled and exchanged for a new unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of $310,400 (the “2012 CHC Note”) and a five-year warrant to purchase 250,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $1.50 per share (the “CHC Warrant”).  The 2012 CHC Note accrues interest at a rate of 7.5% per annum and is due and payable in monthly installments of $10,000, beginning November 1, 2012 and continuing until the outstanding balance is paid in full.

The Company determined that the cancellation of the 2011 CHC Note and the issuance of the 2012 CHC Note should be accounted for as an extinguishment of debt.  Accordingly, the Company recorded the 2012 CHC Note at its fair value of $291,100 based on the present value of its scheduled cash flows and assumptions regarding market interest rates for unsecured debt of similar quality. The Company determined the fair value of the CHC Warrant to be $0.48 per share, or $120,500, using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions: market price per share: $0.75; exercise price per share: $1.50; risk-free interest rate: 0.66%; contractual term: 5 years; volatility: 89.9%; expected dividend rate: 0%. The Company recognized the difference between the sum of the fair values of the 2012 CHC Note and the CHC Warrant less the carrying value of the 2011 CHC Note, $119,100, as a non-cash loss on early extinguishment of debt in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended March 31, 2013.  The fair value of the warrant, $120,500, which is treated as an equity instrument, was credited to additional paid in capital at the issuance date. The difference between the face value of the 2012 CHC Note and its fair value, $19,300, has been treated as a discount to the note and is being amortized over the term of the note using the interest method, resulting in an effective interest rate of 11.9% on the CHC 2012 Note.

Restructuring of Accounts Payable to University Health Network

On October 10, 2012, the Company issued to the University Health Network ("UHN"): (i) an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of $549,500, which is payable solely in restricted shares of the Company’s common stock and which accrues interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as payment in full for all sponsored stem cell research and development activities by UHN and Gordon Keller, Ph.D. under the SCRA through September 30, 2012 (the “UHN Note”), and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase, at a price of $1.00 per share, 549,500 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock, the amount equal to the sum of the principal amount of the UHN Note, plus all accrued interest thereon, divided by $1.00 per share (the “UHN Warrant”). The UHN Note is due and payable on March 31, 2016 and is payable solely by UHN's surrender from time to time of all or a portion of the principal and interest balance due on the UHN Note in connection with its concurrent exercise of the UHN Warrant, provided, however, that UHN will have the option to require payment of the UHN Note in cash upon the occurrence of a change in control of the Company or an event of default, and only in such circumstances.
The Company determined that the restructuring of the accounts payable to UHN under the SRCA, defined below, and the related issuance of the UHN Note should be accounted for as an extinguishment of debt.  Accordingly, the Company recorded the UHN Note at its fair value of $467,211 based on the present value of its scheduled cash flows and assumptions regarding market interest rates for unsecured debt of similar quality. The Company determined the fair value of the UHN Warrant to be $0.48 per share, or $264,775, using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions: market price per share: $0.75; exercise price per share: $1.00; risk-free interest rate: 0.66%; contractual term: 5 years; volatility: 89.9%; expected dividend rate: 0%. The Company recognized the difference between the sum of the fair values of the UHN Note and the UHN Warrant less the accounts payable balance due to UHN, $182,500, as a non-cash loss on early extinguishment of debt in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended March 31, 2013. The fair value of the warrant, $264,775, which is treated as an equity instrument, was credited to additional paid in capital at the issuance date. The difference between the face value of the UHN Note and its fair value has been treated as a discount to the note and is being amortized over the term of the note using the interest method, resulting in an effective interest rate of 11.3% on the UHN Note.  Through March 31, 2014, the Company has adjusted the UHN Warrant to increase the number of restricted shares available for purchase by 60,633 shares, based on interest accrued on the UHN Note through that date. The Company has recorded the fair value of the additional shares as a charge to interest expense and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital.

Issuance of Long-Term Notes and Cancellation of Amounts Payable

On February 25, 2011, the Company issued to Burr, Pilger, and Mayer, LLC (“BPM”) an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of $98,674 for amounts payable in connection with valuation services provided to the Company by BPM.  The BPM note bears interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and has payment terms of $1,000 per month, beginning March 1, 2011 and continuing until all principal and interest are paid in full.  In addition, a payment of $25,000 shall be due upon the sale of the Company or upon the Company completing a financing transaction of at least $5.0 million during any three-month period, with the payment increasing to $50,000 (or the amount then owed under the note, if less) upon the Company completing a financing of over $10.0 million.
On April 29, 2011, the Company issued to Desjardins Securities, Inc. (“Desjardins”) an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of CDN $236,000 for amounts payable for legal fees incurred by Desjardins in connection with investment banking services provided to the Company by Desjardins.  The Desjardins note bears interest at 7.5% and will be due, along with all accrued but unpaid interest on the earliest of (i) June 30, 2014, (ii) the consummation of a Change of Control, as defined in the Desjardins note, and (iii) any failure to pay principal or interest when due.  The Company was required to make payments of CDN $4,000 per month beginning May 31, 2011, increasing to CDN $6,000 per month on January 31, 2012. Beginning on January 1, 2012, the Company is also required to make payments equal to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the net proceeds of all private or public equity financings closed during the term of the note. The note payable to Desjardins is due on June 30, 2014.
On May 5, 2011, the Company issued to McCarthy Tetrault LLP (“McCarthy”) an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of CDN $502,797 for the amounts payable in connection with Canadian legal services provided to the Company.  The McCarthy note bears interest at 7.5% and will be due, along with all accrued but unpaid interest on the earliest of (i) June 30, 2014, (ii) the consummation of a Change of Control, as defined in the McCarthy note, and (iii) any failure to pay principal or interest when due.  The Company was required to make payments of CDN $10,000 per month beginning May 31, 2011, which payment amounts increased to CDN $15,000 per month on January 31, 2012. Beginning on January 1, 2012, the Company is also required to make payments equal to one percent (1%) of the net proceeds of all private or public equity financings closed during the term of the note.  The note payable to McCarthy is due on June 14, 2014.  However, see Note 17, Subsequent Events, regarding an amendment extending the maturity date of the McCarthy note and modifying other terms.
On August 30, 2012, the Company issued a promissory note in the principal amount of $60,000 and 15,000 restricted shares of its common stock valued at a market price of $0.94 per share to Progressive Medical Research in settlement of past due obligations for clinical research services in the amount of $79,900. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company also agreed to make monthly cash payments of $5,000 in August 2012 through December 2012. The promissory note bears interest at 7% per annum compounded monthly.  Under the terms of the note, the Company is to make six monthlyand requires payments of $10,000 each$1,000 per month beginning June 1, 2011;January 15, 2013 until all principal and thereafter will make payments of $12,500 monthly until the noteinterest is repaidpaid in full.  The Company may prepay the outstanding balance under this note requires payment in full upon the sale of all or in part at any time duringsubstantially all of the term of this note without penalty.  At March 31, 2012,Company’s assets or upon the Company had not paidcompleting a financing transaction, or series of transactions, resulting in gross proceeds to the monthly payments due subsequentCompany of at least $4.0 million in any three-month period, excluding proceeds from stock option or warrant exercises. The Company charged the loss on the settlement to December 2011.interest expense.

Notes Payable Issued for the Cancellation
F-27


On October 12, 2009, the Company issued a promissory note payable to the Regents of the University of California (“UC”UC) with a principal balance of $90,000 in exchange for the cancellation of certain amounts payable under a research collaboration agreement (the “UCUC Note 1”1). UC Note 1 was payable in monthly principal installments of $15,000 through May 30, 2010. Interest on UC Note 1 at 10% per annum was payable on May 30, 2010. If the Company had completed an initial public offering of its stock prior to May 30, 2010, the remaining balance of UC Note 1 would have been payable within 10 business days after the initial public offering was consummated.  The Company made the first two monthly installments totaling an aggregate of $30,000.  On February 25, 2010, the Company issued a promissory note payable to UC having a principal balance of $170,000 in exchange for the cancellation of the remaining $60,000 principal balance of UC Note 1 and certain amounts payable under a research collaboration agreement (“UC Note 2”2). UC Note 2 was payable in monthly principal installments of $15,000 through May 31, 2010, with the remaining $125,000 plus all accrued and unpaid interest due on or before June 30, 2010. If the Company had completed an initial public offering of its stock prior to June 30, 2010, the remaining balance of the Note would have been payable within 10 business days after the initial public offering was consummated.  On June 28, 2010, the Company amended UC Note 2 to extend the payment terms as follows: monthly installments of $15,000 payable through May 31, 2010, $10,000 due on June 30, 2010 and $115,000 plus all accrued and unpaid interest due and payable on or before August 30, 2010.  On August 25, 2010 and again on October 30, 2010, the Company amended UC Note 2 to extend the date of the final installment payment to be made under UC Note 2 to December 31, 2010 while adding a strategic premium to preserve license rights under the research collaboration agreement in exchange for an increase in the then-outstanding principal amount of UC Note 2 by $15,000 to $125,000. On December 22, 2010, the Company amended UC Note 2 a fourth time and decreased the monthly payment amount to $5,000 with payments continuing until the outstanding balance of principal and interest is paid in full. The provision requiring the payment of the outstanding balance within 10 business days following the closing of an initial public offering remains unchanged.  At March 31, 2012, the Company has not made the monthly payments required for February or March 2012.
 
On March 1, 2010, the Company issued a 10% promissory note with a principal balance of $75,000 to National Jewish Health in exchange for the cancellation of certain amounts payable for accrued royalties.  The principal balance plus all accrued and unpaid interest was initially due on or before December 31, 2010 (“March 2010 Note”Note). If the Company had completed an initial public offering of its stock prior to any installment dates, $25,000 of the remaining balance of the March 2010 Note would have been due on June 30, 2010, and any remaining principal balance and all accrued and unpaid interest would have been payable within 90 business days after the initial public offering was consummated.  On December 28, 2010, the Company amended the March 2010 Note and extended its maturity date to the first to occur of April 30, 2011 or 30 days following the closing of a financing with gross proceeds of $5,000,000 or more.  The Company has been in extended discussions with the holder of the March 2010 Note and expectsanticipates that the Note will be cancelled in favor of certain amounts payable to the Company equal to or greater than the outstanding balance of the Note.  At March 31, 2012, the Company has made no payments on the March 2010 Note.

 
On August 13, 2010, the Company issued a 10% promissory note with a principal balance of $40,962 to MicroConstants, Inc. in exchange for the cancellation of certain amounts payable for services rendered.  Under the terms of this note, the Company is to make payments of $1,000 per month with any unpaid principal or accrued interest due and payable upon the first to occur of (i) August 1, 2013, (ii) the issuance and sale of equity securities whereby the Company raises at least $5,000,000 or (iii) the sale or acquisition of all or substantially all of the Company’s stock or assets.  At March 31, 2012, the Company has not made the monthly payments required for February and March 2012.

On March 15, 2010, the Company issued an unsecured 7.5% promissory note with a principal balance of $1,280,125 in exchange for the cancellation of certain amounts payable for legal services rendered by Morrison & Foerster LLP (“Morrison & Foerster”), the Company’s legal and intellectual property counsel (“Morrison & Foerster Note”).  According to its terms, the Company was obligated to make monthly payments of $10,000 until December 15, 2011. However, the monthly payments were to increase to $50,000 upon the completion of an initial public offering, and, in addition, a $250,000 payment would be payable upon the completion of an equity financing of at least $3 million. The Note accrued annual interest at 7.5% and, as scheduled, the outstanding balance of the Morrison & Foerster Note and accrued interest was payable on December 31, 2011 or upon the sale of the Company or its assets, or upon an event of default (as defined in the Morrison & Foerster Note), whichever occurs first. Additionally, all amounts payable for services rendered by Morrison & Foerster on behalf of the Company from March 1, 2010 through the closing of an initial public offering were to be automatically added to the outstanding principal balance of the Morrison & Foerster Note upon delivery of an invoice for such services.  Additional billings of $839,700 and $347,800 were added to the outstanding principal of the Note for the periods ending March 31, 2011 and 2012, respectively, related to services rendered.  
On May 5, 2011, the Company and Morrison & Foerster entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Morrison & Foerster Note (“Amendment No. 1”).  Under the terms of Amendment No. 1, the principal balance of the Morrison & Foerster note was increased to $2,200,000, with a payment of $100,000 due within three business days of the effective date of Amendment No. 1, which amount was paid. Under Amendment No. 1, the note bears interest at 7.5% and principal will be due, along with all accrued but unpaid interest on the earliest of (i) March 31, 2016, (ii) the consummation of a Change of Control, as defined in the Morrison & Foerster note, and (iii) any failure to pay principal or interest when due.  The Company was obligated to make payments of $10,000 per month until June 1, 2011 and thereafter to pay $15,000 per month through March 31, 2012, $25,000 per month through March 31, 2013, and $50,000 per month through maturity.  In addition, the Company is obligated to make payments equal to five percent (5%) of the net proceeds of any equity financing closed during the term of the note until all outstanding principal and interest is paid in full.  If the Company prepays the entire amount due by December 31, 2012, the amount of such payment shall be reduced by ten percent (10%), up to a maximum of $100,000. At March 31, 2012, the Company has not made the monthly payments required for February and March 2012.
In connection with the issuance of the Morrison & Foerster Note, the Company issued to Morrison & Foerster a warrant to purchase up to 425,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share. The Warrant expires on December 31, 2014.  The Company valued the Warrant at a fair value of $0.69 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions: fair value of common stock — $1.48 per share; risk-free interest rate — 2.35%; volatility — 74.82%; contractual term — 4.83 years.  The Company recorded the fair value of the Warrant as a discount to the Morrison & Foerster Note and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital.  The effective annual interest rate of the 7.5% promissory note at issuance was 14.86%.  In connection with Amendment No. 1, the Company issued 200,000 shares of restricted common stock to Morrison & Foerster which had a value, at the time of issuance, of $1.75 per share. In addition, the Company reduced the exercise price of the common stock warrants previously issued to Morrison & Foerster from $3.00 to $2.00 per share. The $58,700 increase in the fair value of the warrants was recorded as a note discount and a corresponding increase in additional paid-in capital.

On February 25, 2011, the Company issued to Burr, Pilger, and Mayer, LLC (“BPM”) an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of $98,674 (the “BPM Note”) for amounts payable in connection with services provided to the Company by BPM.  The BPM Note bears interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and has payment terms of $1,000 per month, beginning March 1, 2011 and continuing until all principal and interest are paid in full.  In addition, a payment of $25,000 will be due upon the sale of the Company or upon the Company completing a financing transaction of at least $5.0 million, with the payment increasing to $50,000 (or the amount then owed under the note, if less) upon the Company completing a financing of over $10.0 million.  At March 31, 2012, the Company has not made the monthly payment required for March 2012.

On April 29, 2011, the Company issued to Desjardins Securities, Inc. (“Desjardins”) an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of CDN $236,000 for amounts payable for legal fees incurred by Desjardins in connection with investment banking services provided to the Company by Desjardins. The Desjardins note bears interest at 7.5% and will be due, along with all accrued but unpaid interest on the earliest of (i) June 30, 2014, (ii) the consummation of a Change of Control, as defined in the Desjardins note, and (iii) any failure to pay principal or interest when due.  The Company is to make payments of CDN $4,000 per month beginning May 31, 2011, increasing to CDN $6,000 per month on January 31, 2012. In addition, if, prior to June 30, 2012, the Company closes an equity financing or series of equity financings with aggregate proceeds of $5.0 million or more, then the Company is obligated to make a payment of $39,600 to Desjardins within 10 business days of the closing of such transaction(s). Beginning on January 1, 2012, the Company is also obligated to make payments equal to one-half percent (0.5%) of the net proceeds of all private or public equity financings closed during the term of the note. In connection with issuance of the note, the Company issued 39,600 shares of restricted common stock to Desjardins which, at the time of issuance, had a value of $1.75 per share.  At March 31, 2012, the Company has not made the monthly payments required for February and March 2012.

On May 5, 2011, the Company issued to McCarthy Tetrault LLP (“McCarthy”) an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of CDN $502,797 for the amounts payable in connection with legal services provided to the Company.  The McCarthy note bears interest at 7.5% and will be due, along with all accrued but unpaid interest on the earliest of (i) June 30, 2014, (ii) the consummation of a Change of Control, as defined in the McCarthy note, and (iii) any failure to pay principal or interest when due.  The Company is obligated to make payments of CDN $10,000 per month beginning May 31, 2011, increasing to CDN $15,000 per month on January 31, 2012. In addition, if, prior to June 30, 2012, the Company closes an equity financing or series of equity financings with aggregate proceeds of $5.0 million or more, then the Company is to make a payment of $100,000 to McCarthy within 10 business days of the closing of such transaction(s). Beginning on January 1, 2012, the Company is also obligated to make payments equal to one percent (1%) of the net proceeds of all private or public equity financings closed during the term of the note. In connection with issuance of this note, the Company issued 100,000 shares of restricted common stock to McCarthy which had a value, at the time of issuance, of $1.75 per share.  At March 31, 2012, the Company has not made the monthly payments required for February and March 2012.

February 2012 12% Convertible Promissory Notes

On February 28, 2012, the Company completed a private placement of convertible promissory notes to certain accredited investors in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 (the "Notes").  Each Note accrues interest at the rate of 12% per annum and will mature on the earlier of (i) twenty-four months from the date of issuance, or (ii) consummation of an equity, equity-based, or series of equity-based financings resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of at least $4.0 million (the Qualified Financing Threshold”). The holder of each Note may voluntarily convert the outstanding principal amount of the Notes and all accrued and unpaid interest (the “Outstanding Balance”) at any time prior to maturity into that number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to the Outstanding Balance, divided by $3.00 (the "Conversion Shares"). In addition, in the event the Company consummates a financing equal to or exceeding the Qualified Financing Threshold, and the price per unit of the securities sold, or price per share of common stock issuable in connection with such financing, is at least $2.00 (a “Qualified Financing”), the Outstanding Balance will automatically convert into such securities, including warrants, that are issued in the Qualified Financing, the amount of which shall be determined according to the following formula: (Outstanding Balance at the closing date of the Qualified Financing) x (1.25) / (the per security price of the securities sold in the Qualified Financing).

The purchaser of each Note was issued a warrant to purchase, for $2.75 per share, the number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to 150% of the total principal amount of the Notes purchased by such purchaser, divided by $2.75, resulting in the potential issuance of an aggregate of 272,724 shares of the Company’s common stock upon exercise of the warrants.  The warrants terminate, if not exercised, five years from the date of issuance.  The Company valued the warrants at a fair value of $1.99 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions:  fair value of common stock - $2.85; risk-free interest rate – 0.84%; volatility – 89.9%; contractual term – 5.00 years; dividend rate – 0%.

The Company allocated the proceeds from the Notes and associated warrants based on their relative fair values. The relative fair value attributable to the warrants was $260,076, which the Company recorded as a discount to the Notes and a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital. The Company recorded an additional note discount of $235,084 for the fair value of the non-contingent beneficial conversion feature of the Notes.  The note discounts totaling $495,160 will be amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the term of the Notes. The effective interest rate on the Notes at the date of issuance was 268.9% based on the stated interest rate, the amount of discount, and the term of the Notes.
9.10.  Capital Stock

At March 31, 2011, VistaGen was authorized to issue a total of 95 million shares of capital stock in two classes, designated, respectively, as common stock and preferred stock.  Of the total shares authorized, 75 million shares were designated as no par value common stock and the remaining 20 million shares were designated as no par value preferred stock.   At March 31, 2011 and prior to the Merger, Excaliber was authorized to issue up to 200 million shares of common stock, $0.001 par value, and no shares of preferred stock.
2011 Private Placement
On May 11, 2011, and immediately preceding the closing of the Merger, VistaGen sold 2,216,106 Units in a private placement for aggregate gross proceeds of $3,878,200, including $2,369,200 in cash, a $500,000 short-term note receivable due on September 6, 2011, cancellation of $840,000 of short-term notes maturing on April 30, 2011, a note cancellation premium of $94,500, and cancellation of $74,500 of accounts payable (the “2011 Private Placement”).  The Units were sold for $1.75 per Unit and consisted of one share of common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase one-fourth (1/4) of one share of common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.  Warrants to purchase a total of 554,013 shares of common stock were issued to the purchasers of the Units.  Concurrently, VistaGen issued to its placement agent three-year warrants to purchase 114,284 shares of its common stock at $2.50 per share, and agreed to pay $200,000 in placement agent fees, $150,000 of which amount was paid on May 11, 2011.

In October 2011, VistaGen restructured the terms of the $500,000 short term promissory note received in conjunction with the 2011 Private Placement.  The note currently bears interest at 5% per annum.  The maturity date has been extended to September 1, 2012 and the revised terms require payments to VistaGen as follows:

  (a) one payment of $50,000 on or before October 31, 2011;
(b) nine payments of $50,000 on or before the first day of each month commencing December 1, 2011 and ending August 1, 2012; and
(c) one final payment equal to the remaining balance of principal and interest due on or before September 1, 2012.

The outstanding principal balance of the note receivable at March 31, 2012 is $250,000.  

Conversion of Convertible Promissory Notes

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, holders of certain promissory notes issued by VistaGen from 2006 through 2010 converted their notes totaling aggregate principal and interest of $6,174,793 into 3,528,290 Units, at a price of $1.75 per Unit.  These Units were the same Units issued in connection with the 2011 Private Placement.   

Conversion of Preferred Stock

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, all holders of VistaGen's then-outstanding preferred stock converted all of their preferred shares into 2,884,655 shares of common stock so that, at the completion of the Merger, the Company had no shares of preferred stock outstanding.

Changes in Amounts of Capital Stock Authorized

Effective with the Merger, the Company was authorized to issue up to 400,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value and no shares of preferred stock.  On October 28, 2011, the Company held a special meeting of its stockholders at which the stockholders approved a proposal to amend the Company’s Articles of Incorporation to (1) reduce the number of shares of common stock the Company is authorized to issue from 400,000,000 shares to 200,000,000 shares; (2) authorize the Company to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock; and (3) authorize the Company’s Board of Directors to prescribe the classes, series and the number of each class or series of preferred stock and the voting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of each class or series of preferred stock.

Series A Preferred Stock

In December 2011, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the creation of a series of up to 500,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 (“Series A Preferred”Preferred).  Each restricted share of Series A Preferred iswas initially convertible at the option of the holder into ten restricted shares of the Company's common stock.  The Series A Preferred ranks prior to the common stock for purposes of liquidation preference.

The Series A Preferred has no separate dividend rights, however, whenever the Board of Directors declares a dividend on the common stock, each holder of record of a share of Series A Preferred shall be entitled to receive an amount equal to such dividend declared on one share of common stock multiplied by the number of shares of common stock into which such share of Series A Preferred could be converted on the Record Date.

Except with respect to transactions upon which the Series A Preferred shall be entitled to vote separately as a class, the Series A Preferred has no voting rights. The restricted common stock into which the Series A Preferred is convertible shall, upon issuance, have all of the same voting rights as other issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock.

In the event of the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the affairs of the Company, after payment or provision for payment of the debts and other liabilities of the Company, the holders of Series A Preferred then outstanding shall be entitled to receive an amount per share of Series A Preferred calculated by taking the total amount available for distribution to holders of all the Company's outstanding common stock before deduction of any preference payments for the Series A Preferred, divided by the total of (x), all of the then outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, plus (y) all of the shares of the Company's common stock into which all of the outstanding shares of the Series A Preferred can be converted before any payment shall be made or any assets distributed to the holders of the common stock or any other junior stock.

At March 31, 2012,2014 and 2013, there were 437,055500,000 restricted shares of Series A Preferred outstanding, all issued to Platinum. Platinum underacquired the terms ofSeries A Preferred pursuant to the Note and Warrant Exchange Agreementtransactions described below.  In October 2012, Platinum’s exchange rights with respect to the Series A Preferred were modified as described in Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notesthe section entitled Modification of Series A Preferred Exchange Rights and Other Notes Payable, and the Common Stock Exchange Agreement, describedDeemed Dividend, below.

·December 2011 Common Stock Exchange Agreement with Platinum

On December 22, 2011, the Company entered into a Common Stock Exchange Agreement (the "Exchange Agreement""Exchange Agreement") with Platinum, pursuant to which Platinum converted 484,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock into 45,980 restricted shares of the newly created Series A Preferred (the "Exchange""Exchange").  Each restricted share of Series A Preferred issued to Platinum iswas initially convertible into ten restricted shares of the Company’s common stock.  In consideration forAt the time of the Exchange, the Series A Preferred received by Platinum in connection with the Exchange is convertible into the equivalent of 0.95 shares of common stock surrendered in connection with the Exchange.  The Company has determined the fair value of the common stock subject to the Exchange to be $1.55 per share and has reflected the 484,000 restricted common shares as treasury stock on that basis in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2012.2014 and 2013.

Fall 2011 Follow-On Offering
·
December 2011 Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement with Platinum

Beginning in OctoberOn December 29, 2011, the Company initiatedand Platinum entered into a follow-on private placementNote and Warrant Exchange Agreement pursuant to which a promissory note in the face amount of Units.  These$4,000,000 plus accrued interest and all outstanding warrants issued to Platinum to purchase an aggregate of 1,599,858 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock were cancelled in exchange for 391,075 restricted shares of Series A Preferred.  Each share of Series A Preferred was initially convertible into ten shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company issued 231,090 restricted shares of Series A Preferred to Platinum in connection with the note cancellation based on the sum of the $4,000,000 principal balance of the note plus accrued but unpaid interest through May 11, 2011 adjusted for a 125% conversion premium, net of the $1,719,800 aggregate exercise price of the 1,599,858 outstanding warrants held by Platinum, and a contractual conversion basis of $1.75 per common share, all adjusted for the initial 1:10 Series A Preferred to common exchange ratio.  An additional 159,985 restricted shares of Series A Preferred were issued to Platinum in connection with the warrant exercise and exchange to acquire the common shares issued upon the warrant exercise.

·2012 Exchange Agreement with Platinum

On June 29, 2012, the Company and Platinum entered into an Exchange Agreement (the “2012 Platinum Exchange Agreement”) pursuant to which the Company issued Platinum 62,945 restricted shares of Series A Preferred in exchange for 629,450 restricted shares of common stock then owned by Platinum, in consideration for Platinum’s agreement to purchase from the Company the July 2012 Platinum Note, as described in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable. The Company estimated the fair value of the Series A Preferred shares tendered to Platinum under the terms of the 2012 Platinum Exchange Agreement at $736,400 ($1.17 per share on a common share equivalent basis). The common shares exchanged for shares of Series A Preferred are treated as treasury stock on that basis in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2014 and 2013.

Modification of Series A Preferred Exchange Right and Deemed Dividends

Pursuant to the October 2012 Agreement described more completely in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, Platinum’s exchange rights in the Series A Preferred were modified such that Platinum now has the right and option to exchange the 500,000 restricted shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred that it holds for (i) a total of 15,000,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock, and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase 7,500,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an initial exercise price of $1.50 per share (the “Series A Exchange Warrant”). See the section entitled Modification of Platinum Warrants, later in this note, for a description of the subsequent modification of the exercise price of the Series A Preferred Exchange Warrant. The modification of the exchange ratio resulted in a deemed dividend of $7,125,000 to Platinum for accounting purposes, which has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.  The amount of the deemed dividend in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 was determined as the sum of (i) the value of the 10 million incremental shares to which Platinum is entitled pursuant to the October 2012 Agreement valued at the $0.75 per share quoted market price for the Company’s common stock on the date of the agreement, an aggregate of $7.5 million, adjusted for an expected 95% probability of exercise of the exchange rights by Platinum, or $7,125,000; and (ii) .the fair value of the Series A Exchange Warrant at the date of the October 2012 Agreement, determined to be $0.43 per share, or $3,228,700, on the date of the agreement using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions: market price per share: $0.75; exercise price per share: $1.50; risk-free interest rate: 0.67%; contractual term: 5 years; volatility: 89.9%; expected dividend rate: 0%; and adjusted for an expected 95% probability of exercise of the exchange rights by Platinum. The adjusted fair value of the warrant, $3,068,200 was recognized as a component of the Warrant Liability in the in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2013, with a corresponding charge to Additional paid-in capital.

The fair value of the Series A Exchange Warrant was re-measured as of March 31, 2013 at $4,406,000 and the $1,337,800 increase in fair value since the inception of the October 2012 Agreement is reflected as a component of the Change in Warrant Liability in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.  The fair value of the Series A Exchange Warrant was re-measured as of March 31, 2014 at $2,058,600 and the $2,347,400 decrease in fair value since March 31, 2013 is reflected as a component of the Change in Warrant Liability in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.
Conversion of Pre-Merger Preferred Stock

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, all holders of VistaGen California's then-outstanding preferred stock converted all of their preferred shares into 2,884,655 restricted shares of VistaGen California common stock so that, at the completion of the Merger, VistaGen California had no preferred stock outstanding.  All shares of VistaGen California common stock were then acquired by the Company in connection with the Merger.

Common Stock

Autilion AG Securities Purchase Agreement

On April 8, 2013, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (as amended, the “Securities Purchase Agreement”) with Autilion AG, a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland (“Autilion”).  On April 12, 2013, Autilion assigned the Securities Purchase Agreement to its affiliate, Bergamo Acquisition Corp. PTE LTD, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Singapore (“Bergamo Singapore”). On April 30, 2013, the Company and Bergamo Singapore amended the Securities Purchase Agreement to modify the investment dates.  On June 27, 2013, the Company, Autilion and Bergamo Singapore further amended the Securities Purchase Agreement to vacate Autilion’s April 2013 assignment of the Securities Purchase Agreement to Bergamo Singapore, provide for an initial closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement, and amend certain of the investment dates under the Securities Purchase Agreement. Under the terms of the Securities Purchase Agreement, Autilion is contractually obligated to purchase an aggregate of 72.0 million restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.50 per share for aggregate cash consideration of $36.0 million, in a series of closings scheduled to have occurred by September 30, 2013 (the “Autilion Financing”).  Through March 31, 2014, Autilion had completed only a nominal initial closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement, in the amount of $25,000, and the Company had issued 50,000 restricted shares of its common stock. As of the date of this report, Autilion has not completed a subsequent closing of the Autilion Financing.  Therefore, Autilion is in default under the Securities Purchase Agreement, and the Company can provide no assurance that Autilion will complete a material closing under the Securities Purchase Agreement.
Winter 2013/2014 Unit Private Placement
Between August 2013 and March 2014, the Company entered into securities purchase agreements with accredited investors pursuant to which it sold to such investors Units were essentiallyeach consisting of (i) a 10% convertible promissory note in the same asface amount of $5,000 maturing on July 30, 2014 (the “2013/2014 Unit Note”); (ii) 10,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock (the “2013/2014 Unit Stock”); and (iii) a warrant exercisable through July 30, 2016 to purchase 10,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share (the “2013/2014 Unit Warrant”).  The Company issued 2013/2014 Unit Notes in the aggregate face amount of $1,007,500; an aggregate of 2,015,000 restricted shares of 2013/2014 Unit Stock, and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 2,015,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the 2013/2014 Unit Warrants, and received cash proceeds of $1,007,500, including $50,000 in lieu of repayment of previous advances to the Company made by one of its executive officers. The 2013/2014 Unit Notes and related accrued interest are convertible into restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $0.50 per share at or prior to maturity, at the option of each investor.

The Company allocated the proceeds from the sale of the Units to the various securities in each Unit based on their relative fair value on the dates of the sales. As described in Note 8, Convertible PromissoryNotes and Other Notes Payable, based on the short-term nature of the 2013/2014 Unit Notes, the Company determined that fair value of the 2013/2014 Unit Notes was equal to their face value. The Company determined the fair value of the 2013/2014 Unit Stock based on the quoted market price of its stock on the date of the Unit sale. The Company calculated the fair value of the 2013/2014 Unit Warrants using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the weighted average assumptions indicated in the table below. The table below also presents the aggregate allocation of the Unit sales proceeds based on the relative fair values of the 2013/2014 Unit Stock, 2013/2014 Unit Warrants and 2013/2014 Unit Notes at the Unit sales date.
 2013/2014 Unit Warrants    
 Weighted Average Issuance Date Valuation Assumptions
 
Per Share
 
Aggregate
 
Aggregate
 
Aggregate Allocation of Proceeds
Warrant   Risk free  FairFair ValueProceedsBased on Relative Fair Value of:
SharesMarketExerciseTermInterest DividendValue ofof Unitof Unit Unit 
IssuedPricePrice(Years)RateVolatilityRateWarrantWarrantsSalesUnit StockWarrantUnit Note
             
     2,015,000 $     0.45 $     1.00        2.680.58%76.29%0.0% $          0.13 $  254,700 $   1,007,500 $    415,000 $    111,400 $      481,100
2014 Unit Private Placement
During March 2014, the Company entered into a securities purchase agreement with an accredited investor pursuant to which it sold to the investor Units consisting of (i) a 10% subordinated convertible promissory note in the aggregate face amount of $50,000 maturing on March 31, 2015 (the “Spring 2014 Unit Note”); (ii) an aggregate of 50,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock (the “2014 Unit Stock”); and (iii) a warrant exercisable through December 31, 2015 to purchase an aggregate of 50,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share (the “2014 Unit Warrant”).  (See Note 17, Subsequent Events, for information regarding additional Units issued in connection with the 20112014 Unit Private Placement.) The 2014 Unit Note and its related accrued interest (the “Outstanding Balance”) is convertible into restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $0.50 per share at or prior to maturity, at the option of the investor, or, upon the Company’s consummation of either (i) an equity or equity-based public offering registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), or (ii) an equity or equity-based private financing, or series of such financing transactions, not registered with the SEC, in each case resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of at least $10.0 million prior to Maturity (a “Qualified Financing”), the Outstanding Balance of the 2014 Unit Note will, subject to certain conditions, automatically convert into the securities sold in the Qualified Financing, based on the following formula: (the Outstanding Balance as of the closing of the Qualified Financing) x 1.25 / (the per security price of the securities sold in the Qualified Financing).
The Company allocated the proceeds from the sale of the 2014 unit to the 2014 Unit Notes, the common stock and the warrants comprising the units based on the relative fair value of the individual securities in the unit on the date of the unit sale. Based on the short-duration of the 2014 Unit Note and its other terms, the Company determined that the fair value of the 2014 Unit Note at the date of issuance was equal to its face value. The Company determined the fair value of the 2014 Unit Stock based on the quoted market price of its stock on the date of the unit sale. The Company calculated the fair value of the 2014 Unit Warrant using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the assumptions indicated in the table below. The table below also presents the aggregate allocation of the Unit sale proceeds based on the relative fair values of the 2014 Unit Stock, 2014 Unit Warrants and 2014 Unit Notes at the unit sale date.
 2014 Unit Warrants     
  Weighted Average Issuance Date Valuation Assumptions 
 
Per Share
 
Aggregate
 
 
Aggregate
 
Aggregate Allocation of Proceeds
Warrant    Risk free   FairFair Value ProceedsBased on Relative Fair Value of:
Shares MarketExerciseTermInterest Dividend Value ofof Unit of Unit Unit 
Issued PricePrice(Years)RateVolatilityRate WarrantWarrants SalesUnit StockWarrantUnit Note
                
          50,000  $     0.46 $     0.50        2.800.66%74.94%0.0%  $          0.21 $    10,400  $        50,000 $      13,800 $        6,200 $        30,000
2012/2013 Unit Private Placement namely,

Between September 2012 and March 2013, the Company sold 2,366,330 Units in a private placement to accredited investors and received cash proceeds of $1,133,200 and settled outstanding amounts payable for legal fees in lieu of cash payment for services in the amount of $50,000. The Units were sold for $0.50 per Unit and each Unit was priced at $1.75 and consisted of one restricted share of the Company’s common stock and a three-yearfive year warrant to purchase one-fourthone half (1/4)2) of one restricted share of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50$1.50 per share.  In addition, in November 2012, pursuant to an Exchange Agreement, the holders of the 2012 Notes exchanged the aggregate amount of $678,600 due under the terms of such notes for Units consisting of 1,357,281 restricted shares of the Company's common stock and five-year warrants to purchase 678,641 restricted shares of the Company's common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share.  The Company sold a total of 63,570 Units and received aggregategross cash proceeds from this private placement of $111,300.Units satisfied the Additional Financing Requirement under the October 2012 Agreement with Platinum, as amended, described in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, entitling the Company to sell and requiring Platinum to purchase senior secured convertible promissory notes in the aggregate face amount of $1.0 million in February and March 2013.  In connection with the settlement of legal fees payable by issuing Units, the Company recorded a loss on extinguishment of debt of $30,800 based on the fair market value of the common shares and the warrant comprising the Unit on the effective date of the settlement.
Common Stock Grants

Discounted Warrant Exercise Program

DuringIn April 2012, the quarter ended December 31, 2011, certain warrant holders exercisedCompany entered into a contract for investor relations consulting services pursuant to which it granted three-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,121,25950,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at reducedan exercise prices, includingprice of $2.80 per share.  The Company valued the warrant at $69,200 using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:  market price per share: $2.74; exercise price per share: $2.80; risk-free interest rate: 0.50%; contractual term: 3 years; volatility: 79.09%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The fair value of the warrant was initially recorded as a prepaid expense and was to be expensed over one year in accordance with the terms of the contract.  The contract and related warrant were cancelled in October 2012 and the remaining amount attributable to the fair value of the warrant was expensed.

In June 2012, the Company entered into a contract for investor relations and public company support services through December 31, 2012 pursuant to which it granted 280,000 restricted shares of its common stock valued at $238,000 based on the grant date quoted market price of $0.85 per share and warrants to purchase 1,599,858100,000 restricted shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share through December 31, 2015.  The Company valued the warrant at $25,800 using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:  market price per share: $0.85; exercise price per share: $3.00; risk-free interest rate: 0.46%; contractual term: 3.53 years; volatility: 84.279%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The fair value of the stock and the warrant was recorded as a prepaid expense and is being expensed over the approximately six-month term of the contract.

In June 2012, the Company entered into a contract for investor relations consulting services pursuant to which it granted 120,000 restricted shares of its common stock valued at $102,000 based on the grant date quoted market price of $0.85 per share.  The fair value of the stock was recorded as a prepaid expense and is being expensed over the approximately six-month term of the contract.

In August 2012, the Company modified an existing warrant and issued a new warrant to Morrison & Foerster as additional consideration for the Restructuring Agreement, as disclosed in Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable.  As described in Note 8, the Company has treated the aggregate of the incremental value of the Amended M&F Warrant and the fair value of the New M&F Warrant as a discount to the Replacement Notes, which discount is being amortized to interest expense using the effective interest rate method over the term of the Replacement Notes.

During August 2012, the Company issued 88,235 restricted shares of its common stock valued at a market price of $1.01 per share in settlement of a past-due obligation for business development consulting services in the amount of $25,000.  The Company charged the loss on the settlement to interest expense. As disclosed in Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, in August 2012, the Company issued a promissory note in the principal amount of $60,000 and 15,000 restricted shares of its common stock valued at $0.94 per share in settlement of its past due obligation for AV-101 clinical development services.

In February 2013, the Company entered into a contract for various strategic consulting services pursuant to which it granted a five-year warrant to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share.  The Company valued the warrant at $11,200 using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:  market price per share: $0.79; exercise price per share: $1.50; risk-free interest rate: 0.84%; contractual term: 5 years; volatility: 87.14%; expected dividend rate: 0%, and expensed the fair value of the warrant during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.
Warrants to Purchase Common Stock

Warrant Grants and Exercises
On March 19, 2014, the Company granted five -year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 415,000 restricted shares of the Company’s unregistered common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share to the independent members of its Board of Directors and certain of its officers.  The warrants become exercisable for 50% of the shares on April 1, 2014, 25% of the shares on April 1, 2015 and 25% of the shares on April 1, 2016, provided that the warrant will become fully vested upon a change in control of the Company, as defined, or the consummation by the Company and a third party of a license or sale transaction involving at least one new drug rescue variant.  The Company valued the warrants at $120,800 using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:  market price per share: $0.46; exercise price per share: $0.50; risk-free interest rate: 1.75%; contractual term: 5 years; volatility: 80.57%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The Company recognized stock compensation expense of $60,400 related to the grants in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2013, the Company issued new warrants to purchase an aggregate of 237,500 shares of its restricted common stock to certain former warrant holders whose warrants to purchase an equivalent number of shares of the Company’s restricted common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share had recently expired.  The Company calculated the fair value of the new warrants as $0.03 per share, using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions. market price per share: $0.50; exercise price per share: $1.50; risk-free interest rate: 0.20%; contractual term: 1.32 years; volatility: 73.5%; and expected dividend rate: 0%.  The Company recorded the aggregate fair value of $7,400 for the new warrants in general and administrative expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in capital, an equity account.

On March 3, 2013, the Company granted ten-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,000,000 restricted shares of the Company’s unregistered common stock at an exercise price of $0.64 per share to the independent members of its Board of Directors and certain of its officers.  The warrants become exercisable for 50% of the shares on April 1, 2013, 25% of the shares on April 1, 2014 and 25% of the shares on April 1, 2015, provided that the warrant will become fully vested upon a change in control of the Company, as defined, or the consummation by the Company and a third party of a license or sale transaction involving at least one new drug rescue variant.  The Company valued the warrants at $1,604,800 using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:  market price per share: $0.64; exercise price per share: $0.64; risk-free interest rate: 1.86%; contractual term: 10 years; volatility: 84.73%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The Company recognized stock compensation expense of $802,400 related to the grants in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

In June 2013 and October 2013, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer partially exercised an outstanding warrant to purchase 50,000 and 10,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.64 per share, respectively, and the Company received cash proceeds of $32,000 and $10,000, respectively, from the exercises.

Modification of Warrants Held by Platinum

Effective on May 24, 2013, the Company and Platinum entered into an Amendment and Waiver Agreement (the “Amendment and Waiver”) pursuant to which the Company agreed to reduce the exercise price of the Exchange Warrant and the Investment Warrants issued to Platinum in October 2012 and February 2013 and March 2013 (collectively, the “Warrants”) from $1.50 per share to $0.50 per share in consideration for Platinum’s agreement to waive its rights for any increase in the number of shares of common stock exercised by Platinumissuable under the termsadjustment provisions of the NoteExchange Warrant and the Investment Warrants that would otherwise occur from (i) the Company’s sale of shares of its common stock at a price of $0.50 per share in connection with the Autilion Financing; (ii) the March 2013 grant of warrants to certain of the Company’s officers and independent directors to purchase an aggregate of 3.0 million restricted shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.64 per share; and (iii) the Company’s issuance of restricted shares of its common stock resulting in gross proceeds not to exceed $1.5 million in connection with the exercise by warrant holders, by no later than June 30, 2013, subsequently extended to July 30, 2013, of previously outstanding warrants for which the Company may reduce the exercise price to not less than $0.50 per share. (See “Other Warrant Exchange Agreement, as described in Note 8, ConvertibleModifications and Exercises” below.)

 
As described in Note 4, Fair Value Measurements and in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable., the Company re-measures the fair value of the Exchange Warrant, the Investment Warrants and the July 2013 Warrant at the end of each quarterly reporting period.  The fair value re-measurement at June 30, 2013 incorporated the modification of the exercise price resulting from the Amendment and Waiver and the corresponding adjustment was reflected as a component of the Warrant Liability at that date.  The Company also re-measures at the end of each reporting period the fair value of the Series A Exchange Warrant which is contingently issuable to Platinum upon the exchange of its shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock into shares of the Company’s restricted common stock.  At March 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company determined the fair values of the Exchange Warrant, the Investment Warrants, the July 2013 Warrant (2014 only) and the Series A Preferred Exchange Warrant to be a weighted average of $0.27 and $0.59 per share, respectively, or an aggregate of $2,973,900 and $6,394,000, which amounts are reflected as Warrant Liability in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  The Company determined the fair value of the warrants exercisedat March 31, 2014 using a Monte Carlo simulation model assuming the exercise price of the warrants to be the lower of (i) $0.50 per share or (ii) the projected market price of the Company’s common stock as determined by Platinum were exercisedthe simulation model and the other assumptions indicated in the table below.  The Company determined the fair value of the warrants at reduced prices ranging from $0.75March 31, 2013 using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the assumptions indicated in the table below.
  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
Market price of common stock $0.46  $0.83 
Exercise price per share $0.49 to $0.50  $0.50 
Risk-free interest rate  1.73%  0.77%
Volatility  75%  85%
Term (years) 3.5 to 5.0  4.5 to 5.0 
Dividend rate  0%  0%
Probability of Series A Preferred exchange  95%  95%
Fair value per share $0.26 to $0.29  $0.59 to $0.62 
Other Warrant Modifications and Exercises
During the months of June and July 2013, the Company offered certain long-term warrant holders the opportunity to exercise warrants having an exercise price of $1.50 per share to $1.25purchase shares of the Company’s restricted common stock at a reduced exercise price of $0.50 per share resulting in proceeds of $1,719,800 which was applied to reduce the outstanding balance of the Platinum Note and accrued interest under the terms of the Note and Exchange Agreement.

Other investors and service providersthrough July 30, 2013.  Warrant holders exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 1,028,860528,370 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company received cash proceeds of $264,200.  In addition, certain warrant holders exercised modified warrants to purchase 16,646 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock in lieu of payment by the Company in satisfaction of amounts due for professional services in the aggregate amount of $8,300. The Company calculated the fair value of the warrants exercised immediately before and after the modifications and determined that the fair value of the warrants exercised decreased.                                                    .

In October 2013 the Company modified certain outstanding warrants held by its long-term investors and consultants to purchase an aggregate of 1,292,778 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock to reduce the exercise price of the warrants to $0.50 per share and, for warrants scheduled to expire on December 31, 2013, extend the exercise term of the warrants until January 31, 2015, generally without modifying the exercise price.  The Company calculated the fair value of the warrants immediately before and after the modifications and determined that the fair value of the warrants increased by $77,800, which is reflected in general and administrative expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.  The warrants subject to the exercise price modifications and term extensions were valued using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:
Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share at modification date
 
$
0.50
  
$
0.50
 
Exercise price per share (weighted average)
 
$
1.50
  
$
1.23
 
Risk-free interest rate (weighted average)
  
0.33%
   
0.44%
 
Contractual term in years (weighted average)
  
1.40
   
2.10
 
Volatility (weighted average)
  
74.4%
   
75.8%
 
Dividend rate
  
0.0%
   
0.0%
 
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share
 
$
0.05
  
$
0.11
 
In December 2013, the Company modified additional outstanding warrants held by certain of its long-term investors, consultants, and members of management and its Board of Directors to purchase an aggregate of 1,260,251 restricted shares of its common stock to reduce the exercise price of the warrants to $0.50 per share and, in limited cases, extend the exercise term of the warrants.  The Company calculated the fair value of the warrants immediately before and after the modifications and determined that the fair value of the warrants increased by $344,000, which is reflected in general and administrative expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.  The warrants subject to the exercise price modifications and term extensions were valued using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:

Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share at modification date
 
$
0.40
  
$
0.40
 
Exercise price per share (weighted average)
 
$
1.67
  
$
0.50
 
Risk-free interest rate (weighted average)
  
0.51%
   
0.57%
 
Contractual term in years (weighted average)
  
2.06
   
2.34
 
Volatility (weighted average)
  
73.6%
   
74.4%
 
Dividend rate
  
0.0%
   
0.0%
 
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share
 
$
0.05
  
$
0.14
 

In February 2014, the Company modified additional outstanding warrants held by certain of its long-term investors to purchase an aggregate of 574,432 restricted shares of its common stock primarily to extend the exercise term of the warrants, and, in limited cases, to reduce the exercise price from $1.50 per share to $0.50 per share. The Company calculated the fair value of the warrants immediately before and after the modifications and determined that the fair value of the warrants increased by $29,800, which is reflected in general and administrative expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.  The warrants subject to the exercise price modifications and term extensions were valued using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:

Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share at modification date
 
$
0.46
  
$
0.46
 
Exercise price per share (weighted average)
 
$
1.41
  
$
1.19
 
Risk-free interest rate (weighted average)
  
0.07%
   
0.18%
 
Contractual term in years (weighted average)
  
0.40
   
1.34
 
Volatility (weighted average)
  
68.7%
   
69.9%
 
Dividend rate
  
0.0%
   
0.0%
 
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share
 
$
0.01
  
$
0.06
 

In February 2013, the Company modified certain outstanding warrants to purchase an aggregate of 1,706,709 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at reduced exercise prices ranging from $0.75in excess of $1.50 per share to $1.31reduce the exercise price to $1.50 per share.  In conjunction with these exercises, the Company:

·  issued 965,734 shares of its common stock and received cash proceeds of $1,106,100;
·  issued 29,426 shares of its common stock to warrant holders who elected to exercise their warrants in lieu of payment by the Company in satisfaction of outstanding indebtedness to such holders totaling an aggregate of $30,100; and
·  issued 33,700 shares of its common stock to warrant holders who elected to exercise their warrants in lieu of payment by the Company in satisfaction of payment for services in the aggregate amount of $41,400 to be performed in the future by such holders.

Additionally, in December 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement Regarding Payment of Invoices and Warrant Exercises with Cato Holding Company (“CHC”), CRL, and certain individual warrant holders affiliated with CHC and CRL (collectively, the “CHC Affiliates”) under the terms of which CHC and the CHC Affiliates exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 492,541 shares of the Company’s common stock at reduced exercise prices ranging from $0.88 per share to $1.25 per share.  As a result of these warrant exercises, the Company received cash payments of $60,200 in connection with the exercise of warrants to purchase 68,417 shares and, in lieu of cash payments for the remainder of the warrants to purchase 424,124 shares, CHC and CRL agreed to the satisfaction of outstanding indebtedness to CRL in the amount of $245,300 and pre-payment for future services in the amount of $226,400.

The Company determined that the increase in the fair value of the warrants exercised as a result of the Discounted Warrant Exercise Program was $618,400, of$67,500, which $287,300 is a component of the loss on debt extinguishment related to the conversion of the Platinum Note, as described in Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, $101,200 is attributable to the modifications of the CHC  and CHC Affiliates warrants and reflected in research and development expense, and $229,800 is reflected in general and administrative expense for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the year ended March 31, 2013.  The warrants subject to the exercise price modification were valued using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:

Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share (weighted average)
 
$
0.60
  
$
0.60
 
Exercise price per share (weighted average)
 
$
2.51
  
$
1.50
 
Risk-free interest rate (weighted average)
  
0.21%
   
0.21%
 
Expected term in years (weighted average)
  
1.38
   
1.38
 
Volatility (weighted average)
  
80.8%
   
80.8%
 
Dividend rate
  
0.0%
   
0.0%
 
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share
 
$
0.03
  
$
0.07
 
Between May and June 30, 2012, the Company offered certain warrant holders the opportunity to exercise their warrants to purchase restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at reduced exercise prices.  The Company subsequently extended the offer through August 2012. Warrant holders exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 524,056 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company received cash proceeds of $262,000.  In addition, certain warrant holders exercised warrants to purchase 25,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock in lieu of payment by the Company in satisfaction of amounts due for services in the aggregate amount of $12,500.  For every three discounted warrant shares exercised by the warrant holders, the Company granted a three-year warrant to purchase one restricted share of its common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share.
The Company calculated the fair value of the warrants exercised immediately before and after the May 18, 2012 Board of Directors approval of the modification offer, and on the exercise date for the exercises occurring after June 30, 2012, and determined that the increase in the fair value of the warrants exercised was $440,700, which is reflected in general and administrative expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the year ended March 31, 2013.  The warrants subject to the exercise price modifications were valued at the inception of the Discounted Warrant Exercise Program using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and using the following assumptions:

Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share $2.60  $2.60 
Exercise price per share $1.50 - $2.625  $0.75 - $1.31 
Risk-free interest rate  0.18% - 0.45%  0.02%
Expected term (years)  0.90 - 3.25   0.25 
Volatility  65.7% - 82.8%  41.1%
Dividend rate  0.0%  0.0%
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share $1.30  $1.50 
Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share (weighted average)
 
$
1.95
  
$
1.95
 
Exercise price per share (weighted average)
 
$
2.75
  
$
0.50
 
Risk-free interest rate (weighted average)
  
0.29%
   
0.06%
 
Expected term in years (weighted average)
  
1.93
   
0.12
 
Volatility (weighted average)
  
78.0%
   
85.7%
 
Dividend rate
  
0.0%
   
0.0%
 
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share
 
$
0.64
  
$
1.45
 

In connection with the foregoing exercises, the Company issued three-year warrants to purchase 183,025 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share.  The Company valued these warrants at $35,900 using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions:  weighted average market price per share: $0.89; exercise price per share: $3.00; risk-free interest rate: 0.42%; contractual term: 3.0 years; volatility: 78.04%; expected dividend rate: 0%.  The fair value of the warrants was charged to interest expense.

In making its fair value determinations for both warrant modifications and new grants using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model, the Company utilizes the following principles in selecting its input assumptions. The market price per share is based on the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board on the date of the modification or the closest subsequent date on which there was quoted trading reported.grant.  Because of its short history as a public company, the Company has estimatedestimates stock price volatility based on the historical volatilities of a peer group of public companies over the expectedcontractual or remaining contractual term of the option.warrant.  The contractual term of the warrant is determined based on the grant or modification date and the latest date on which the warrant can be exercised under its terms or under the terms of the discounted exercise price offer. The risk-free rate of interest is based on the quoted constant maturity rate for U.S Treasury Bills on the date of the grant or modification for the term corresponding with the expectedcontractual term or remaining term of the warrant.  The expected dividend rate is zero as the Company has not paid and does not expect to pay dividends in the near future.

 
Other Warrant Modifications

In December 2011, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with a strategic consultant for general and capital markets advisory services.  As consideration for the services to be provided under this agreement, the Company modified the term and exercise price of certain previously-issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 384,184 shares of its common stock.  The Company determined that the increase in the fair value of the modified warrants was $397,500, which is reflected in general and administrative expense for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.  The warrants modified were valued using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and using the following assumptions:

Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share $2.99  $2.99 
Exercise price per share $2.25 - $3.00  $1.125 - $1.50 
Risk-free interest rate  0.02% - 0.29%  0.29%
Expected term (years)  0.53 – 2.39   2.39 
Volatility  69.4% – 81.0%  81.0%
Dividend rate  0.0%  0.0%
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share $1.00  $2.03 

In December 2011, the Company also entered into a consulting agreement with an individual for strategic consulting services to be performed as requested by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.  As consideration for the services to be provided under this agreement, the Company modified the term and exercise price of certain previously-issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 23,138 shares of its common stock and will pay the consultant $1,000 per month for the period June 2012 through December 2012.  The Company determined that the increase in the fair value of the modified warrants was $13,100, which is reflected in general and administrative expense for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.  The warrants modified were valued using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model and using the following assumptions:

Assumption: Pre-modification  Post-modification 
Market price per share $3.05  $3.05 
Exercise price per share $1.75 - $2.50  $0.88 - $1.25 
Risk-free interest rate  0.25% - 0.29%  0.29%
Expected term (years)  2.00 – 2.36   2.36 
Volatility  74.8 – 78.3%  78.3%
Dividend rate  0.0%  0.0%
         
Weighted Average Fair Value per share $1.69  $2.25 

Common Stock and Warrant Grants

On April 29, 2011, VistaGen  issued 157,143 shares of its common stock at a per share price of $1.75 as a prepayment for CRO services to be performed by Cato Research Ltd., a related party, during 2011.  The prepayment of $275,000 was recognized in research and development expense in the Consolidated Statement of Operations as the services were performed by Cato Research, Ltd. during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

In December 2010, VistaGen agreed to issue 700,000 shares of its common stock, valued at $1.50 per share, related to its execution of the second amendment to its Sponsored Research Collaboration Agreement (“SRCA”) with UHN as described in Note 12, Licensing and Collaborative Agreements, and recorded $1,050,000 of research and development expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.  Such shares were issued in May 2011. In April 2011, VistaGen agreed to issue to UHN an additional 100,000 shares of its common stock valued at $1.75 per share in conjunction with its execution of the third amendment to the SRCA, as also described in Note 12, and recorded $175,000 of research and development expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.  Such shares were issued in May 2011.

On May 10, 2011, VistaGen issued 75,000 shares of common stock, valued at $1.75 per share, to a strategic consultant for services rendered and recorded $131,250 in general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

In January 2012, the Company issued an aggregate of 50,000 shares of its common stock, valued at $3.15 per share, and three-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 50,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share to two service providers as compensation for services.  The Company recorded $157,500 in general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 related to the stock grants.  The Company valued the warrants at a fair value of $1.73 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions:  fair value of common stock - $3.15; risk-free interest rate – 0.40%; volatility – 84.6%; contractual term – 3.00 years; dividend rate – 0%, and recorded $86,700 in general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 related to the warrant grants.

In February 2012, the Company granted four-year warrants to non-employee members of its Board of Directors and Scientific Advisory Board and to certain strategic consultants to purchase an aggregate of 280,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share.  The Company valued the warrants at a fair value of $1.71 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions:  fair value of common stock - $2.75; risk-free interest rate – 0.63%; volatility – 90.0%; contractual term – 4.00 years; dividend rate – 0%, and recorded $179,200 in research and development expense and $298,600 in general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company granted three-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 100,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share to investors who had exercised warrants generating more than $100,000 in cash proceeds to the Company during the Discounted Warrant Exercise Program.  The Company valued the warrants at a fair value of $1.38 per share on the date of issuance using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the following assumptions:  fair value of common stock - $2.79; risk-free interest rate – 0.54%; volatility – 79.5%; contractual term – 3.00 years; dividend rate – 0%, and recorded $138,100 in interest expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

During March 2012, the Company issued 50,000 shares of its common stock, valued at $2.79 per share, to a strategic consultant for services rendered and recorded $139,500 in general and administrative expense in expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.  The Company also issued 55,555 shares of its common stock, valued at $2.79 per share, to University Health Network, a related party, in connection with the execution of License Agreement No. 2, and recorded $155,000 in research and development expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.  The Company also issued 8,000 shares of its common stock, valued at $2.80 per share, in connection with the extension of the term of a promissory note, and recorded $22,400 in interest expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

Warrants Outstanding

The following table summarizes outstanding warrants to purchase restricted shares of the Company’s common stock as of March 31, 2012 and 2011.2014.  The weighted average exercise price of outstanding warrants at March 31, 2012 and 20112014 was $2.16 and $2.06$0.87 per share, respectively.share.
       Shares Subject to 
Exercise   Weighted Average  Purchase at 
Price Expiration Years to  March 31, 
per Share Date Expiration  2014 
         
$0.50 12/31/2014 to 3/19/2019  3.34   5,856,983 
$0.64 3/3/2023  8.92   2,940,000 
$0.88 5/31/2015  1.17   15,428 
$1.00 7/30/2016 to 9/30/2017  3.05   5,326,029 
$1.25 12/31/2014 to 5/31/2015  0.8   50,280 
$1.50 11/4/2014 to 3/4/2018  2.45   2,353,052 
$2.00 9/15/2017  3.46   425,000 
$2.50 5/31/2015  1.17   42,443 
$2.625 1/31/2015  0.84   61,418 
$3.00 2/13/2016  1.87   25,000 
            
      4.07   17,095,633 

Note Receivable from Sale of Company Securities

    Shares Subject to Purchase 
Exercise Expiration March 31, 
Price Date 2012  2011 
         
$0.88 5/17/2012 to 5/11/2014  314,328   298,900 
$1.00 11/4/2014  1,500   - 
$1.125 12/28/2012  97,679   - 
$1.25 5/11/2014 to 12/31/2014  120,280   - 
$1.50 12/31/2012  375,000   795,000 
$1.75 12/31/2013  643,184   - 
$2.00 8/3/2013 to 12/31/2014  609,000   403,000 
$2.10 3/21/2013  -   2,916 
$2.25 6/28/2012  -   122,400 
$2.50 5/11/2014  617,394   - 
$2.625 12/31/2013  588,200   - 
$2.75 2/28/2017  272,724   - 
$3.00 1/4/2015 to 2/13/2016  430,000   575,000 
$6.00 6/28/2012 to 12/31/2013  57,300   68,382 
            
      4,126,589   2,265,598 
In May 2011, the Company accepted a $500,000 short-term note from an investor in payment for shares of the Company’s common stock sold to the investor in a private placement transaction.  In October 2011, the Company restructured the note to extend the repayment term through September 1, 2012 and to increase the interest rate to 5% per annum. On November 8, 2012 the Company and the investor again amended the note to require payment of the outstanding balance of $256,000, reflecting unpaid principal and accrued interest, in twenty-four monthly payments of $11,000 beginning in December 2012 and continuing through November 2014, with a final payment of the remaining unpaid principal and interest due in December 2014.  The outstanding principal balance of the note receivable at March 31, 2014 and 2013 was $198,100 and $209,100, respectively.

VistaGen and Excaliber Common Stock Summary

The following table provides a summary of the number of issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock from March 31, 2011 through March 31, 2012, reflecting the impact of the Merger, the exercise of modified warrants and other transactions described in the notes to these Consolidated Financial Statements.

  Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd.  VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. 
       
 Common stock outstanding at March 31, 2011  5,848,707   3,672,110 
         
 Shares repurchased from Excaliber shareholders  (5,064,207)  - 
         
 Shares issued in 2011 Private Placement  -   2,216,106 
 Shares issued upon conversion of convertible        
   promissory notes  -   3,528,290 
 Shares issued upon conversion of all series of VistaGen        
   preferred stock  -   2,884,655 
 Shares issued to UHN under the SRCA      800,000 
 Shares issued for services  -   571,743 
         
 Common stock outstanding at Merger  784,500   13,672,904 
         
One-half share of Excaliber common stock issued for each share     
    of VistaGen common stock in the Merger  6,836,452   (13,672,904)
         
 Common stock outstanding post-Merger  7,620,952   - 
         
 Two-for-one post-Merger forward stock split  7,620,952     
         
 Shares issued upon exercise of modified warrants, including        
   1,599,858 shares subject to Note and Warrant Exchange        
   Agreement with Platinum  3,121,259     
 Shares issued in Fall 2011 Follow-on Offering  63,570     
 Shares issued upon exercise of stock options  113,979     
 Shares issued for services following the Merger  155,555     
 Shares issued in connection with note term extension  8,000     
         
 Common stock issued at March 31, 2012  18,704,267     
         
 Less treasury stock:        
 Shares exchanged for Series A Preferred under the terms of the:     
    Common Stock Exchange Agreement with Platinum  (484,000)    
    Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement with Platinum  (1,599,858)    
     Treasury stock held at March 31, 2012  (2,083,858)    
         
 Common stock outstanding at March 31, 2012  16,620,409     
Reserved Shares

At March 31, 2012,2014, the Company has reserved shares of its common stock for future issuance as follows:

Upon exchange of all shares of Series A Preferred Stock:Stock currently issued and outstanding (1)
  
   Shares currently outstanding4,370,550
   Shares authorized but not issued629,45015,000,000 
   5,000,000 
StockWarrant shares issuable to Platinum upon exercise of common stock warrant upon exchange of Series A preferred stock under the terms of the October 11, 2012 Note Purchase and Exchange Agreement7,500,000
110% of shares issuable upon conversion of 10% convertible Exchange Note and Investment Notes issued to Platinum in October 2012, February 2013 and March 2013, including interest accrued through maturity (2)
11,227,423
Pursuant to warrants to purchase common stock:
    Subject to outstanding warrants17,095,633
Issuable pursuant to accrued interest through maturity on outstanding promissory notes
        issued to Morrison & Foerster, Cato Research Ltd., and University Health Network938,971
18,034,604
Pursuant to stock incentive plans:    
    Subject to outstanding options under the 2008 and 1999 Stock Incentive Plans  4,805,7714,249,271 
    Available for future grants  433,700735,200 
   5,239,4714,984,471 
Outstanding warrantsUpon conversion of notes and accrued interest issued pursuant to purchase common stockthe Winter 2013/2014 Private Placement of Units  4,126,5892,470,000 
February 2012 12% convertible promissory notes and accrued interest  (1)
Upon further sales of Units in the Spring 2014 Private Placement of Units
  337,89314,900,000
Upon further sale of shares to Autilion under the amended Securities Purchase Agreement71,950,000 
     
Total  14,703,953146,066,498 
____________
(1)  assumes mandatoryAssumes exchange under the terms of the October 11, 2012  Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement with Platinum
(2)  Assumes conversion in connectionunder the terms of the October 11, 2012  Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement with a qualified financing at $2.00 per share, plus 7% warrants to placement agentPlatinum and the terms of the individual notes
10.11.  Research and Development Expenses

The Company recorded research and development expenses of approximately $5.4$2.5 million and $3.7$3.4 million in the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, respectively. Research and development expense is composed primarily of employee compensation expenses, including stock –basedstock–based compensation, and direct project expenses, including costs incurred by third-party research collaborators, some of which may be reimbursed under the terms of grant or collaboration agreements.

11.12.  Income Taxes

The provision for income taxes for the periods presented in the consolidated statements of operations represents minimum California franchise taxes. Income tax expense differed from the amounts computed by applying the U.S. federal income tax rate of 34% to pretax losses as a result of the following:

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
Computed expected tax benefit  (34.0)%  (34.0)%
Losses not benefitted  34.0%  34.0%
Other  0.1%  0.1%
         
Income tax expense  0.1%  0.1%
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Computed expected tax benefit  -34.0%  -34.0%
Tax effect of Warrant Liability mark to market  41.5%  -4.3%
Other losses not benefitted  -7.5%  38.2%
Other  0.1%  0.1%
         
Income tax expense  0.1%  0.0%
 
Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Significant components of the Company’s deferred tax assets are as follows (thousands)(in thousands):

 March 31,  March 31, 
 2012  2011  2014  2013 
Deferred tax assets:            
Net operating loss carryovers $16,191  $13,197  $19,733  $19,010 
Basis differences in fixed assets  13   19   37   9 
Accruals and reserves  9   6   17   8 
                
Total deferred tax assets  16,213   13,222   19,787   19,027 
                
Valuation allowance  (16,213)  (13,222)  (19,787)  (19,027)
                
Net deferred tax assets $-  $-  $-  $- 
 
Realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon future earnings, if any, the timing and amount of which are uncertain. Accordingly, the deferred tax assets have been fully offset by a valuation allowance. The valuation allowance increased by $2,991,000$760,000 and $2,675,000$2,814,000 during the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, respectively. When realized, deferred tax assets related to employee stock options will be credited to additional paid-in capital.

As of March 31, 2012,2014, the Company had U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards of $41.2$50.3 million, which will expire in fiscal years 2019 through 2032.2034.  As of March 31, 2012,2014, the Company had state net operating loss carryforwards of $37.3$44.7 million, which will expire in fiscal years 20132014 through 2032.2034.

U.S. federal and state tax laws include substantial restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards in the event of an ownership change of a corporation. The Company has not performed a change in ownership analysis since its inception in 1998 and accordingly some or all of its net operating loss carryforwards may not be available to offset future taxable income, if any. Even if the loss carryforwards are available they may be subject to substantial annual limitations resulting from past ownership changes, and ownership changes occurring after March 31, 2012,2014, that could result in the expiration of the loss carryforwards before they are utilized.


The Company files income tax returns in the U.S. federal and Canadian jurisdictions and California and Maryland state jurisdictions. The Company is subject to U.S. federal and state income tax examinations by tax authorities for tax years 1999 through 20122014 due to net operating losses that are being carried forward for tax purposes.

The Company does not have any uncertain tax positions or unrecognized tax benefits at March 31, 20122014 and 2011.2013. The Company’s policy is to recognize interest and penalties related to income taxes as components of interest expense and other expense, respectively.

12.13.  Licensing and Collaborative Agreements

University Health Network
 
On September 17, 2007, the Company and University Health Network ("UHN")UHN entered into a Sponsored Research Collaboration Agreement (“SRCA”SRCA) to develop certain stem cell technologies for drug discovery, development and drug rescue technologies. Under the SRCA the Company is sponsoring stem cell research by its co-founder, Dr. Gordon Keller, Director of the UHN’s McEwen Centre, focused on developing improved methods for differentiation of cardiomyocytes (heart cells) from pluripotent stem cells, and their uses as biological systems for drug discovery and drug rescue, as well as cell therapy. Pursuant to our SRCA with UHN, we have the right to acquire exclusive worldwide rights to any inventions arising from these studies under pre-negotiated terms. The SRCA was amended on April 19, 2010 to extend the term to five years and give the Company various options to extend the term for an additional three years. On December 15, 2010, the Company and UHN entered into a second amendment to expand the scope of work to include induced pluripotent stem cell technology and to further expand the scope of research and term extension options. On April 25, 2011, the Company and UHN amended the SRCA a third time to expand the scope to include therapeutic and stem cell therapy applications of induced pluripotent cells and to extend the date during which the Company may elect to fund additional projects to April 30, 2012.  On October 24, 2011, the Company and UHN amended the SRCA a fourth time to identify five key programs that will further support the Company’s core drug rescue initiatives and potential cell therapy applications.  Under the terms of the fourth amendment, the Company is obligatedcommitted to makemaking monthly payments of $50,000 per month from October 2011 through September 2012 to fund these programs.  As disclosed in Note 9, Convertible Notes and Other Notes Payable, in October 2012, the Company issued a promissory note in the principal amount of $549,500 and a warrant to UHN as payment in full for services rendered under the fourth amendment. Additionally, the Company and UHN entered into Amendment No. 5 to the SRCA establishing the sponsored research projects and the sponsored research budgets under the SRCA from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013, as well as a schedule of the Company’s sponsored research payments for such period totaling $309,000.

Concurrent with the execution of the fourth amendment to the SRCA, the Company and UHN entered into a License Agreement under the terms of which UHN granted the Company exclusive rights to the use of a novel molecule that can be employed in the identification and isolation of mature and immature human cardiomyocytes from pluripotent stem cells, as well as methods for the production of cardiomyocytes from pluripotent stem cells that express this marker.  In consideration for the grant of the license, the Company has agreed to make payments to UHN totaling $3.9 million, if, and when, it achieves certain commercial milestones set forth in the License Agreement, and to pay UHN royalties based on the receipt of revenue by the Company attributable to the licensed patents.

In March 2012, the Company and UHN entered into License Agreement No. 2 under the terms of which UHN granted the Company exclusive rights to the use of technology included in a new U.S. patent application to develop hematopoietic precursor stem cells from human pluripotent stem cells.  Hematopoietic precursor stem cells give rise to all red and white blood cells and platelets in the body. The Company plans to use the UHN invention to improve the cell culture methods utilized to efficiently produce hematopoietic stem cell populations. In consideration for the grant of the license, the Company issued to UHN 55,555 shares of its common stock, valued at $155,000 in March 2012 and is obligated to make a cash payment of $25,000 in July 2012.  Under the terms of License Agreement No. 2, the Company has also agreed to make payments to UHN totaling $3.9 million, if, and when, it achieves certain milestones designated in License Agreement No. 2, and to pay UHN royalties based on the receipt of revenue by the Company attributable to the licensed patents.

U.S. National Institutes of Health

Since the Company’s inception in 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health ("NIH") has awarded it a total of $11.3 million in non-dilutive research and development grants, including $2.3 million to support research and development of its Human Clinical Trials in a Test Tube™ platform and, as described below, a total of $8.8 million for nonclinical and Phase 1 clinical development of AV-101 (also referred to in scientific literature as “4-Cl-KYN”).  AV-101, the Company’s lead small molecule drug candidate, is currently in Phase 1b clinical development in the U.S.

During fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the U.S. National Institutes of Health ("NIH"NIH") awarded the Company a $4.2 million grant to support preclinical development of AV-101, the Company’s lead drug candidate for treatment of neuropathic pain and other neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington’s and Parkinson’s diseases.  In AprilJune 2009, the NIH awarded the Company a $4.2 million grant to support the Phase I clinical development of AV-101, which amount was subsequently increased to a total of $4.6 million in July 2010.  The Company recognized $1.2 million and $1.4 million ofNIH grant revenue related to AV-101 in the fiscal yearsamount of $187,000 in the quarter ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.June 30, 2012. The grant expired in the ordinary course on June 30, 2012.

Cato Research Ltd.

The Company has built a strategic development relationship with Cato Research Ltd. (“CRL”CRL), a global contract research and development organization, or CRO, and an affiliate of one of the Company’s largest stockholder.  See Note 14, Related Party Transactions.institutional stockholders.  CRL has provided the Company with access to essential CRO services and regulatory expertise supporting its AV-101 preclinical and planned clinical development programs.programs and other projects.  The Company recorded research and development expenses for CRO services provided by CRL in the amounts of $1,461,300$52,500 and $429,200 in$703,800 for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  As described in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, in October 2012, the Company issued an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of $1,009,000, and 2011, respectively,a warrant exercisable for 1,009,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, as payment in full of all amounts owed to CRL for CRO services provided by CRL.rendered to the Company through December 31, 2012.

13.14.  Stock Option Plans and 401(k) Plan

The Company has the following share-based compensation plans.

2008 Stock Incentive Plan

On December 19, 2008, the Company adopted theThe Company’s 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2008 Plan”2008 Plan). was adopted by the shareholders of VistaGen California on December 19, 2008 and assumed by the Company in connection with the Merger. The maximum number of shares of the Company’s common stock that may be granted pursuant to the 2008 Plan is 5,000,000 shares. The maximum number of shares that may be granted under the 2008 Plan is subject to adjustments for stock splits, stock dividends or other similar changes in the common stock or capital structure.

1999 Stock Incentive Plan

On December 6, 1999, the Company adopted theThe Company’s 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (the “1999 Plan”1999 Plan). was adopted by the shareholders of VistaGen California on December 6, 1999 and assumed by the Company in connection with the Merger. The Company initially reserved 900,000 shares for the issuance of awards under the 1999 Plan. The 1999 Plan has terminated under its own terms and, as a result, no awards may currently be granted under the 1999 Plan. However, the unexpired options and awards that have already been granted pursuant to the 1999 Plan remain operative.

Scientific Advisory Board 1998 Stock Incentive Plan

The Company’s Board of Directors adopted the Scientific Advisory Board 1998 Stock Incentive Plan (the “SAB Plan”) in July 1998. The Board of Directors authorized 25,000 shares of common stock for awards from the SAB Plan.  No awards have been granted from the SAB Plan since August 2001.  The SAB Plan expired in July 2008 and all of the options granted from the SAB Plan have either been exercised or expired during fiscal 2012.

Description of the 2008 Plan

Under the terms of the 2008 Plan, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors may grant shares, options or similar rights having either a fixed or variable price related to the fair market value of the shares and with an exercise or conversion privilege related to the passage of time, the occurrence of one or more events, or the satisfaction of performance criteria or other conditions, or any other security with the value derived from the value of the shares. Such awards include stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights and dividend equivalent rights. 

The Compensation Committee may grant nonstatutory stock options under the 2008 Plan at a price of not less than 100% of the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date the option is granted. Incentive stock options under the 2008 Plan may be granted at a price of not less than 100% of the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date the option is granted. Incentive stock options granted to employees who, on the date of grant, own stock representing more than 10% of the voting power of all of the Company’s classes of stock are granted at an exercise price of not less than 110% of the fair market value of the Company’s common stock. The maximum term of these incentive stock options granted to employees who own stock possessing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of the Company’s stock may not exceed five years. The maximum term of an incentive stock option granted to any other participant may not exceed ten years. The Compensation Committee determines the term and exercise or purchase price of all other awards granted under the 2008 Plan. The Compensation Committee also determines the terms and conditions of awards, including the vesting schedule and any forfeiture provisions. Awards under the 2008 Plan may vest upon the passage of time or upon the attainment of certain performance criteria established by the Compensation Committee.


Unless terminated sooner, the 2008 Plan will automatically terminate in 2017. The Board of Directors may at any time amend, suspend or terminate the Company’s 2008 Plan.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, when the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock was $0.71 per share, the Company cancelled outstanding options to purchase an aggregate of 870,550 shares of its common stock at exercise prices between $1.13 per share and $2.58 per share held by certain employees, excluding the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and President and Chief Scientific Officer, and by certain consultants and granted those persons new options to purchase an aggregate of 920,550 shares at an exercise price of $0.75 per share. Such options granted during fiscal 2013 have a contractual term of 10 years with options to purchase 604,699 shares granted as immediately vested, and the remaining option shares vesting over a period of two years.  The cancellation and reissuance was accounted for as a modification of the options and resulted in a charge of $133,000.  During the third quarter of fiscal 2014, when the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock was $0.40 per share, the Company reduced the exercise price of an aggregate of 3,924,245 outstanding options to purchase shares of its common stock at exercise prices between $0.75 per share and $2.99 per share held by certain employees, including the Company’s officers and directors, and by certain consultants to $0.40 per share or $0.50 per share. These reductions in exercise price were accounted for as a modification of the options and resulted in a charge of $252,000.

The Company recorded $1,113,900 and $1,154,000 offollowing table summarizes share-based compensation netexpense, including share-based expense related to the March 2014 and March 2013 grants of estimated forfeitures,warrants to certain of the Company’s officers and to its independent directors as described in general and administrative expensesNote 10, Capital Stock, included in the consolidated statementsaccompanying Consolidated Statement of operationsOperations and Comprehensive Loss for fiscalthe years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011, respectively. The Company recorded $477,400 and $474,8002013.

  Fiscal Years Ended 
  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
 Research and development expense:      
 Stock option grants, including expense related to modifications $296,900  $242,300 
 Warrants granted to officer in March 2014  22,800   - 
 Warrants granted to officer in March 2013  133,700   267,500 
         
   453,400   509,800 
         
 General and administrative expense:        
 Stock option grants, including expense related to modifications  385,100   196,600 
 Warrants granted to officer and directors in March 2014  31,300   - 
 Warrants granted to officers and directors in March 2013  267,500   534,900 
         
   683,900   731,500 
         
 Total stock-based compensation expense $1,137,300  $1,241,300 
The Company used the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following assumptions to determine share-based compensation expense forrelated to option grants during the fiscal yearyears ended March 31, 2012:
2014 and 2013:

Expected dividend yield0%
Exercise price (market price on grant date)$1.58 to $2.99
Risk-free interest rate1.19% to 3.39%
Expected term (years)6.25 to 10.0
Volatility78.9% to 91.3%
Fair value per share at grant date$1.08 to $2.48
 Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
  2014  2013 
     
Exercise price$0.40 to $0.82 $0.51 and $0.75 
Market price on date of grant$0.40 to $0.82 $0.51 and $0.71 
Risk-free interest rate1.08% to 2.53% 0.90% to 1.74% 
Expected term (years)6.25 to 10.0 6.25 to 10.0 
Volatility87.9% to 103.2% 82.9% to 85.4% 
Expected dividend yield0% 0% 
     
Fair value per share at grant date$0.32 to $0.68 $0.36 to $0.59 

The expected dividend yield is zero,term of options represents the period that the Company’s share-based compensation awards are expected to be outstanding. The Company has calculated the weighted-average expected term of the options using the simplified method as prescribed by Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletins No. 107 and No. 110 (“SAB No. 107 and 110”). The utilization of SAB No. 107 and 110 was based on the lack of relevant historical data due to the Company’s limited historical experience as a publicly traded company as well as the Company has not paid any dividendslack of liquidity resulting from the limited number of freely-tradable shares of its common stock.  Limited historical experience and does not anticipate paying dividendslack of liquidity in its stock also resulted in the near future.Company’s decision to utilize the historical volatilities of a peer group of public companies’ stock over the expected term of the option in determining its expected volatility assumptions.  The risk-free interest rate for periods related to the expected life of the options is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. The expected volatilitydividend yield is based on historical volatilities of peer group public companies’ stock overzero, as the expected term ofCompany has not paid any dividends and does not anticipate paying dividends in the option. The expected term of options represents the period that the Company’s share-based compensation awards are expected to be outstanding. The Company used the simplified method provided in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 107 to estimate the expected term.near future. The Company calculated the forfeiture rate based on an analysis of historical data, as it reasonably approximates the currently anticipated rate of forfeitures for granted and outstanding options that have not vested. 

The following table summarizes stock option activity for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 under the Company’s stock option plans:

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
     Weighted     Weighted 
     Average     Average 
  Number of  Exercise  Number of  Exercise 
  Shares  Price  Shares  Price 
             
 Options outstanding at beginning of period  3,949,153  $1.42   3,949,153  $1.42 
 Options granted  1,020,000  $1.88   -  $- 
 Options exercised  (113,939) $0.88   -  $- 
 Options forfeited  (30,000) $1.75   -  $- 
 Options expired  (19,443) $0.80   -  $- 
                 
 Options outstanding at end of period  4,805,771  $1.53   3,949,153  $1.42 
 Options exercisable at end of period  3,740,135  $1.45   2,686,561  $1.38 
                 
 Weighted average grant-date fair value of                
 options granted during the period     $1.36      $- 
 
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
             
     Weighted     Weighted 
     Average     Average 
  Number of  Exercise  Number of  Exercise 
  Shares  Price  Shares  Price 
             
 Options outstanding at beginning of period  4,912,604  $1.32   4,805,771  $1.53 
 Options granted  381,000  $0.54   1,075,550  $0.72 
 Options exercised  -  $-   -  $- 
 Options cancelled     $-   (870,550) $1.72 
 Options forfeited  (79,080) $1.75   (29,167) $1.75 
 Options expired  (965,253) $1.20   (69,000) $1.34 
                 
 Options outstanding at end of period  4,249,271  $0.50   4,912,604  $1.32 
 Options exercisable at end of period  3,655,061  $0.50   4,227,436  $1.35 
                 
 Weighted average grant-date fair value of options granted during the period  $0.42      $0.52 

The following table summarizes information on stock options outstanding and exercisable under the Company’s option plans as of March 31, 2014:
   Options Outstanding  Options Exercisable 
      Weighted          
      Average  Weighted     Weighted 
      Remaining  Average     Average 
Exercise  Number  Years until  Exercise  Number  Exercise 
Price  Outstanding  Expiration  Price  Exercisable  Price 
                 
$0.40   1,041,550   8.53  $0.40   810,560  $0.40 
$0.50   2,988,695   5.90  $0.50   2,657,665  $0.50 
$0.72 - $ 1.80   219,026   5.46  $1.06   186,836  $1.00 
                       
     4,249,271   6.52  $0.50   3,655,061  $0.50 
At March 31, 20122014, there were 433,700735,200 shares of the Company’s common stock remaining available for grant under the 2008 Plan.  The Company received cash proceeds of $102,200 as a result of options exercisedThere were no option exercises during the year ended March 31, 2012.2014.


Aggregate intrinsic value is the sum of the amounts by which the fair value of the stock exceeded the exercise price (“in-the-money-options”in-the-money-options). Based on the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock of $2.74$0.46 per share on March 31, 2012,2014, the aggregate intrinsic value of outstanding options at that date was $5,807,700,$62,500, of which $4,838,700$48,600 related to exercisable options.

The following table summarizes information on stock options outstanding and exercisable under the 2008 Plan and the 1999 Plan as of March 31, 2012:

   Options Outstanding  Options Exercisable 
      Weighted          
      Average  Weighted     Weighted 
      Remaining  Average     Average 
Exercise  Number  Years until  Exercise  Number  Exercise 
Price  Outstanding  Expiration  Price  Exercisable  Price 
                 
$0.72 - $0.95   364,816   3.89  $0.80   364,816  $0.80 
$1.13   287,500   5.74  $1.13   241,242  $1.13 
$1.50   2,838,800   7.68  $1.50   2,791,924  $1.50 
$1.65 - $1.925   1,000,000   7.63  $1.76   158,749  $1.66 
$2.10 - $2.99   314,655   7.04  $2.33   183,404  $2.16 
                       
     4,805,771   7.22  $1.530   3,740,135  $1.450 

As of March 31, 2012,2014, there was approximately $1,051,100$394,300 of unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested share-based compensation awards from the 2008 Plan, which is expected to be recognized through September 2015.

Stock Grants from 2008 Plan

As discussed in Note 8, Convertible Promissory NotesMay 2016.  Additionally, at March 31, 2014 there was approximately $455,300 of unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested warrant grants to independent directors and Other Notes Payable, in Aprilofficers, which is expected to be recognized through March 2016 absent any conditions which would accelerate the vesting of the awards and May 2011, the Company issued an aggregate of 139,600 shares of its common stock from the 2008 Plan to Desjardins and McCarthy as partial compensation for services performed by the two entities.  At the date of issuance, the shares were valued at $1.75 per share and the Company recorded $244,300 in general and administrativecorresponding expense in connection with the issuances.recognition.

401(k) Plan

The Company, through a third-party agent, maintains a retirement and deferred savings plan for its employees. This plan is intended to qualify as a tax-qualified plan under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. The retirement and deferred savings plan provides that each participant may contribute a portion of his or her pre-tax compensation, subject to statutory limits. Under the plan, each employee is fully vested in his or her deferred salary contributions. Employee contributions are held and invested by the plan’s trustee. The retirement and deferred savings plan also permits the Company to make discretionary contributions, subject to established limits and a vesting schedule. To date, the Company has not made any discretionary contributions to the retirement and deferred savings plan on behalf of participating employees.

14.15.  Related Party Transactions

Cato Holding Company (“CHC”), doing business as Cato BioVentures ("CBV"CBV"), the parent of CRL, is currently one of the Company’s largest institutional stockholders at March 31, 2014, holding common stock and warrants to purchase common stock. Prior to the May 11, 2011 conversion of the 2006/2007 Notescertain of VistaGen California’s outstanding promissory notes and the August 2010 Short-Term Notes, and the conversionexchange of its preferred stock into shares of common stock in connection with the Merger, CBV held 2006/2007 Notes, August 2010 Short-Terms Notes,various promissory notes and a majority of the Company'sVistaGen California’s Series B-1 Preferred Stock.  Shawn Singh, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and member of its Board of Directors, served as Managing Principal of CBV and as an officer of CRL until August 2009. As described in Note 8,9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, in April 2011, CBV loaned the Company $352,273$352,300 under the terms of the 2011 CHC Note.  On October 10, 2012, the Company and CHC cancelled the 2011 CHC Note and exchanged it for a new unsecured promissory note.  note in the principal amount of $310,443 (the “2012 CHC Note”) and a five-year warrant to purchase 250,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $1.50 per share (the “CHC Warrant”).  Additionally, on October 10, 2012, the Company issued to CRL: (i) an unsecured promissory note in the initial principal amount of $1,009,000, which is payable solely in restricted shares of the Company’s common stock and which accrues interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, compounded monthly (the “CRL Note”), as payment in full for all contract research and development services and regulatory advice  rendered by CRL to the Company and its affiliates through December 31, 2012 with respect to the preclinical and clinical development of AV-101, and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase, at a price of $1.00 per share, 1,009,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock.

During fiscal year 2007, the Company entered into a contract research organization arrangement with CRL related to the development of its lead drug candidate, AV-101, under which the Company incurred expenses of $1,461,300$52,500 and $429,200$703,800 for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, respectively, with a substantial portion of which werethe fiscal 2013 expenses reimbursed under the NIH grant.  Total interest expense on notes payable to CHC and the line of credit to CBVCRL was $93,100$167,900 and $92,600$101,700 for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011, respectively, with the majority of amounts reported for periods prior to May 2011 having been converted to equity. On April 29, 2011, the Company issued 157,143 shares of common stock, valued at $1.75 per share, as prepayment for research and development services to be performed by CRL during 2011.  As described in Note 9, Capital Stock, in December 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement Regarding Payment of Invoices and Warrant Exercises with CHC, CRL and the CHC affiliates under which CHC and the CHC Affiliates exercised warrants at discounted exercise prices to purchase an aggregate of 492,541 shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company received $60,200 cash, and, in lieu of cash payment for certain of the warrant exercises, settled outstanding liabilities of $245,300 for past services received from CRL and prepaid $226,400 for future services to be received from CRL, which services had been fully received by March 31, 2012.2013, respectively.


Prior to his April 2003 appointment as one of the Company’s officers (on a part-time basis) and as a director, the Company retained Mr. Singh as a consultant to provide legal and other consulting services. During the course of the consultancy, as payment for his services, the Company issued him warrants to purchase 55,898 shares of common stock at $0.80 per share and a 7% promissory note in the principal amount of $26,400. On May 11, 2011, and concurrent with the Merger, the Company paid the outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest totaling $36,000 (see Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable). Upon the approval byof the Board of Directors, in December 2006, the CompanyVistaGen California accepted a full-recourse promissory note in the amount of $103,400 from Mr. Singh in payment of the exercise price for options and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 126,389 restricted shares of the Company’sVistaGen California’s common stock. The note accrued interest at a rate of 4.90% per annum and was due and payable no later than the earlier of (i) December 1, 2016 or (ii) ten days prior to the Company becoming subject to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”).  On May 11, 2011, in connection with the Merger, the $128,200 outstanding balance of the principal and accrued interest on this note was cancelled in accordance with Mr. Singh's employment agreement and recorded as additional compensation. In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Singh is also entitled to receive an income tax gross-up on the compensation related to the note cancellation.  At March 31, 2012,2014 and 2013, the Company had accrued $101,900 as an estimate of the gross-up amount, but the Company had not yet paid itthat amount to Mr. Singh.

In March 2007, the Company accepted a full recourse promissory note in the amount of $46,400 from Franklin Rice, its former Chief Financial Officer and a former director of the Company in exchange for his exercise of options to purchase 52,681 shares of the Company’s common stock.  The note accrued interest at a rate of 4.90% per annum and was due and payable no later than the earlier of (i) March 1, 2017 or (ii) ten days prior to the Company becoming subject to the requirements of the Exchange Act.  On May 11, 2011, in connection with the Merger, the $57,000 outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest on this note was cancelled in accordance with Mr. Rice's employment agreement and recorded as additional compensation.  In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Rice is entitled to an income tax gross-up on the compensation related to the note cancellation.  At March 31, 2012, the Company had accrued $33,900 as an estimate of the gross-up amount, but had not paid it to Mr. Rice.
The Company previously engaged Jon A. Saxe, a current director, separately from his duties as a director, as a management consultant from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2010 to provide strategic and other business advisory services. As payment for consulting services rendered through June 30, 2010, Mr. Saxe has been issued warrants and non-qualified options to purchase an aggregate of 250,815 shares of the Company’s common stock, of which he has exercised warrants to purchase 18,568 shares.  Additionally, Mr. Saxe was issued a 7% promissory note in the amount of $8,000.  On May 11, 2011, the $14,400 balance of the note and related accrued interest plus a note cancellation premium of $5,100 was converted to 11,142 shares of the Company’s common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase 2,784 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.  In lieu of payment from the Company, in December 2011, Mr. Saxe exercised the warrant as a part of the Discounted Warrant Exercise Program at an exercise price of $1.25 per share in satisfaction of amounts owed to him in conjunction with his service as a member of the Board of Directors.

15.16.  Commitments, Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications

From time to time, the Company may become involved in claims and other legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Management is not currently aware of any claims made or other legal matters that will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or its cash flows.

The Company indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The Company will indemnify the officers or directors against any and all expenses incurred by the officers or directors because of their status as one of the Company’s directors or executive officers to the fullest extent permitted by California law. The Company has never incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements.  The Company has a director and officer insurance policy which limits the Company's exposure and may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid.  The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Accordingly, there are no liabilities recorded for these agreements at March 31, 20122014 or 2011.2013.
 
In the normal course of business, the Company provides indemnifications of varying scopes under agreements with other companies, typically clinical research organizations, investigators, clinical sites, suppliers and others.  Pursuant to these agreements, the Company generally indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified parties in connection with the use or testing of the Company's product candidates or with any U.S. patents or any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claims by any third party with respect to the Company's product candidates.  The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual.  The potential future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited.  The Company maintains liability insurance coverage that limits its exposure.  The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal.  Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any liabilities for these agreements as of March 31, 20122014 or 2011.


Leases

As of March 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, the following assets are under capital lease obligations and included in property and equipment:

  March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
 Leased laboratory and computer equipment $139,700  $120,700 
 Accumulated amortization  (119,200)  (92,000)
         
  $20,500  $28,700 
  March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Laboratory equipment $19,000  $19,000 
Office equipment  4,500   4,500 
   23,500   23,500 
Accumulated depreciation  (11,100)  (6,400)
         
Net book value $12,400  $17,100 
 
Amortization expense for assets recorded under capital leases is included in depreciation expense.  Future minimum payments, by year and in the aggregate, required under capital leases are as follows:
  Equipment 
  Capital 
Fiscal Years Ending March 31, Leases 
    
2015 $4,300 
2016  1,200 
2017  1,200 
2018  100 
Future minimum lease payments  6,800 
     
Less imputed interest included in minimum lease payments  (800)
     
Present value of minimum lease payments  6,000 
     
Less current portion  (3,900)
     
Non-current capital lease obligation $2,100 

Fiscal Years Ending March 31, 
Equipment Capital Leases
 
    
2013 $12,100 
2014  7,500 
2015  3,100 
2016  - 
2017  - 
Future minimum lease payments  22,700 
     
    Less imputed interest included in minimum lease payments  (2,500)
     
Present value of minimum lease payments  20,200 
     
    Less current portion  (10,500)
     
Non-current capital lease obligation $9,700 

Future       At March 31, 2014, future minimum payments under operating leases relate to the Company’s facility lease in South San Francisco, California through June 30, 2013July 31, 2017 and total $175,500 and $44,200 for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2013 and 2014, respectively.are as follows:

Fiscal Years Ending March 31, Amount 
2015 $250,900 
2016  264,000 
2017  277,100 
2018  93,800 
  $885,800 

       Total facility rent expense incurred by the Company for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 20112013 was $166,000$284,100 and $151,600,$179,000, respectively.
 
Long-Term Debt Repayment
 
At March 31, 2012,2014, assuming that all outstanding convertible notes are converted into shares of common stock in accordance with their respective conversion provisions and that Replacement Note B issued to Morrison & Foerster, the CRL Note and the UHN Note, each as described further in Note 9, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, are repaid through the issuance of restricted common stock upon the exercise of the warrants associated with such notes, future minimum principal payments related to long-term debt were as follows:

Fiscal Years Ending March 31, Amount 
2013 $750,300 
2014  1,319,100 
2015  688,900 
2016  1,396,900 
2017  7,100 
Thereafter through October 2023  119,000 
     
  $4,281,300 
 
16.
Fiscal Years Ending March 31, Amount 
2015 $1,562,500 
2016  461,300 
2017  10,000 
2018  10,700 
Thereafter through June 2019  13,000 
  $2,057,500 

17.  Subsequent Events
 
The Company has evaluated subsequent events through July 2, 2012the date of this report and has identified the following material events and transactions that occurred after March 31, 2012.2014.

 
In
2014 Unit Private Placement

From April and1, 2014 through June 2012,19, 2014, the Company entered into various contracts for investor relations and public company servicessecurities purchase agreements with accredited investors, including Platinum, pursuant to which it granted three-year warrantssold to such accredited investors Units, for aggregate cash proceeds of $1,465,000, consisting of (i) 10% convertible 2014 Unit Notes in the aggregate face amount of $1,465,000 due on March 31, 2015 or automatically convertible into securities the Company may issue upon the consummation of a Qualified Financing, as defined in the 2014 Unit Note, prior to March 31, 2015; (ii) an aggregate of 1,465,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock; and (iii) 2014 Unit Warrants exercisable through December 31, 2016 to purchase 50,000an aggregate of 1,465,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.80$0.50 per share; three-year warrantsshare.

Satisfaction of Technology License and Maintenance Fees and Patent Expenses

In April 2014, the Company issued (i) a promissory note in the face amount of $300,000 due on the earlier of December 31, 2014, or the completion of a qualified financing, as defined, (ii) 300,000 restricted shares of its common stock and (iii) a warrant exercisable through March 31, 2019 to purchase 100,000300,000 restricted shares of the Company'sits common stock at an exercise price of $3.00$0.50 per share; an aggregateshare to Icahn School of 400,000 shares of the Company's restricted common stock; and is obligated to make cash payments totaling $112,500 through December 2012.
During May and June 2012, warrant holders exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 539,554 shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company received cash proceeds of $257,300.  In addition, certain warrant holders exercised warrants to purchase an aggregate of 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock in lieu of payment by the CompanyMedicine at Mount Sinai in satisfaction of amounts due for services$288,400 of stem cell technology license maintenance fees and reimbursable patent prosecution costs.

Amendment of Notes and Warrants issued in 2013/2014 Unit Private Placement

Effective May 31, 2014, the Company entered into note and warrant amendment agreements with certain holders of 2013/2014 Unit Notes and 2013/2014 Unit Warrants to (i) modify certain terms of the 2013/2014 Unit Notes, including the maturity date and the conversion features, to conform to the corresponding terms of the 2014 Unit Notes and (ii) to modify certain terms of the 2013/2014 Unit Warrants, including the exercise price and expiration date, to conform to the corresponding terms of the 2014 Unit Warrants.  Holders of 2013/2014 Unit Notes having an aggregate initial face amount of $12,500.  In connection with$845,000 agreed to the foregoing exercises,amendments.  The maturity date of the $75,000 of initial face amount of 2013/2014 Unit Notes payable to holders who did not agree to amend their 2013/2014 Unit Note and 2013/2014 Unit Warrant remains July 30, 2014 and the exercise price and expiration date of the 2013/2014 Unit Warrants held by such holders remains unchanged.  Since March 31, 2014 and through the date of this report, the Company issued three-year warrants to purchase 179,857 shareshas repaid 2013/2014 Unit Notes having an initial face value of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price$65,200.

Extension of $3.00 per share.McCarthy Note Maturity Date
 
On June 29, 2012,11, 2014, the Company and Platinum Long Term Growth Fund VII, LLC (“Platinum”) entered into an Exchange Agreement (the “2012 Exchange Agreement”) pursuantMcCarthy agreed to extend the maturity date of the Company’s promissory note payable to McCarthy from June 14, 2014 to the earlier of (i) September 30, 2014, (ii) consummation of a financing in which the Company has agreed to issue Platinum 62,945 shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred in exchange for 629,450 shares of common stock owned by Platinum, in consideration for Platinum’s agreement to purchase from the Company secured convertible promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000 (each a “2012 Platinum Note” and together, the “2012 Platinum Notes”).  The 2012 Platinum Notes were issued on July 2, 2012 in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000.  In the event the Company consummates an equity or equity-based financing, or series of financing transactions resulting inreceives gross cash proceeds to the Company of at least $3.0$15.0 million, (“Qualified Financing”), the principal and accrued interest due under the termsor (iii) consummation of a change of control of the 2012 Platinum Notes shall automatically convert into such securities issuedCompany, as defined in connection with the Qualified Financing. Repayment of all amounts due under the terms of the 2012 Platinum Notes are secured by the Company’s assets, including its tangible and intangible personal property, licenses, patent licenses, trademarks and trademark licenses, pursuant to the terms of a Security Agreement.  In connection with the 2012 Exchange Agreement, Platinum hasMcCarthy note.  McCarthy also agreed to invest at least $500,000 inforbear with respect to the Qualified Financing, providedrequirement that the Company secures binding commitmentsmake monthly payments on the note from other investors in the Qualified Financing aggregating at least $3.0 million within 90 days following the date of the 2012 Exchange Agreement.  In addition, Platinum, at its option, may exchange all oragreement until maturity and granted the Company a portion of its Series A Preferred for the securities issued in connectionwaiver with the Qualified Financing based on the stated value of $15.00 per share of Series A Preferred.
respect to previously missed monthly payments.
 
17.18. Supplemental Financial Information
Quarterly Results of Operations (Unaudited)

The following table presents the unaudited statements of operations data for each of the eight quarters in the period ended March 31, 2012.  This information represents the activity of VistaGen (the California corporation) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and for the pre-Merger portion of the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the consolidated activity of VistaGen (the California corporation) and Excaliber from May 11, 2011 (the date of the Merger) through March 31, 2012. A total of 1,569,000 shares of common stock, representing the 784,500 shares held by stockholders of Excaliber immediately prior to the Merger and effected for the post-Merger two-for-one forward stock split described in Note 1, Description of Business, have been retroactively reflected as outstanding for the entire fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and for the period prior to the Merger in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 for purposes of determining basic and diluted loss per common share below.

2014. The information has been presented on the same basis as the audited financial statements and all necessary adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, have been included in the amounts below to present fairly the unaudited quarterly results when read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and related notes. The operating results for any quarter should not be relied upon as necessarily indicative of results for any future period.
Unaudited Quarterly Results of Operations
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

  Three Months Ended  Total 
  June 30, 2013  September 30, 2013  December 31, 2013  March 31, 2014  Fiscal Year 2014 
                
Revenues:               
 Grant revenue $-  $-  $-  $-  $- 
  Total revenues  -   -   -   -   - 
                     
Operating expenses:                    
 Research and development  695   669   551   566   2,481 
 General and administrative  605   546   897   500   2,548 
  Total operating expenses  1,300   1,215   1,448   1,066   5,029 
Loss from operations  (1,300)  (1,215)  (1,448)  (1,066)  (5,029)
                     
Other expenses, net:                    
 Interest expense, net  (316)  (323)  (361)  (503)  (1,503)
 Change in warrant liabilities  1,805   79   1,940   (257)  3,567 
                     
Income (loss) before income taxes  189   (1,459)  131   (1,826)  (2,965)
Income taxes  (3)  -   -   -   (3)
Net income (loss) $186  $(1,459) $131  $(1,826) $(2,968)
                     
                     
Basic net income (loss) per common share $0.01  $(0.07) $0.01  $(0.08) $(0.14)
                     
Diluted net loss per common share $(0.02) $(0.07) $(0.02) $(0.08) $(0.19)
                     
Weighted average shares used in computing:                    
 Basic net income (loss) per common share  20,839,941   21,630,587   22,210,573   23,251,044   21,973,149 
                     
 Diluted net loss per common share  21,229,190   21,630,587   22,210,573   23,251,044   21,973,149 

  Three Months Ended  Total 
  June 30, 2012  September 30, 2012  December 31, 2012  March 31, 2013  Fiscal Year 2013 
                
Revenues:               
 Grant revenue $200  $-  $-  $-  $200 
  Total revenues  200   -   -   -   200 
                     
Operating expenses:                    
 Research and development  866   1,106   1,120   339   3,431 
 General and administrative  1,055   576   799   1,132   3,562 
  Total operating expenses  1,921   1,682   1,919   1,471   6,993 
Loss from operations  (1,721)  (1,682)  (1,919)  (1,471)  (6,793)
                     
Other expenses, net:                    
 Interest expense, net  (103)  (274)  (235)  (309)  (921)
 Change in warrant liabilities  -   -   358   (1,994)  (1,636)
 Loss on early extinguishment of debt  -   -   (3,537)  (31)  (3,568)
 Other income  -   -   -   35   35 
                     
Loss before income taxes  (1,824)  (1,956)  (5,333)  (3,770)  (12,883)
Income taxes  (2)  -   (2)  -   (4)
Net loss  (1,826) $(1,956) $(5,335) $(3,770) $(12,887)
  Deemed dividend on Series A Preferred Stock  -   -   (10,193)  -   (10,193)
                     
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders $(1,826) $(1,956) $(15,528) $(3,770) $(23,080)
                     
Basic and diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share
 $(0.11) $(0.11) $(0.85) $(0.19) $(1.27)
                     
Weighted average shares used in computing basic and diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share
  16,842,655   17,094,833   18,292,301   20,236,491   18,108,444 

 
Unaudited IteQuarterly Results of Operations
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

  Three Months Ended  Total 
  June 30, 2011  September 30, 2011  December 31, 2011  March 31, 2012  Fiscal Year 2012 
Revenues:               
 Grant revenue $555  $316  $2  $469  $1,342 
  Total revenues  555   316   2   469   1,342 
                     
Operating expenses:                    
 Research and development  1,028   1,227   1,306   1,828   5,389 
 General and administrative  1,127   894   1,548   1,428   4,997 
  Total operating expenses  2,155   2,121   2,854   3,256   10,386 
Loss from operations  (1,600)  (1,805)  (2,852)  (2,787)  (9,044)
                     
Other expenses, net:                    
 Interest expense, net  (731)  (451)  (455)  (256)  (1,893 )
 Change in put and note extension option and                 
       warrant liabilities  (78)  -   -   -   (78)
 Loss on early extinguishment of debt  -   -   (1,193)  -   (1,193)
                     
Loss before income taxes  (2,409)  (2,256)  (4,500)  (3,043)  (12,208)
Income taxes  (2)  -   -   -   (2)
Net loss $(2,411) $(2,256) $(4,500) $(3,043) $(12,210)
                     
Basic and diluted net loss per common share $(0.22) $(0.15) $(0.28) $(0.18) $(0.83)
Weighted average shares used in computing                    
 basic and diluted net loss per common share  11,105,854   15,241,904   16,035,861   16,542,717   14,736,651 
  Three Months Ended  Total 
  June 30, 2010  September 30, 2010  December 31, 2010  March 31, 2011  Fiscal Year 2011 
Revenues:               
 Grant revenue $734  $399  $585  $353  $2,071 
  Total revenues  734   399   585   353   2,071 
                     
Operating expenses:                    
 Research and development  675   692   447   1,864   3,678 
 General and administrative  520   570   2,665   1,203   4,958 
  Total operating expenses  1,195   1,262   3,112   3,067   8,636 
Loss from operations  (461)  (863)  (2,527)  (2,714)  (6,565)
                     
Other expenses, net:                    
 Interest expense, net  (531)  (711)  (1,009)  (868)  (3,119)
 Change in put and note extension option and                 
       warrant liabilities  10   3   144   47   204 
                     
Loss before income taxes  (982)  (1,571)  (3,392)  (3,535)  (9,480)
Income taxes  -   (2)  -   -   (2)
Net loss $(982) $(1,573) $(3,392) $(3,535) $(9,482)
                     
Basic and diluted net loss per common share $(0.19) $(0.30) $(0.65) $(0.67) $(1.81)
Weighted average shares used in computing                    
basic and diluted net loss per common share  5,241,110   5,241,110   5,241,110   5,241,110   5,241,110 
Item m 9.  Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

On May 13, 2011, in connection with the Merger, we dismissed Weaver & Martin, LLC (“WM”) as Excaliber’s independent registered public accounting firm.  The Company’s Board of directors approved the dismissal of WM.None.

The reports of WM on the financial statements of Excaliber as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010 contained no adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principle.

During Excaliber’s fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010 and through May 13, 2011, (i) there were no disagreements with WM on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to WM satisfaction, would have caused WM to make reference to the subject matter of such disagreements in its reports on Excaliber’s consolidated financial statements for such years, and (ii) there were no reportable events as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.

The Company provided WM with a copy of the above disclosures prior to its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) of the Current Report on Form 8-K describing the Merger on May 16, 2011 and requested WM to furnish the Company with a letter addressed to the SEC stating whether WM agrees with the above statements and, if not, stating the respects in which it does not agree.  A copy of WM’s letter dated May 13, 2011 is attached as Exhibit 16.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 16, 2011 and is incorporated herein by reference.

Based on the Board of Directors’ approval, we engaged OUM & Co. LLP (“OUM”) on May 13, 2011, as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. During Excaliber’s two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010 and through May 13, 2011, neither Excaliber nor anyone on its behalf consulted OUM regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on Excaliber’s financial statements, and no written report or oral advice was provided to Excaliber that OUM concluded was an important factor considered by Excaliber in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was the subject of a disagreement or reportable event as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) and Item 304(a)(1)(v), respectively, of Regulation S-K.

OUM was VistaGen’s auditor prior to the Merger. As such, OUM audited VistaGen’s financial statements as of March 31, 2010 and 2009, and for the four years in the period ended March 31, 2011, and for the period from May 26, 1998 (inception) through March 31, 2011, which are included in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 16, 2011, and as subsequently amended, and provided advice to VistaGen with respect to accounting, auditing, and financial reporting issues related to the Merger.

ItemItem 9A.  Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
 
Based on their evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this report, our chief executive officerChief Executive Officer and acting chief financial officerChief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report to ensure that information that we are required to disclose in reports that management files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms.

Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives, and our chief executive officer and acting chief financial officer have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective at the “reasonable assurance” level. We believe that a control system, no matter how well designed and operated, cannot provide absolute assurance that the objectives of the control system are met, and no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within a company have been detected.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of internal control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls. Accordingly, even effective internal controls can provide only reasonable assurances with respect to financial statement preparation. Further, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time.

 
Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2012.2014. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (1992). Based on its assessment using the COSO criteria, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of March 31, 2012.2014.

As a result of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, and the resulting amendment of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as a non-accelerated filer, we are not required to provide an attestation report by our independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting for the fiscal year ended March 31, 20122014 or thereafter, until such time as we are no longer eligible for the exemption for smaller issuers set forth within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

ItemItem 9B9B..  Other Information

None.


PPART ART III

Item 10.10.  Directors Officers and Corporate GovernanceGovernance.

Our senior management is composed of individuals with significant management experience.  The following table sets forth specific information regarding ourOur directors and executive officers and directors as of June 1, 2012:19, 2014 are as follows:
 
Name Age Position
Shawn K. Singh, J.D. 4951 Chief Executive Officer and Director
H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D.(3)
 6264 Founder, President, Chief Scientific Officer and Director
Jerrold D. Dotson 5860 Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
A. Franklin Rice, MBA
58
Vice President of Corporate Development and Secretary
former Chief Financial Officer
Jon S. Saxe (1) 7577 Director
Gregory A. Bonfiglio, J.D. (3)
60Director
Brian J. Underdown, PhD. (3)
(2)
 7173 Director

The following is a brief summary of the background of each of our executive
(1)  Chairman of the audit committee and member of the compensation committee and corporate governance and nominating committee
(2)  Member of the audit committee and chairman of the compensation committee and corporate governance and nominating committee

Executive officers and directors, including their principal occupation during the five preceding years. All directors serve until their successors are elected and qualified.

Shawn K. Singh, J.D. became VistaGen’shas served as our Chief Executive Officer insince August 2009; he joined VistaGen’sour Board of Directors in 2000.  Upon completion of the Merger, Mr. Singh became Chief Executive Officer2000 and a director of Excaliber, now renamed VistaGen. Mr. Singh served on VistaGen’sour management team on a part-time basis(part-time) from late-2003, following VistaGen’sour acquisition of Artemis Neuroscience, of which he was President, to August 2009. Mr. Singh has over 20 years of experience working with biotechnology, medical device and pharmaceutical companies, both private and public. From February 2001 to August 2009, Mr. Singh served as Managing Principal of Cato BioVentures, a life science venture capital firm, and as Chief Business Officer and General Counsel of Cato Research, a profitable global contract research organization (CRO) affiliated with Cato BioVentures. Mr. Singh served as President (part-time) of Echo Therapeutics (Nasdaq:(NASDAQ: ECTE), a medical device company, from September 2007 to June 2009, and as a directormember of the companyits Board of Directors from September 2007 through December 2012, and2011. He also served as Chief Executive Officer (part-time) of Hemodynamic Therapeutics, a private biopharmaceutical company affiliated with Cato BioVentures, from November 2004 to August 2009. From November 2000late-2000 to February 2001, Mr. Singh served as Managing Director of Start-Up Law, a management consulting firm serving early-stage biotechnology companies. Mr. Singh also served as Chief Business Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals (Nasdaq:(NASDAQ: SCLN), a US-based, China-focused specialty pharmaceutical company with a substantial revenue-generating and profitable commercial business and a marketed product portfolio of differentiated therapies for oncology, infectious diseases and cardiovascular disorders, from November 1993late-1993 to November 2000late-2000, and as a corporate finance associate of Morrison & Foerster LLP, an international law firm, from May 1991 to November 1993.late-1993. Mr. Singh also currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Armour Therapeutics, a privately-heldprivate biotechnology company focused on prostate cancer. Mr. Singh earned a B.A. degree, with honors, from the University of California, Berkeley, and a J.D. degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. Mr. Singh is a member of the State Bar of California.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee believes thatWe selected Mr. Singh possessesto serve on our Board of Directors due to his substantial practical experience and expertise in senior leadership roles leading biotechnology, biopharmaceutical and medical device companies from product introduction through commercialization, and that such expertise is extremely valuable to the Board of Directors and the Company as we execute our business plan.  In addition, the Board of Directors values the input provided by Mr. Singh given his extensive legal and venture capital experience working with multiple privately-private and publicly-heldpublic biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device companies.companies, and his extensive experience in corporate finance, venture capital, corporate governance and strategic partnering.

H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D. co-founded VistaGen in 1998 with Dr. Gordon Keller in 1998 and served as VistaGen’sour Chief Executive Officer until August 2009. Upon completion of the Merger, Dr. Snodgrass becamehas served as our President and Chief Scientific Officer.Officer since August 2009. He has served as a member of our Board of Directors since 1998.  Prior to founding VistaGen, Dr. Snodgrass became a director of Excaliber, now renamed VistaGen, shortly following the Merger in June 2011. Prior to joining us, Dr. Snodgrass wasserved as a key member of the executive management team which lead Progenitor, Inc., a biotechnology company focused on developmental biology, through its initial public offering, and was its Chief Scientific Officer from June 1994 to May 1998, and its Executive Director from July 1993 to May 1994. He received his Ph.D. in immunology from the University of Pennsylvania, and has more than 1520 years of experience in senior biotechnology management and over 10 years research experience as a professor at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and as a member of the Institute for Immunology, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Snodgrass is a past Board Member of the Emerging Company Section of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), and past member of the International Society Stem Cell Research Industry Committee. Dr. Snodgrass has published more than 50 scientific papers, is the inventor on more than 17 patents and a number of patent applications, is, or has been, the principal investigator on U.S. federal and private foundation sponsored research grants with budgets totaling more than $14.5 million and is recognized as an expert in stem cell biology with more than 1720 years’ experience in the uses of stem cells as biological tools for drug discovery and development.


The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee believes that Dr. Snodgrass’directors due to his expertise in biotechnology focused on developmental biology, including stem cell biology, his extensive senior management experience leading biotechnology companies at all stages of development, as well as his reputation and standing in the fields of biotechnology and stem cell research, allow him to bring to the Companyus and the Board of Directors a unique understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with pluripotent stem cell biology, as well as credibility in the markets in which we operate.

Jerrold D. Dotson, CPA serveshas served as VistaGen’sour Chief Financial Officer.  Prior to joining VistaGen onOfficer since September 2011, as our Corporate Secretary since October 2013 and as a consulting basis in September 2011,Vice President since February 2014. Mr. Dotson served as Corporate Controller for Discovery Foods Company, a privately held Asian frozen foods company from January 2009 to September 2011.  From February 2007 through September 2008, Mr. Dotson served as Vice President, Finance and Administration (principal financial and accounting officer) for Calypte Biomedical Corporation (OTCBB: CBMC), a publicpublicly held biotechnology company.  Mr. Dotson served as Calypte’s Corporate Secretary from 2001 through September 2008.  He also served as Calypte’s Director of Finance from January 2000 through July 2005 and was a financial consultant to Calypte from August 2005 through January 2007.  Prior to joining Calypte, from 1988 through 1999, Mr. Dotson worked in various financial management positions, including Chief Financial Officer, for California & Hawaiian Sugar Company, a privately held company.  Mr. Dotson is licensed as a CPA in California and received his BS degree in Business Administration with a concentration in accounting from Abilene Christian College.

A. Franklin Rice, MBA serves as VistaGen’s Vice President of Corporate Development and Secretary and had served as VistaGen’s Chief Financial Officer until September 2011. Since joining VistaGen in 1999, Mr. Rice has previously served as Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration and Vice President, Business Development of VistaGen. Upon completion of the Merger, Mr. Rice became our Chief Financial Officer and Secretary. Mr. Rice has been employed in the biotechnology industry since 1988 during which time he has held positions of increasing responsibility. From 1988 to 1998, Mr. Rice served as Senior Director of Business Development at Genencor International and from 1998 to 1999 as Vice President of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals for Bechtel Group where he was responsible for global sales and marketing of consulting services to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Rice serves on the Board of Directors of PrognosDx Health, Inc.  Mr. Rice earned his B.S.Ch.E. with honors from Clarkson University, an MBA degree with a double major in finance and marketing from University of Rochester’s Simon School of Business and a second Master’s degree in business from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Jon S. Saxe, J.D. has served as Chairman of VistaGen’sour Board of Directors since 2000. He is also serves as the Chairman of VistaGen’sour Audit Committee.  Upon completion of the Merger, Mr. Saxe became a director of Excaliber, now re-named VistaGen. He is the retired President and was a director of PDL BioPharma. From 1989 to 1993, he was President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Synergen, Inc. (acquired by Amgen). Mr. Saxe served as Vice President, Licensing & Corporate Development for Hoffmann-Roche from 1984 through 1989, and Head of Patent Law for Hoffmann-Roche from 1978 through 1989. Mr. Saxe currently is a director of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCLN) and Durect Corporation (Nasdaq: DRRX), and two private biotechnology medical devicecompanies, Arbor Vita Corporation and pharmaceutical companies.Arcuo Medical, LLC. Mr. Saxe also has served as a director of other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, including ID Biomedical (acquired by GlaxoSmithKline), Sciele Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (acquired by Shionogi), Amalyte (acquired by Kemin Industries), Cell Pathways (acquired by OSI Pharmaceuticals), and other companies, both public and private. Mr. Saxe has a B.S.Ch.E. from Carnegie-Mellon University, a J.D. degree from George Washington University and an LL.M. degree from New York University.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee believes thatWe selected Mr. Saxe’sSaxe to serve as Chairman of our Board of Directors due to numerous years of experience as a senior executive with major biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Protein Design Labs, Inc., Synergen, Inc. and Hoffmann-Roche, Inc., as well as his extensive experience serving as a director of numerous private and public biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, serving as Chairman, and Chair and member of audit, compensation and governance committees of both private and public companies,companies.  Mr. Saxe provides the Companyus and theour Board of Directors with highly valuable insight and perspective into the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the strategic opportunities and challenges that we face.

Gregory A. Bonfiglio, J.D. joined VistaGen’s Board of Directors in February 2007 and became a director of Excaliber, now re-named VistaGen, shortly following the completion of the Merger, in June 2011.  Mr. Bonfiglio has over 25 years, experience working with technology companies. In January 2006, he founded Proteus, LLC and has acted as the managing partner of such company since then. Proteus is an investment and advisory firm focused solely on regenerative medicine (“RM”). Proteus operates three separate businesses: Proteus Venture Partners, which manages RM funds; Proteus Insights, which provides strategic consulting services to RM companies regarding funding, commercialization, clinical development, market entry, and sector analyses; and Proteus Advisors, which provides fundraising and M&A services to RM companies. Mr. Bonfiglio is a Member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) and is on its Advisory Board, as well as their Industry and Finance Committees. He is also a Member of the International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) and is on its Commercialization Committee. From 2000 through 2005, Mr. Bonfiglio was a General Partner of Anthem Venture Partners, an early-stage venture fund focused on both biotechnology and information technology. Prior to joining Anthem, he was a Partner with Morrison & Foerster LLP, an international law firm, where he worked extensively with technology companies. Mr. Bonfiglio was an Adjunct Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, from 1996 to 2000. Since 1995, he has been a regular Guest Lecturer at the UC Berkley Haas Business School in the Top Down Law program. Mr. Bonfiglio received his B.A. in Mathematics (magna cum laude) from Michigan State University in 1975, and his J.D. (magna cum laude) from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981.

 
The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee believes that Mr. Bonfiglio brings to the Board of Directors and the Company valuable financial and sector analytical experience given his position with Proteus, LLC, and Proteus’ extensive experience working with development stage companies focused on regenerative medicine.  This experience, combined with his venture capital experience, is anticipated to provide substantial value to the Board of Directors as it capitalizes on the opportunities presented by our pluripotent stem cell biology platform.

Brian J. Underdown, Ph.D. joined VistaGen’shas served as a member of our Board of Directors insince November 2009 and became a director of Excaliber, now re-named VistaGen, shortly following the completion of the Merger, in June 2011.  Since September 1997,2009. Dr. Underdown has served as the Managing Director of Lumira Capital Corp., since September 1997, having started in the venture capital industry in 1997 with MDS Capital Corporation (MDSCC). His investment focus has been on therapeutics in both new and established companies in both Canada and the United States. Prior to joining MDSCC, Dr. Underdown held a number of senior management positions in the biopharmaceutical industry and at universities. Dr. Underdown’s past and current board positions include: ID Biomedical, Trillium Therapeutics, Cytochroma Inc., Argos Therapeutics, Nysa Membrane Technologies, Ception Therapeutics and Transmolecular Therapeutics. He has served on a number of Boards and advisory bodies of government sponsored research organizations including CANVAC, the Canadian National Centre of Excellence in Vaccines, Ontario Genomics Institute, Allergen, the Canadian National Centre of Excellence in Allergy and Asthma. Dr. Underdown obtained his Ph.D. in immunology from McGill University and undertook post-doctoral studies at Washington University School of Medicine.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee believes thatWe selected Dr. Underdown’sUnderdown to serve on our Board of Directors due to his extensive background working in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as a director of numerous private and public companies, as well as his venture capital experience funding and advising start-up and established companies focused on therapeutics, provides the Company and its Board of Directors with an in-depth understanding of the myriad of issues facing the Company, from funding development to executing its business plan.therapeutics.

EachElection of ourExecutive Officers

Our executive officers isare elected by, and servesserve at the discretion of, the Boardour board of Directors.directors.  Each of our executive officers devotes his full time to our affairs except Mr. Dotson, who supports us on a consulting basis.

Family Relationships

Weaffairs.  There are not aware of anyno family relationships betweenamong any of our directors or executive officers.

Board Composition and Committees

Our Boardamended and restated bylaws provide that the authorized number of Directors isdirectors of the Company shall be not less than one nor more than seven, with the exact number of directors currently composedfixed at seven. The exact number may be amended only by the vote or written consent of five members, Jon S. Saxe, Chairman, Shawn K. Singh, H. Ralph Snodgrass, Gregory A. Bonfiglio and Brian J. Underdown.a majority of the outstanding shares of our voting stock.  Our board of directors currently consists of four members.  Accordingly, there are currently three vacancies on our board of directors.  Our board of directors anticipates filling each of such vacancies as soon as practicable.  All actions of the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors require the approval of a majority of the directors in attendance at a meeting at which a quorum is present. We currently have standing Audit, Compensation and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committees.

Board Committees

Our board of directors has established an audit committee, a compensation committee and a corporate governance and nominating committee. The composition and responsibilities of each committee are described below.  Members serve on these committees until their resignation or until otherwise determined by our board of directors. Our independent directors, Mr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown, are each members of the audit committee. Mr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown also currently serve as members of the compensation committee and the corporate governance and nominating committee.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee was established byOur audit committee is comprised of Mr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown.  Mr. Saxe is the Board to oversee our accounting and financial reporting processes and the auditschairman of our audit committee and is our audit committee financial statements. In meeting this objective, the Audit Committee evaluates the performance of and assesses the qualifications and independence of our independent registered public accounting firm. The Committee also approves the engagement of our independent registered public accounting firm and determines whether to retain or terminate their services or to appoint and engage a new independent registered public accounting firm. The Committee reviews and approves the retentionexpert, as that term is defined under SEC rules implementing Section 407 of the independent registered public accounting firm to perform any proposed permissible non-audit services and confers with management and our independent registered public accounting firm regarding the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting.  The Committee reviews the financial statements to be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and discusses with management and our independent registered public accounting firm the results of the annual audit. Currently, our three independent directors (as independence is currently defined in Rule 10A-3(b)(1) under the Securities ExchangeSarbanes Oxley Act of 1934,2002, and possesses the requisite financial sophistication, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), Mr. Saxe (Chairman), Mr. Bonfiglio, and Dr. Underdown, comprise the Audit Committee.defined under applicable rules.  The Audit Committee is governed byaudit committee operates under a written charter.  Our Board of Directors has made a determination that Mr. Saxe is an audit committee financial expert. charter is available on our website.  Under its charter, our audit committee is primarily responsible for, among other things,

Compensation Committee
·overseeing our accounting and financial reporting process;

The Compensation Committee of the Board reviews and recommends to the Board our overall compensation strategy and policies.  The Compensation Committee reviews and recommends to the Board corporate performance goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our executive officers and other senior management; reviews and recommends to the Board the compensation and other terms of employment of our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers; and oversees the administration of our incentive and equity-based compensation plans and other similar programs. Dr. Underdown (Chairman) and Mr. Saxe currently comprise the Compensation Committee: Both members of our Compensation Committee are independent (as independence is currently defined in Rule 4200(a)(15) of the Nasdaq listing standards). The Compensation Committee is governed by a written charter.
·selecting, retaining and replacing our independent auditors and evaluating their qualifications, independence and performance;

·reviewing and approving scope of the annual audit and audit fees;
·monitoring rotation of partners of independent auditors on engagement team as required by law;
 
·discussing with management and independent auditors the results of annual audit and review of quarterly financial statements;
·reviewing adequacy and effectiveness of internal control policies and procedures;
·approving retention of independent auditors to perform any proposed permissible non-audit services;
·overseeing internal audit functions and annually reviewing audit committee charter and committee performance; and
·preparing the audit committee report that the SEC requires in our annual proxy statement.
Compensation Committee
Our compensation committee is comprised of Mr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown, who serves as the committee chairman.. Our compensation committee charter is available on our website. Under its charter, the compensation committee is primarily responsible for, among other things,
·Reviewing and approving our compensation programs and arrangements applicable to our executive officers (as defined in Rule I 6a-I (f) of the Exchange Act), including all employment-related agreements or arrangements under which compensatory benefits are awarded or paid to, or earned or received by, our executive officers, including, without limitation, employment, severance, change of control and similar agreements or arrangements;
·Determining the objectives of our executive officer compensation programs;
·Ensuring corporate performance measures and goals regarding executive officer compensation are set and determining the extent to which they are achieved and any related compensation earned;
·Establishing goals and objectives relevant to CEO compensation, evaluating CEO performance in light  of  such  goals  and  objectives,  and determining CEO compensation based on the evaluation; and
·Endeavoring to ensure that our executive compensation programs are effective in attracting and retaining key employees and reinforcing business strategies and objectives for enhancing stockholder value; monitoring the administration of incentive-compensation plans and equity-based incentive plans as in effect and as adopted from time to time by the board.
·Reviewing and approving any new equity compensation plan or any material change to an existing plan.
·Reviewing and approving any stock option award or any other type of award as may be required for complying with any tax, securities, or other regulatory requirement, or otherwise determined to be appropriate or desirable by the committee or board.
Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee

The Corporate GovernanceOur corporate governance and Nominating Committeenominating committee is comprised of Mr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown, who serves as the Boardcommittee chairman.  Our corporate governance and nominating committee charter is available on our website. Under its charter, the corporate governance and nominating committee is primarily responsible for, identifying, and recommending candidates to serve as directors (consistent with criteria approved by the Board), recommending to the Board candidates for election and reelection to the Board, making recommendations to the Board regardingamong other things:
·Monitoring the size and composition of the board;
·Making recommendations to the board with respect to the nominations or elections of our directors;
·Reviewing the adequacy of our corporate governance policies and procedures and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and recommending any proposed changes to the board for approval; and
·Considering any requests for waivers from our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and ensure that we disclose such waivers as may be required by the exchange on which we are listed, if any, and rules and regulations of the SEC.

All potential candidates for director nominees, including candidates recommended by our stockholders, are reviewed in the context of the current composition of the Board, our operating requirements and the long-term interests of our stockholders. In conducting this assessment, the Committee considers such factors as it deems appropriate given our current needs and those of our Board, to maintain a balance of expertise, experience and capability. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee reviews directors’ overall service during their term, including the number of meetings attended, their level of participation and quality of performance. The Committee also determines whether the nominee would be independent, which determination is based upon applicable Nasdaq or other exchange listing standards, applicable SEC rules and regulations and the advice of counsel, if necessary.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will consider director candidates recommended by stockholders in the same manner as it considers recommendations from current directors or other sources. Stockholders who wish to recommend individuals for consideration by the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee to become nominees for election to the Board may do so by delivering a written recommendation to the Company Secretary at the following address: 384 Oyster Point Boulevard, No. 8,343 Allerton Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 at least 60 days prior, but no more than 90 days prior, to the anniversary date of the last annual meeting of stockholders. Submissions should include the full name, address and age of the proposed nominee, a description of the proposed nominee’s business experience for at least the previous five years, complete biographical information, a description of the proposed nominee’s qualifications as a director, and the number of shares of our stock beneficially owned by the proposed nominee.  The nominating stockholder must also provide his or her name and address of record and the number of shares of our stock that he or she owns beneficially or of record.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee has not established specific minimum qualifications for recommended nominees or specific qualities or skills for one or more of our directors to possess, other than as are necessary to meet any requirements under rules and regulations (including any stock exchange rules) applicable to the Company. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee uses a subjective process for identifying and evaluating nominees for director, based on the information available to, and the subjective judgments of, the members of the Committee and our then current needs for the Board as a whole.  Although it does not have a formal policy regarding the consideration of diversity, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee considers the needs for the Board as a whole when identifying and evaluating nominees and, among other things, considers diversity in background, age, experience, qualifications, attributes and skills in identifying nominees.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee’s process for identification and evaluation of director candidates is generally as follows:

(a) In the event of a vacancy or the establishment of a new directorship on the Board, candidate(s) for director nominee(s) shall be presented to the full Board for consideration and approval upon the recommendation of no less than a majority of the independent members of the Board (as independence is defined under any stock exchange rules that may be applicable to the Company at such time).

(b) We believe that the continuing service of qualified incumbents promotes stability and continuity in the boardroom, contributing to the Board's ability to work as a collective body, while giving us the benefit of the familiarity and insight into our affairs that our directors have accumulated during their tenure. Accordingly, the process for identifying nominees reflects our practice of re-nominating incumbent directors who continue to satisfy the criteria for membership on the Board, whom the independent members of the Board believe continue to make important contributions to the Board and who consent to continue their service on the Board. Consistent with this policy, in considering candidates for election at annual meetings of stockholders, the independent members of the Board will first determine the incumbent directors whose terms expire at the upcoming meeting and who wish to continue their service on the Board.


(c) The independent members of the Board will evaluate the qualifications and performance of the incumbent directors that desire to continue their service. In particular, as to each such incumbent director, the independent members of the Board will (i) consider if the director continues to satisfy the minimum qualifications for director candidates adopted by the independent members of the Board, (ii) review any assessments of the performance of the director during the preceding term made by the Board, and (iii) determine whether there exist any special, countervailing considerations against re-nomination of the director.

(d) If the independent members of the Board determine that an incumbent director consenting to re-nomination continues to be qualified and has satisfactorily performed his or her duties as director during the preceding term, and there exist no reasons, including considerations relating to the composition and functional needs of the Board as a whole, why in the view of the independent members of the Board the incumbent should not be re-nominated, the independent members of the Board will, absent special circumstances, propose the incumbent director for reelection.

(e) The process by the independent members of the Board for identifying and evaluating nominees for director, including nominees recommended by a stockholder, involves (with or without the assistance of a retained search firm):
 
·compiling names of potentially eligible candidates;
·conducting background and reference checks;
·conducting interviews with candidates and/or others;
·meeting to consider and approve final candidates; and, as appropriate,
·preparing and presenting to the full Board an analysis with regard to particular recommended candidates.

During the search process, the independent directors shall endeavor to identify director nominees who have the highest personal and professional integrity, have demonstrated exceptional ability and judgment, and, together with other director nominees and current Board members, shall effectively serve the long-term interests of our stockholders and contribute to our overall corporate goals.

(f) In considering potential new directors, the independent members of the Board will review individuals from various disciplines and backgrounds. Among the qualifications to be considered in the selection of candidates are:
 
·personal and professional integrity;
·broad experience in business, finance or administration;
·familiarity with our industry; and
·prominence and reputation.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applicable to our employees, officers and directors.  Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available on our website at www.vistagen.com.  We intend to disclose any future amendments to certain provisions of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, or waivers of these provisions, on our website or in filings with the SEC under the Exchange Act.
Board Attendance at Board of Directors, Committee and Stockholder Meetings

Our Board of Directors met twothree times and acted by unanimous written consent 16ten times during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.2014.  Our Audit Committee met four times and our Compensation Committee acted oncerequested action by unanimous written consentthe entire Board of Directors for grants of options and warrants and the modification of certain options and warrants during the same period.  NoEach director serving during fiscal 20122014 attended fewer than 75%all of the aggregate of all meetings of the Board and the committees of the Board upon which such director served.

We do not have a formal policy regarding attendance by members of the Board at our annual meeting of stockholders, but directors are encouraged to attend. We did not hold an annual meeting of stockholders during our fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, however two of our five board members attended our October 28, 2011 special meeting of stockholders.2014.

Code of Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Ethics applicable to our directors, officers and all employees.  The Code of Ethics is available on our website at www.vistagen.com.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

Our Compensation Committee consists of Dr. Underdown and Mr. Saxe, each of whom is a non-employee director. Neither member of the Compensation Committee has a relationship that would constitute an interlocking relationship with executive officers or directors of another entity.

 
Section 16 Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our officers, directors and persons who beneficially own more than ten percent of our common stock (collectively, “Reporting Persons”Reporting Persons) to file reports of ownership on Form 3 and changes in ownership on Form 4 or Form 5 with the Commission.  The Reporting Persons are also required by SEC rules to furnish us with copies of all reports that they file pursuant to Section 16(a).  Except as described below, we believe that during our fiscal year ended March 31, 2012,2014, all of the Reporting Persons complied with all applicable reporting requirements.

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, Shawn Singh was appointed Chief Executive OfficerDecember 20, 2013, certain of Mr. Saxe’s options and a director of Excaliber, butwarrants were modified to reduce their exercise price.  Mr Saxe did not report that he had become subject to Section 16(a)these derivative security transactions on a Form 4 until May 25, 2011.

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, H. Ralph Snodgrass was appointed President and Chief Scientific Officer and a director of Excaliber, but did not report that he had become subject to Section 16(a) until May 25, 2011.

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, Jon S. Saxe was appointed a director of Excaliber, but did not report that he had become subject to Section 16(a) until May 25, 2011.

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, A. Franklin Rice was appointed Chief Financial Officer of Excaliber, but did not report that he had become subject to Section 16(a) until May 25, 2011.

On May 9, 2011, in connection with the Merger, Stephanie Jones, then the President and a Director of Excaliber, disposed of 4,982,103 shares of Excaliber common stock, but did not report the transaction until June 3, 2011.

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, Cato Holding Company (“CHC”) and Allen E. Cato, M.D., Ph.D., as majority stockholder and Chief Executive Officer of CHC, acquired beneficial ownership of more than 10% of VistaGen’s common stock, but did not report that CHC and Dr. Cato were subject to Section 16(a) until June 3, 2011.  On December 21, 2011, pursuant to an Agreement Regarding Payment of Invoices and Warrant Exercise (the “Agreement”), CHC acquired 424,124 shares of VistaGen common stock upon the exercise of warrants.  In connection with the Agreement, CHC acquired warrants to purchase an aggregate of 34,940 shares of VistaGen common stock from certain CHC affiliates who sold warrants to CHC, including Allen E. Cato, M.D., who sold and from whom CHC acquired warrants to purchase 6,988 shares.  Warrants acquired by CHC from its affiliates are included in the aggregate number of warrants exercised by CHC.  Additionally, in connection with the Agreement, Dr. Cato acquired 11,363 shares of VistaGen common stock upon the exercise of warrants.  All of the transactions related to the Agreement were effective on December 21, 2011 and reported by CHC and Allen E. Cato, M.D. on January 9, 2012.

On May 11, 2011, concurrent with the Merger, Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC acquired beneficial ownership of more than 10% of VistaGen’s common stock, but did not report that it was subject to Section 16(a) until August 1, 2011.

On June 5, 2011, following the resignations of the former directors of Excaliber in connection with the Merger, Brian Underdown, Ph.D., became a director of VistaGen, but did not report that he had become subject to Section 16(a) until July 25, 2011.

On June 5, 2011, following the resignations of the former directors of Excaliber in connection with the Merger, Gregory A. Bonfiglio, J.D., became a director of VistaGen, but did not report that he had become subject to Section 16(a) until July 28, 2011.26, 2013.

Item Item 11.  Executive Compensation

Our Compensation Objectives
 
Our compensation practices are designed to attract key employees and to retain, motivate and reward our executive officers for their performance and contribution to our long-term success. Our Board of Directors, through the Compensation Committee, seeks to compensate our executive officers by combining short and long-term cash and equity incentives. It also seeks to reward the achievement of corporate and individual performance objectives, and to align executive officers’ incentives with shareholder value creation. The Compensation Committee seeks to tie individual goals to the area of the executive officer’s primary responsibility. These goals may include the achievement of specific financial or business development goals. The Compensation Committee seeks to set performance goals that reach across all business areas and include achievements in finance/business development and corporate development.


The Compensation Committee makes decisions regarding salaries, annual bonuses, if any, and equity incentive compensation for our executive officers, approves corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer and our other executive officers. The Compensation Committee solicits input from our Chief Executive Officer regarding the performance of our other executive officers. Finally, the Compensation Committee also administers our incentive compensation and benefit plans.

Although we have no formal policy for a specific allocation between current and long-term compensation, or cash and non-cash compensation, we have established a pay mix for our officers with a relatively equal balance of both, providing a competitive set salary with a significant portion of compensation awarded on both corporate and personal performance.

Compensation Components
 
Our compensation consists primarily of three elements: base salary, annual bonus and long-term equity incentives. We describe each element of compensation in more detail below.

Base Salary
 
Base salaries for our executive officers are established based on the scope of their responsibilities and their prior relevant experience, taking into account competitive market compensation paid by other companies in our industry for similar positions and the overall market demand for such executives at the time of hire. An executive officer’s base salary is also determined by reviewing the executive officer’s other compensation to ensure that the executive officer’s total compensation is in line with our overall compensation philosophy.

Base salaries are reviewed annually and increased for merit reasons, based on the executive officers’ success in meeting or exceeding individual objectives. Additionally, we adjust base salaries as warranted throughout the year for promotions or other changes in the scope or breadth of an executive officer’s role or responsibilities.

Annual Bonus
 
The Compensation Committee assesses the level of the executive officer’s achievement of meeting individual goals, as well as that executive officer’s contribution towards our corporate-wide goals. The amount of the cash bonus depends on the level of achievement of the individual performance goals, with a target bonus generally set as a percentage of base salary and based on the achievement of pre-determined milestones.  To conserve our cash resources, our management team did not seek, and our Compensation Committee did not award, cash bonuses to executive officers during fiscal 2013 or 2014.

Long-Term Equity Incentives
 
The Compensation Committee believes that to attract and retain management, key employees and non-management directors the compensation paid to these persons should include, in addition to base salary and thepotential annual cash incentives, equity based compensation that is competitive with peer companies.  The Compensation Committee determines the amount and terms of equity based compensation granted under our stock option plans.

Summary Compensation Table   
The following table shows information regarding the compensation of our Named Executive Officers (NEO’s
) for services performed in the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013.
 
Name and Principal Position
  
Fiscal
Year
 
Salary
($)
  
Bonus
($)
  
Option and Warrant
Awards (7)
($)
  
All Other Compensation
($)
  
Total
($)
 
                  
Shawn K. Singh, J.D. (1)
 2014  250,000 (4)  -   159,802 (8)  -   409,802 
Chief Executive Officer 2013  201,646   -   802,411 (9)(10)  -   1,004,057 
                       
H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D. (2)
 2014  250,000 (5)  -   102,353 (8)  -   352.353 
President, Chief Scientific Officer 2013  203,086   -   534,941 (10)  -   738,027 
                       
Jerrold D. Dotson (3)
 2014  200,000 (6)  -   36,846 (8)  -   236,846 
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary  
2013
  97,269   -   134,316 (11)  62,333 (12)  293,918 
(1)Mr. Singh became VistaGen California’s Chief Executive Officer on August 20, 2009 and our Chief Executive Officer in May 2011, in connection with the Merger.  In our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, Mr. Singh’s annual base cash salary, excluding potential cash bonus amounts, pursuant to his January 2010 employment agreement was contractually set at $347,500. However, to conserve cash for our operations during our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, Mr. Singh voluntarily reduced his base cash salary in each of such fiscal years to the amounts indicated.  In addition, pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Singh is eligible to receive an annual incentive bonus of up to fifty percent (50%) of his base cash salary. However to conserve cash for our operations during our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, Mr. Singh voluntarily refrained from receiving any cash bonus from us.
(2)Through August 20, 2009, Dr. Snodgrass served as VistaGen California’s President and Chief Executive Officer, at which time he became its President and Chief Scientific Officer.  He became our President and Chief Scientific Officer in May 2011, in connection with the Merger.  In our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, Dr. Snodgrass’ annual base cash salary, excluding potential cash bonus amounts, pursuant to his January 2010 employment agreement was contractually set at $305,000.  However, to conserve cash for our operations during our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, Dr. Snodgrass voluntarily reduced his base cash salary in each of such fiscal years to the amounts indicated.  In addition, pursuant to his employment agreement, Dr. Snodgrass is eligible to receive an annual incentive bonus of up to fifty percent (50%) of his base cash salary.  However to conserve cash for our operations during our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2012, Dr. Snodgrass voluntarily refrained from receiving any cash bonus from us.

Summary Compensation Table 
The following table sets forth summary information concerning certain compensation awarded, paid to, or earned by the Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) for all services rendered in all capacities to us for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011.
Name and Principal Position Fiscal Year 
Salary (1)
($)
 
Bonus
($)
 
Option
Awards (2)
($)
 
All Other Compensation (3)
($)
 
Total
($)
 
      
Shawn K. Singh, J.D. 2012 292,268 - 108,056 230,104  630,428 
Chief Executive Officer 2011 168,274 - - -  168,274 
               
H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D. 2012 249,428 - 105,618 100,000  455,046 
President, Chief Scientific Officer 2011 141,486 - - -  141,486 
               
Jerrold D. Dotson 2012 - - 108,535 71,293  179,828 
Chief Financial Officer 2011 - - - -  - 
               
A. Franklin Rice 2012 185,780 - 108,056 90,796  384,632 
Vice President, Corporate Development and Secretary,
(former Chief Financial Officer)
 2011 131,802 - - -  131,802 
(1)(3)
Mr. Singh became VistaGen’s Chief Executive Officer on August 20, 2009, converting from part-time to full-time status. In VistaGen’s fiscal years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, Mr. Singh’s annual base salary pursuant to his January 2010 employment agreement was $347,500. However, to conserve cash for VistaGen’s operations in its fiscal years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, Mr. Singh voluntarily reduced his fiscal year salary to $292,268 and $168,274, respectively.
Through August 20, 2009, Dr. Snodgrass served as VistaGen’s Chief Executive Officer, at which time he became President and Chief Scientific Officer. In VistaGen’s fiscal years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, Dr. Snodgrass’ annual base salary pursuant to his January 2010 employment agreement was $305,000. However, to conserve cash for VistaGen’s operations in its fiscal years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, Dr. Snodgrass voluntarily reduced his fiscal year salary to $249,266 and $141,486, respectively.
Mr. Dotson served as Acting Chief Financial Officer on a part-time contract basis from September 19, 2011 to June 15, 2012. through August 2012, at which time he became our employee.
(4)
Mr. Dotson was not affiliated with us during theSingh received only $125,000 in cash in our fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.2014 and the remaining balance has been accrued for future payment.
 
(5)
Mr. Rice served as VistaGen’s Chief Financial Officer through September 5, 2011. In VistaGen’sDr. Snodgrass received only $149,606 in cash in our fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, 2014 and the remaining balance has been accrued for future payment.
(6)
Mr. Rice’s annual base salary at VistaGen pursuant to his January 2010 employment agreement was $260,000. However, to conserveDotson received only $143,333 in cash for VistaGen’s operations in itsour fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, Mr. Rice voluntarily reduced his fiscal year 2011 salary to $131,802.2014 and the remaining balance has been accrued for future payment.
(7)
(2)
The amounts in thisthe Option and Warrant Awards column represent the aggregate grant date fair value of options or warrants to purchase restricted shares of our common stock option awards grantedawarded to Mr. Singh, Dr. Snodgrass and Mr. Dotson, or the effect of modifications to prior grants of options or warrants occurring during the fiscal year presented, computed in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards BoardBoard’s Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation ("Topic 718”ASC 718). The amounts in this column do not represent any cash payments actually received by Mr. Singh, Dr. Snodgrass or Mr. Dotson with respect to any of such options or warrants to purchase restricted shares of our common stock awarded to them or modified during the periods presented. Except as indicated in note (9) below, to date, Mr. Singh, Dr. Snodgrass and Mr. Dotson have not exercised such options or warrants to purchase common stock, and there can be no assurance that any of them will ever realize any of the ASC 718 grant date fair value amounts presented in the Option and Warrant Awards column.
(8)The table below provides information regarding the option and warrant awards and modifications we granted to Mr. Singh, Dr. Snodgrass and Mr. Dotson during fiscal 2014 and the assumptions used in the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model to determine the grant date fair values of the respective awards and modifications.
  Option Warrant         Option/Warrant  
  Grant Grant Option Modification Warrant Modification  Exchange (a) 
  10/27/2013 3/19/2014 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 3/19/2014 Total
                   
Singh $              - $              -   $ 134,436   $ 25,366   $ - $ 159,802
Snodgrass - 14,560   56,835   -   30,958 102,353
Dotson 6,380 29,120   1,346   -   - 36,846
                   
  $      6,380 $    43,680   $ 192,617   $ 25,366   $ 30,958 $ 299,001
                   
      Before After Before After Before After  
                   
Market price per share$        0.40 $       0.46 $ 0.40 $ 0.40 $ 0.40 $ 0.40 $ 0.46 $ 0.46  
Exercise price per share$        0.40 $       0.50 
$ 0.75 to
$2.10
$ 0.50 
$ 0.50
to $1.75
$ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.50  
Risk-free interest rate1.675% 1.750% 
0.7% to
2.68%
0.12% to
2.68%
0.07% to
1.18%
0.75% to
1.18%
0.106% 1.750%  
Volatility 99.53% 80.57% 
68.8% to
97.6%
68.8% to
97.6%
68.76% to
78.21%
76.51% to
78.21%
68.96% 80.57%  
Expected term (years)6.25 5.00 
0.25 to
8.86
 
0.87 to
8.86
 
0.03 to
3.96
 
3.03 to
3.96
 0.63 5.00  
Dividend rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%  
                   
Fair value per share$        0.32   $       0.29 
$ 0.00 to
$0.32
$ 0.07 to
$0.34
$ 0.00 to
$0.11
$0.18 to
$0.21
$ 0.08 $ 0.29  
                   
Aggregate shares20,000 150,000 2,322,500 2,322,500 166,052 166,052 150,000 150,000  
(a)  On March 19, 2014, the Board and Dr. Snodgrass agreed to cancel a fully-vested option to purchase 150,000 shares of our restricted common stock at a price of $0.50 per share and expiring on November 4, 2014 in exchange for the grant of a five-year warrant to purchase 150,000 shares of our restricted common stock at a price of $0.50 per share. Shares subject to the cancelled option grant were returned to the 2008 Stock Incentive Plan for potential future grants. The cancellation of the option and grant of the warrant was accounted for as a modification of an award under ASC 718 and, accordingly, the difference in the fair value of the two instruments at the modification date was recorded in stock compensation expense and is the amount reported in the table above.
(9)In June and October 2013, Mr. Singh exercised warrants granted to him in March 2013, described in Note 10, below, to purchase an aggregate of 60,000 shares of our restricted common stock at $0.64 per share. Mr. Singh continues to hold the shares of our restricted common stock issued upon his exercise of the warrants.
(10)We used the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions for determining the grant date fair value of the options granted during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012:
  Singh, Rice Snodgrass Dotson 
 Market price per share$1.58 $1.58 $2.58 
 Exercise price per share$1.75 $1.925 $2.58 
 Risk-free interest rate2.43% 2.43% 1.97% 
 Expected Term (years)6.25 6.25 10.0 
 Volatility78.9% 78.9% 85.7% 
 Dividend rate0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 
        
 Grant date fair value per share$1.08  $1.06 $2.17 
        
 The amounts in this column, therefore, do not represent cash payments actually received by Mr. Singh, Dr. Snodgrass, Mr. Dotson or Mr. Rice with respect to stock options awarded during the periods presented. To date, Mr. Singh, Dr. Snodgrass, Mr. Dotson and Mr. Rice have not exercised such stock options, and there can be no assurance that they will ever realize the Topic 718 grant date fair value amounts presented.
(3)
In December 2006, the Company accepted a full-recourse promissory note in the amount of $103,411 from Mr. Singh in payment of the exercise price for options and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 126,389 shares of the Company’s common stock. On May 11, 2011, in connection with the Merger, the $128,168 outstanding balance of the principal and accrued interest on this note was cancelled in accordance with Mr. Singh's 2010 employment agreement and was treated as additional compensation. In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Singh is entitled to an income tax gross-up on the compensation related to the note cancellation. At March 31, 2012, the Company had accrued $101,936 as an estimate of the gross-up amount, but had not paid it to Mr. Singh.
In December 2011, Dr. Snodgrass received a non-cash compensation award of $100,000 enabling his cashless exercise of previously granted options to purchase 113,636 shares of our common stock at angranted in March 2013.
Market price per share$0.64
Exercise price per share$0.64
Risk-free interest rate1.86%
Expected Term (years)10.0
Volatility84.73%
Dividend rate0.0%
Grant date fair value per share$0.53
Mr. Singh, Dr. Snodgrass and Mr. Dotson were granted warrants to purchase 1,500,000, 1,000,000 and 200,000 restricted shares of our common stock, respectively.
(11)
In October 2012, we modified the stock option award granted to Mr. Dotson in September 2011 to reduce the exercise price of $0.88the option from $2.58 per share.
share to $0.75 per share and granted him a new stock option to purchase an additional 50,000 restricted shares of our common stock. We used the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and the following assumptions to determine incremental fair value of the modified option and the grant date fair value of $0.51 per share for the new option: market price per share: $0.71; exercise price per share: $0.75; risk-free interest rate: 1.00%; expected term: 6.25 years; volatility 85.35%; dividend rate: 0%. The figure reported includes (i) the grant date fair value of the warrant granted to Mr. Dotson, served as Acting Chief Financial Officer on a part-time contract basisdetermined in accordance with the assumptions described in note 5 above, $106,988; (ii) the fair value of the new option, $25,385; and (iii) the incremental fair value resulting from the modification of the September 19, 2011 to June 15, 2012. Amountsstock option grant, $1,943.
(12)Amount shown in this column represent cash compensation paid to Mr. Dotson under the terms of the consulting agreement between the Companyus and Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson was not affiliated with us duringfor the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.
In March 2007, the Company accepted a full recourse promissory note in the amount of $46,360 from Mr. Rice in payment of the exercise price for options to purchase 52,681 shares of the Company’s common stock. On May 11, 2011, in connection with the Merger, the $56,979 outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest on this note was cancelled in accordance with Mr. Rice's employment agreement and was treated as additional compensation. In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Rice is entitled to an income tax gross-up on the compensation related to the note cancellation. At March 31,period April 2012 the Company had accrued $33,867 as an estimate of the gross-up amount, but had not paid it to Mr. Rice.
through August 2012.

None of the NEOs is entitled to perquisites or other personal benefits which, in the aggregate, are worth over $50,000 or over 10% of their base salary.

Benefit Plans
 
401(k) Plan
 
We maintain, through a registered agent, a retirement and deferred savings plan for our officers and employees. This plan is intended to qualify as a tax-qualified plan under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The retirement and deferred savings plan provides that each participant may contribute a portion of his or her pre-tax compensation, subject to statutory limits. Under the plan, each employee is fully vested in his or her deferred salary contributions. Employee contributions are held and invested by the plan’s trustee. The retirement and deferred savings plan also permits us to make discretionary contributions subject to established limits and a vesting schedule.  To date, we have not made any discretionary contributions to the retirement and deferred savings plan on behalf of participating employees.


 
Options and Warrants Granted to NEOs
 
The following table provides information regarding each unexercised stock option and warrant to purchase restricted shares of our common stock held by each of the NEOsnamed executive officers as of March 31, 2012.2014.
  Stock Options
Name 
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Exercisable
  
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Unexercisable
  
Option
Exercise
Price
($)
  
Option
Expiration
Date
           
Shawn K. Singh, J.D.   20,000   -   0.80 12/21/2016
   40,000   -   0.72 5/17/2017
   20,000   -   0.50 1/17/2018
   20,000   -   0.50 1/17/2018
   60,000   -   0.50 3/24/2019
   22,500   -   0.50 6/17/2019
   1,000,000   -   0.50 11/4/2019
   425,000   -   0.50 12/30/2019
   72,916   27,084   0.50 4/25/2021
   80,338   -   0.50 12/31/2016
   35,714   -   0.50 12/31/2016
   50,000   -   0.50 12/6/2017
   100,000   - �� 1.00 7/30/2016
   690,000   750,000 (1)  0.64 3/3/2023
  Total:  2,636,468   777,084      
              
H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D.   50,000   -   0.50 3/24/2019
   25,000   -   0.50 6/17/2014
   6,362   -   0.88 12/20/2016
   250,000   -   0.50 12/30/2019
   72,916   27,084   0.50 4/25/2021
   500,000   500,000 (1)  0.64 3/3/2023
   -   50,000 (2)  0.50 3/19/2024
   -   150,000 (2)  0.50 3/19/2024
  Total:  904,278   727,084      
              
Jerrold D. Dotson  74,782   25,218   0.50 10/30/2022
   4,166   15,834   0.40 10/27/2023
   100,000   100,000 (1)  0.64 3/3/2023
   -   100,000 (2)  0.50 3/19/2024
  Total:  178,948   241,052      

  Stock Options
Name 
Number of Securities
Underlying Unexercised
Options (#)
Exercisable
  
Number of Securities
Underlying Unexercised
Options (#) Unexercisable
 
Option
Exercise
Price
($)
Option
Expiration
Date
         
Shawn K. Singh, J.D.   44,998   15,002 1.133/24/2019
   22,500   - 1.136/17/2019
   1,000,000   - 1.5011/4/2019
   425,000   - 1.5012/30/2019
   20,000   - 2.101/17/2018
   20,000   - 2.101/17/2018
   20,000   - 0.8012/21/2016
   40,000   - 0.725/17/2017
   -   100,000 1.754/25/2021
  Total:  1,592,498   115,002   
           
           
H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D.   37,498   12,502 1.133/24/2014
   25,000   - 1.136/17/2014
   150,000   - 1.6511/4/2014
   203,124   46,876 1.5012/30/2019
   6,382   - 0.8812/20/2016
   40,000   - 0.7925/17/2017
   25,000   - 2.311/17/2013
   -   100,000 1.754/25/2021
  Total:  486,984   159,378   
           
Jerrold D. Dotson  6,249   43,751 2.589/19/2021
           
A. Franklin Rice  29,998   10,002 1.133/24/2019
   20,000   - 1.136/17/2019
   100,000   - 1.5011/4/2019
   175,000   - 1.5012/30/2019
   11,000   - 0.954/11/2015
   12,500   - 0.887/6/2016
   65,000   - 0.8012/21/2016
   20,000   - 0.725/17/2017
   25,000   - 2.101/17/2018
   -   100,000 1.754/25/2021
  Total:  458,498   110,002   
(1)
Represents warrant to purchase restricted shares of our common stock granted on March 3, 2013 at the market price of our common stock on the grant date. The warrant becomes exercisable for 50% of the shares on April 1, 2013, 25% of the shares on April 1, 2014 and 25% of the shares on April 1, 2015, provided that the warrant will become fully vested upon a change in control of the Company, as defined, or upon the consummation by the Company and a third party of a license or sale transaction involving at least one new drug rescue variant.
(2)Represents warrant to purchase restricted shares of our common stock granted on March 19, 2014 when the market price of our common stock was $0.46 per share. The warrant becomes exercisable for 50% of the shares on April 1, 2014, 25% of the shares on April 1, 2015 and 25% of the shares on April 1, 2016, provided that the warrant will become fully vested upon a change in control of the Company, as defined, or upon the consummation by the Company and a third party of a license or sale transaction involving at least one new drug rescue variant.
 
Employment Agreements
With the exception of Mr. Dotson, each of our NEOs had entered into employment agreements with us that were effective during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011 and 2012.

 
Employment or Severance Agreements
We have employment agreements with Mr. Singh and Dr. Snodgrass.

Singh Agreement
 
Mr. SinghWe entered into an employment agreement with us, dated as ofMr. Singh on April 28, 2010 (as2010. Under the agreement, as amended on May 9, 2011, the “Singh Agreement”). Under the Singh Agreement, Mr. Singh’s base salary is $347,500 per year.  However, Mr. Singh has not received his full base salary in any fiscal year since he entered into his agreement in 2010.  In each of our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011, Mr. Singh voluntarily reduced his annual base salary to $292,268$250,000, $201,646, 292,268 and $168,274, respectively, to conserve cash for our operations. Although, under his agreement, Mr. Singh is eligible to receive an annual incentive cash bonus of up to 50% of his base salary.salary, he has voluntarily foregone any such cash bonus payment to conserve cash for our operations. Payment of his annual incentive bonus is at the discretion of our Boardboard of Directors.directors. In the event we terminate Mr. Singh’s employment without cause, he is entitled to receive severance in an amount equal to:
 
twelve months of his then-current base salary payable in the form of salary continuation;
twelve months of his then-current base salary payable in the form of salary continuation;
 
a pro-rated portion of the incentive bonus that the Board of Directors determines in good faith that Mr. Singh earned prior to his termination; and
a pro-rated portion of the incentive cash bonus that the board of directors determines in good faith that Mr. Singh earned prior to his termination; and
 
such amounts required to reimburse him for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”
such amounts required to reimburse him for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) payments for continuation of his medical health benefits for such twelve-month period.
 
In addition, in the event Mr. Singh terminates his employment with good reason following a change of control, he is entitled to twelve months of his then-current base salary payable in the form of salary continuation.

In addition,December 2006, we accepted a full-recourse promissory note in the Singh Agreement provides that all our outstanding stock option agreements withamount of $103,411 from Mr. Singh will be amendedin payment of the exercise price for options and warrants to provide for:
accelerationpurchase an aggregate of vesting126,389 shares of 50%our common stock. On May 11, 2011, in connection with the Merger, the $128,168 outstanding balance of his then unvested options, if any, pursuant to each such stock option agreement in the event we terminate Mr. Singh’s employment without cause; and

full acceleration of vesting of all of his remaining unvested shares, if any, pursuant to each such stock option agreement in the event that we terminate Mr. Singh’s employment without cause within twelve months of a “change of control” (as defined below under “ — Change of Control Provisions”).
Finally, pursuant to the Singh Agreement, the principal and accrued interest owed byon this note was cancelled in accordance with Mr. Singh pursuant to that certain full recourse promissory note, dated December 21, 2006,Singh's employment agreement and was forgiven and cancelled by VistaGen on May 11, 2011. Within twelve months thereafter,treated as additional compensation. In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Singh is entitled to receive aan income tax gross-up cash bonus in an amount equal to his U.S. and California income tax liabilitypayment on the compensation related to the forgiveness and cancellation of his note.note cancellation. At March 31, 2012,2014 and 2013, we had accrued $101,936 as an estimate of the gross-up amount, but hadamount.  However, at Mr. Singh’s suggestion, we have not yet paid itsuch amount to Mr. Singh.Singh to conserve capital for our operations.  See Notes 810 and 1415 to our Consolidated Financial Statementsaudited consolidated financial statements which are included elsewhere in Item 8 of this report.Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Snodgrass Agreement
 
Dr. SnodgrassWe entered into an employment agreement with us, dated as ofDr. Snodgrass on April 28, 2010 (as2010.  As amended on May 9, 2011, under the “Snodgrass Agreement”). Under the Snodgrass Agreement,agreement, Dr. Snodgrass’s base salary is $305,000 per year.  However, in our fiscal years ended March 31, 2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011, Dr. Snodgrass voluntarily reduced his annual salary to $250,000, $203,086, $249,266 and $141,486, respectively, to conserve cash for our operations. Dr. Snodgrass is eligible to receive an annual incentive cash bonus of up to 50% of his base salary. Payment of his annual incentive bonus is at the discretion of the Boardboard of Directors.directors. In the event we terminate Dr. Snodgrass’s employment without cause, he is entitled to receive severance in an amount equal to

twelve months of his then-current base salary payable in the form of salary continuation;
a pro-rated portion of the incentive bonus that the board of directors determines in good faith that Dr. Snodgrass earned prior to his termination; and
such amounts required to reimburse him for COBRA payments for continuation of his medical health benefits for such twelve-month period.
 
a pro-rated portion of the incentive bonus that the Board of Directors determines in good faith that Dr. Snodgrass earned prior to his termination; and
such amounts required to reimburse him for COBRA payments for continuation of his medical health benefits for such twelve-month period.
In addition, in the event Dr. Snodgrass terminates his employment with good reason, he is entitled to twelve months of his then-current base salary payable in the form of salary continuation.

 
In addition, the Snodgrass Agreement provides that all our outstanding stock option agreements with Dr. Snodgrass will be amended to provide for:
acceleration of vesting of 50% of his then unvested options, if any, pursuant to each such stock option agreement in the event we terminate Dr. Snodgrass’s employment without cause; and

full acceleration of vesting of all of his remaining unvested shares, if any, pursuant to each such stock option agreement in the event that we terminate Dr. Snodgrass’s employment without cause within twelve months of a “change of control” (as defined below under “— Change of Control Provisions”).
Rice Agreement
Mr. Rice entered into an employment agreement with us, dated as of April 28, 2010 (as amended on May 9, 2011, the “Rice Agreement”). Mr. Rice’s employment agreement was terminated upon his resignation as Chief Financial Officer in September 2011.  Under the Rice Agreement, Mr. Rice’s base salary was $260,000 per year. However, in our fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, Mr. Rice voluntarily reduced his annual salary to $131,802 to conserve cash for our operations.   Mr. Rice was eligible to receive an annual incentive bonus of up to 40% of his base salary. Payment of his annual incentive bonus was at the discretion of the Board of Directors. In the event we terminated Mr. Rice’s employment without cause, he was entitled to receive severance in an amount equal to:
twelve months of his then-current base salary payable in the form of salary continuation;
a pro-rated portion of the incentive bonus that the Board of Directors determines in good faith that Mr. Rice earned prior to his termination; and
such amounts required to reimburse him for COBRA payments for continuation of his medical health benefits for such twelve-month period.
In addition, in the event Mr. Rice terminated his employment with good reason following a change of control, he was entitled to twelve months of his then current base salary payable in the form of salary continuation.

In addition, the Rice Agreement provided that all of our outstanding stock option agreements with Mr. Rice would be amended to provide for:
acceleration of vesting of 50% of his then unvested options, if any, pursuant to each such stock option agreement in the event we terminated Mr. Rice’s employment without cause; and

full acceleration of vesting of all of his remaining unvested shares, if any, pursuant to each such stock option agreement in the event that we terminated Mr. Rice’s employment without cause within twelve months of a “change of control” (as defined below under “— Change of Control Provisions”).
Finally, pursuant to the Rice Agreement, the principal and accrued interest owed by Mr. Rice pursuant to that certain full recourse promissory note, dated March 12, 2007, was forgiven and cancelled by VistaGen on May 11, 2011. Within twelve months thereafter, Mr. Rice is entitled to receive a tax gross-up cash bonus in an amount equal to his U.S. and California income tax liability related to the forgiveness and cancellation of his note. This provision survived his resignation and the termination of the Rice Agreement.  At March 31, 2012, we had accrued $33,867 as an estimate of the gross-up amount, but had not paid it to Mr. Rice.  See Notes 8 and 14 to our Consolidated Financial Statements which are included in Item 8 of this report.

Change of Control Provisions
 
Pursuant to each of their respective employment agreements, Dr. Snodgrass is entitled to severance if he terminates his employment at any time for “good reason”, (as defined below), while Mr. Singh is and Mr. Rice was entitled to severance if either of themhe terminates his employment for good reason only after a change of control. Under their respective agreements, “good reason” means any of the following events, if the event is effected by VistaGenus without the executive’s consent (subject to VistaGen’sour right to cure):
 
a material reduction in the executive’s responsibility; or
a material reduction in the executive’s responsibility; or

a material reduction in the executive’s base salary following the Merger  except for reductions that are comparable to reductions generally applicable to similarly situated executives of VistaGen.
-107-

a material reduction in the executive’s base salary following the Merger except for reductions that are comparable to reductions generally applicable to similarly situated executives of VistaGen.
 
Furthermore, pursuant to their respective employment agreements and their stock option award agreements as amended, in the event we terminate the executive without cause within twelve months of a change of control, the executive’s remaining unvested shares become fully vested and exercisable. Upon a change of control in which the successor corporation does not assume the executive’s stock options, the stock options granted to the executive under the 1999 Plan become fully vested and exercisable.

Pursuant to their respective employment agreements, a change of control occurs when: (i) any “person” as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (other than VistaGen, a subsidiary, an affiliate, or a VistaGen employee benefit plan, including any trustee of such plan acting as trustee) becoming the “beneficial owner” (as defined in Rule 13d-3 under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended)Exchange), directly or indirectly, of securities of VistaGen representing 50% or more of the combined voting power of VistaGen’s then outstanding securities; (ii) a sale of substantially all of VistaGen’s assets; or (iii) any merger or reorganization of VistaGen whether or not another entity is the survivor, pursuant to which the holders of all the shares of capital stock of VistaGen outstanding prior to the transaction hold, as a group, fewer than 50% of the shares of capital stock of VistaGen outstanding after the transaction.

In the event that following termination of employment amounts are payable to an executive pursuant to his employment agreement, the executive’s eligibility for severance is conditioned on executive having first signed a release agreement.

Pursuant to their respective employment agreements, the estimated amount that could be paid by VistaGenus assuming that a change of control occurred on the last business day of VistaGen’sour current fiscal year, is $347,500 for Mr. Singh and $305,000 for Dr. Snodgrass, excluding the imputed value of accelerated vesting of incentive stock options.options, if any.
 
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

We do not have a formal compensation plan for our non-employee directors and we did not pay our directors during our fiscal years ended March 31, 2010 or 2011.  Although we did not pay our directors during our 2011 fiscal year, on July 1, 2011,directors.  Our informal plan prescribes that the Chairman of our Boardboard of Directors,directors, who is an independent director, was paid $12,500 for serving in such role and has, beginning onsince October 1, 2011, earned $2,500 quarterly thereafter. On July 1, 2011, our twoper quarter.  Our other independent directors were paid $12,500 each and each has, beginning on October 1, 2011,have earned $2,000 quarterly for serving on our Board of Directors.per quarter since that date.  Beginning in July 2011, the Chairman of our Audit Committee and each independent director who serves as a member of our Audit Committee have also receivedearned $1,000 quarterly.  In addition, from time to time, our independent directors may receive non-qualified stock option, warrants or other equity-based awards.  We did not pay our independent directors cash compensation during our fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

The following table sets forth a summary of the compensation we paid toearned by our non-employee directors in our fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.2014.
 Fees Earned or Option and Warrant Other  
 Paid in Cash 
Awards (1)
 Compensation Total 
Fees Earned or
Paid in Cash (1)
 
Option and Warrant
Awards (2)
 
Other
Compensation
 Total
Name ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
  
Jon S. Saxe (2)
  19,520 153,846 3,480 176,846 
Gregory A. Bonfiglio, J.D. (3)
  21,500 153,846 - 175,346 
Brian J. Underdown, Ph.D. (4)
  21,500 153,846 - 175,346 
Jon S. Saxe (3)
  14,000  40,683
 (5)
 -  54,683 
Brian J. Underdown, Ph.D. (4)
  12,000 32,267
 (5)
 - 44,267 
 
(1)The amounts shown represent fees earned for service on our Board of Directors and Audit Committee during the fiscal year which we have accrued but have not paid to the director at March 31, 2014.
(2)
The amounts in this column represent the aggregate grant date fair value of (a) a non-qualified stock optionwarrants to purchase 50,000restricted shares of our common stock grantedawarded to eachMr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown or the effect of our independent directors on April 25, 2011 and (b) a warrantmodifications to purchase 50,000 sharesprior grants of our common stock granted to each of our independent directors on February 13, 2012,options or warrants occurring during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, computed in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards BoardBoard’s Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation ("Topic 718”ASC 718). The amounts in this column therefore, do not represent any cash paymentspayment actually received by Mr. Saxe Mr. Bonfiglio or Dr. Underdown with respect to any of such options or warrants to purchase restricted shares of our common stock options and warrants awarded to them or modified during the fiscal year.year ended March 31, 2014.  To date, Mr. Saxe Mr. Bonfiglio and Dr. Underdown have not exercised such stock options or warrants to purchase common stock, and there can be no assurance that theyeither of them will ever realize any of the TopicASC 718 grant date fair value amounts presented.presented in the Option and Warrant Awards column.
  
(2)(3)In lieu of a cash payment of $3,480 for his service as a director, in December 2011, Mr. Saxe applied such amounthas served as consideration for the exerciseChairman of a previously-issued warrant to purchase 2,784our Board of Directors and the Chairman of our Audit Committee throughout our fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.  At March 31, 2014, Mr. Saxe holds: (i) 37,492 restricted shares of our common stock under our Discounted Warrant Exercise Program. See Note 9, Capital Stock, to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Report. At March 31, 2011, Mr. Saxe owns 37,492 shares of our common stock andstock; (ii) options to purchase 267,250264,750 restricted shares of our common stock, of which 215,250 shares are vested. Mr. Saxe also owns an exercisable warrant to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock.
(3)At March 31, 2011, Mr. Bonfiglio owns options to purchase 205,000251,208 restricted shares are vested; and (iii) warrants to purchase 265,000 restricted shares of our common stock, of which 155,000 shares125,000 are vested. Mr. Bonfiglio also owns an exercisable warrant to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock.exercisable.
  
(4)Dr. Underdown has served as a member of our Board of Directors and a member of our Audit Committee throughout our fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.  At March 31, 2011,2014, Dr. Underdown ownsholds: (i) options to purchase 185,000 restricted shares of our common stock, of which 135,000options to purchase 171,458 restricted shares are vested. Dr. Underdown also owns an exercisable warrantvested; and (ii) warrants to purchase 50,000250,000 restricted shares of our common stock.stock, of which 125,000 are exercisable.
(5)
The table below provides information regarding the warrant awards and option and warrant modifications we granted to Mr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown during fiscal 2014 and the assumptions used in the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model to determine the grant date fair values of the respective awards and modifications.

  Warrant                
  Grant  Option Modification  Warrant Modification    
  3/19/2014  12/20/2013  12/20/2013  Total 
                   
Saxe $18,928     $15,291     $6,464  $40,683 
Underdown  14,560      11,243      6,464   32,267 
  $33,488     $26,534     $12,928  $72,950 
                       
      Before  After  Before  After     
                       
Market price per share $0.46  $0.40  $0.40  $0.40  $0.40     
Exercise price per share $0.50  $1.13 to $2.10  $0.50  $3.00  $0.50     
Risk-free interest rate  1.750% 1.24% to 2.40%  1.24% to 2.40%   4.25%  4.25%    
Volatility  80.57% 78.9% to 97.62%  78.9% to 97.62%   76.10%  76.10%    
Expected term (years)  5.00  4.08 to 7.35  4.08 to 7.35   2.15   2.15     
Dividend rate  0%  0%  0%  0%  0%    
                         
Fair value per share $0.29  $0.10 to $0.27  $0.21 to $0.32  $0.02  $0.14     
                         
Aggregate shares  115,000   422,500   422,500   100,000   100,000     
Changes to Director Compensation for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015
 
We have adopted a new director compensation policy for our independent directors, as independence is defined by the Nasdaq Stock Market, which became effective for our fiscal year beginning April 1, 2014. Under the new independent director compensation policy, our independent directors will receive a $25,000 annual cash retainer. For service on a committee of the board, an independent director will receive an additional annual cash retainer as follows: $7,500 for audit and compensation committee members and $5,000 for nominating and governance committee members. In lieu of the annual cash retainer for committee participation, each independent director serving as a chair of a board committee shall receive the following annual cash retainer: $15,000 for audit and compensation committee chairs and $10,000 for the nominating and governance committee chairs. Each independent director will also receive an annual grant of an option to purchase 25,000 shares, which will vest monthly over a one-year period from the date of grant. The first grant of options under this policy will be made effective as soon as practicable following April 1, 2014. Future grants are expected to be made on the same date as our annual meeting. Prorated option grants will be made for partial years of service.
Director Independence
 
Our securities are not currently listed on a national securities exchange or on any inter-dealer quotation system which has a requirement that directors be independent, or that a majority of our directors be independent.  WeHowever, we evaluate independence by the standards for director independence established by applicable laws, rules, and listing standards, including, without limitation, the standards for independent directors established by the SEC, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., and the Nasdaq National Market, and the SEC.Market.
 
Subject to some exceptions, these standards generally provide that a director will not be independent if (a) the director is, or in the past three years has been, an employee of ours; (b) a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, an executive officer of ours; (c) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family has received more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from us other than for service as a director (or for a family member, as a non-executive employee); (d) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, employed in a professional capacity by our independent public accountants, or has worked for such firm in any capacity on our audit; (e) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, employed as an executive officer of a company where one of our executive officers serves on the compensation committee; or (f) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is an executive officer of a company that makes payments to, or receives payments from, us in an amount which, in any twelve-month period during the past three years, exceeds the greater of $1,000,000 or two percent of that other company’s consolidated gross revenues.
 
Jon S.Our board of directors has undertaken a review of its composition, the composition of its committees and the independence of each director.  Based upon information requested from and provided by each director concerning his background, employment and affiliations, including family relationships, our board of directors has determined that Mr. Saxe Gregory A. Bonfiglio and Brian J.Dr. Underdown are “independent” as that term is defined under the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC. Our board of directors has also determined that Mr. Saxe and Dr. Underdown, who comprise our audit committee, compensation committee, corporate governance and nominating committee, satisfy the independence standards for those committees established by applicable SEC rules. In making these determinations, our board of directors considered the current and prior relationships that each qualify as an independent director.  non-employee director has with our company and all other facts and circumstances that our board of directors deemed relevant.

Item 1212..  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder MattersMatters.

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of June 15, 2012 by the following individuals or entities: (i) each stockholder known to us to beneficially own more than 5% of the outstanding shares of our common stock; (ii) the Chief Executive Officer, any person serving as Chief Financial Officer during our fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, and the two most highly compensated executive officers other than the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer who were serving as an executive officer as of March 31, 2012 (collectively, the “Named Executive Officers”); (iii) each director; and (iv) current executive officers and directors, as a group.19, 2014 for

Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules and includes voting and investment power with respect to the shares. Under such rules, beneficial ownership includes any shares as to which the individual has sole or shared voting power or investment power and also any shares which the individual has the right to acquire currently or within 60 days after June 15, 2012 through the exercise of any stock options or other rights, including upon the exercise of warrants to purchase shares of common stock and the conversion of preferred stock into common stock. Such shares are deemed outstanding for computing the percentage ownership of the person holding such options or rights, but are not deemed outstanding for computing the percentage ownership of any other person. As of June 15, 2012, there were 17,159,963 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding.
·each stockholder known by us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock;
·each of our directors;
·each of our named executive officers; and
·all of our directors and executive officers as a group.  

 
Unless otherwiseWe have determined beneficial ownership in accordance with the rules of the SEC. Except as indicated inby the footnotes below, we believe, based on the information furnished to us, that the individualspersons and entities named in the table below have sole voting and investment powerspower with respect to all of the capital stock that they beneficially own, subject to applicable community property laws.
Applicable percentage ownership is based on 25,451,877 shares shown asof capital stock outstanding at June 19, 2014. In computing the number of shares of common stock beneficially owned by them.a person, we deemed to be outstanding all shares of common stock subject to options or warrants held by that person or entity that are currently exercisable or that will become exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014 and all shares of common stock issuable pursuant to promissory notes and related accrued interest convertible into shares of common stock at June 19, 2014. In computing the percentage of shares beneficially owned, we deemed to be outstanding all shares of common stock subject to options or warrants held by that person or entity that are currently exercisable or that will become exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014 and all shares of common stock issuable pursuant to promissory notes and related accrued interest convertible into shares of common stock at June 19, 2014.  Unless otherwise noted below, the address of each beneficial owner listed in the table is c/o VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., 343 Allerton Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.

Name and Address 
Number of Shares (1)
 Percent of Class 
      
Shawn K. Singh, JD (2)
  1,896,973 10.03%
Chief Executive Officer and Director      
384 Oyster Point Blvd., No. 8      
South San Francisco, CA 94080      
       
H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D. (3)
  1,707,703 9.67%
President, Chief Scientific Officer and Director      
384 Oyster Point Blvd., No. 8      
South San Francisco, CA 94080      
       
Jerrold D. Dotson (4)
  17.040 * 
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer      
384 Oyster Point Blvd., No. 8      
South San Francisco, CA 94080      
       
A Franklin Rice (5)
  671,573 3.80%
Vice President of Corporate Development      
384 Oyster Point Blvd., No. 8      
South San Francisco, CA 94080      
       
Jon S. Saxe (6)
  320,366 1.84%
Chairman of the Board of Directors      
384 Oyster Point Blvd., No. 8      
South San Francisco, CA 94080      
       
Gregory A. Bonfiglio, JD (7)
  220,624 1.27 %
Director      
384 Oyster Point Blvd., No. 8      
South San Francisco, CA 94080      
       
Brian J. Underdown, Ph.D. (8)
  200,624 1.16%
Director      
384 Oyster Point Blvd., No. 8      
South San Francisco, CA 94080      
       
Cato BioVentures (9)
  3,310,836 19.29%
4364 South Alston Avenue      
Durham, NC 27713      
       
Platinum Long Term Growth Fund VII (10)
  1,558,862 9.08%
152 W 57 St 54th Floor      
New York, NY 10019      
       
University Health Network  1,138,055 6.63%
101 College St. Ste. 150      
Toronto ON, Canada M5G 1L7      
       
All Officers and Directors as a Group  5,034,903 24.41%
(7 persons) (11)
      
Name and address of beneficial owner Number of shares beneficially owned Percent of shares beneficially owned 
Executive officers and directors      
Shawn K. Singh, JD (1)
  3,476,575 12.19%
H. Ralph Snodgrass, PhD (2)
  2,467,079 9.23%
Jerrold D. Dotson (3)
  309,410 1.20%
Jon S. Saxe (4)
  473,116 1.83%
Brian J. Underdown, PhD (5)
  363,124 1.41%
       
5% Stockholders      
Cato BioVentures (6)
  4,687,165 17.47%
Platinum Long Term Growth Fund VII (7)
  1,540,000 6.05%
Morrison & Foerster LLP (8)
  2,199,567 8.01%
David Young (9)
  2,100,498 7.88%
University Health Network (10)
  1,748,188 6.71%
All executive officers and directors as a group (5 persons) (11)
  7,089,304 23.95%
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
* Less than one percent (1%)
(1)   Includes options to purchase 1,688,749 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014; warrants to purchase 1,331,052 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 16, 2014, and 44,600 restricted shares of common stock upon conversion of a currently convertible promissory note and accrued interest.
(2)   Includes options to purchase 412,611 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014 and warrants to purchase 850,000 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014.
(3)   Includes options to purchase 109,410 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014, including options to purchase 12,718 shares of common stock held by Mr. Dotson’s wife, and warrants to purchase 200,000 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014.
(4)   Includes options to purchase 240,624 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014 and warrants to purchase 195,000 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014.

 
(1)
This table is based upon information supplied by officers, directors and principal stockholders and Forms 3, Forms 4, and Schedules 13D and 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Unless otherwise indicated in the footnotes to this table and subject to community property laws where applicable, we believe that each of the sttockholders named in this table has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares indicated as beneficially owned.  Applicable percentages are based on 17,159,963 shares of common stock outstanding on June 15, 2012.

(2)
(5)   
Includes options to purchase 1,628,747175,624 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 201219, 2014 and currently exercisable warrants to purchase 116,052 shares of common stock.
(3)
Includes options to purchase 503,235187,500 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 2012.19, 2014.
  
(4)
Includes options to purchase 14,541 shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 2012, including options to purchase 6,208 shares of common stock held by Mr. Dotson’s wife.
(5)
Includes options to purchase 493,081 shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 2012 and currently exercisable warrants to purchase 4,446 shares of common stock.
(6)
Includes options to purchase 280,791 shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 2012 and currently exercisable warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock.
(7)
Includes options to purchase 170,624 shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 2012 and currently exercisable warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock.
(8)
Includes options to purchase 150,624 shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 2012 and currently exercisable warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock.
(9)
Based upon information contained in Form 4 filed on January 9, 2012.  Includes currently exercisable warrants to purchase 1,376,329 shares of restricted common stock.  Dr. Allen E. Cato, Ph.D., M.D. is deemed to have voting and investment authority over the shares held by Cato Holding Company.  The primary business address of Cato BioVentures is 4364 South Alston Avenue, Durham, North Carolina 27713.
  
(7)   
(10)
Based upon information contained in Schedule 13G/A filed on January 12, 2012.February 14, 2014, we believe that Platinum has transferred or assigned 15% of its holdings of our common stock and other securities as of December 31, 2013 to another party.  The figures reported in the table above and in this note reflect the impact of Platinum’s transfer or assignment and are adjusted for securities sold to Platinum in transactions on April 1, 2014, May 14, 2014 and June 18, 2014, including an aggregate of 750,000 restricted shares of our common stock, currently exercisable warrants to purchase 750,000 shares of our restricted common stock (subject to beneficial ownership restrictions noted below); and three currently convertible promissory notes (subject to beneficial ownership restrictions noted below). The number of beneficially owned shares reported at June 19, 2014 includes 1,540,000 restricted shares of common stock owned by Platinum.
The reported number of shares beneficially owned excludes 4,370,55012,750,000 restricted shares of common stock and a warrant to purchase 6,375,000 restricted shares of common stock that may currently be acquired by Platinum upon exchange of 425,000 restricted shares of our Series A Preferred Stock.  Pursuant to the October 11, 2012 Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement by and between us and Platinum, there is a limitation on exchange such that the number of shares of our common stock that may be acquired by Platinum upon conversion of 437,055 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock.  The Certificate of Designation establishing the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock provides a limitation on conversion such that the number of shares of common stock that may be acquired by the holder upon conversionexchange of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock is limited to the extent necessary to ensure that, following such exchange, the total number of shares of our common stock then beneficially owned by Platinum does not exceed 9.99% of the total number of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock without providing us with 61 days’ prior notice thereof.
Further, the reported number of shares beneficially owned also excludes an aggregate of 10,942,464 restricted shares of our Common Stock that may be acquired by Platinum upon (i) conversion of various Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes in the aggregate face amount of $3,522,577 and a Subordinate Convertible Promissory Note in the face amount of $250,000 (together, the “Convertible Notes”) plus accrued but unpaid interest or (ii) exercise of various common stock purchase warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,494,190 restricted shares of our common stock.  Pursuant to the terms of the respective Convertible Notes and common stock purchase warrant agreements, there is a limitation on conversion of the Convertible Notes and exercise of the warrants such that the number of shares of common stock that Platinum may acquire upon such conversion or exercise is limited to the extent necessary to ensure that, following such conversion or exercise, the total number of shares of common stock then beneficially owned by the holderPlatinum does not exceed 4.99% or 9.99% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of our common stock without providing us with 61 days’ prior notice thereof.
Including the shares otherwise excluded due to the beneficial ownership restrictions noted above, Platinum beneficially owns 31,857,464 shares or 57.12% of our common stock.  The primary business address of Platinum Long Term Growth Fund VII is 152 West 57th Street, 54th Floor, New York, New York 10019. Mark Nordlicht has voting and investment control over the shares held by Platinum.
  
(11)
(8)
Includes options to purchase an aggregate of 3,191,015 shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 15, 2012 and currently exercisable warrants to purchase an aggregate of 270,4981,999,567 restricted shares of common stock.  The primary business address of Morrison & Foerster is 555 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
(9)Includes currently exercisable warrants to purchase 658,728 restricted shares of common stock and 537,556 restricted shares of common stock upon conversion of currently convertible promissory notes and accrued interest.  Mr. Young’s primary business address is c/o Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, 580 El Camino Real, San Carlos, California 94070.
(10)   Includes currently exercisable warrants to purchase 610,133 restricted shares of common stock.  The primary business address of University Health Network is 101 College Street, Suite 150, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5G 1L7.

 
(11)   Includes options to purchase an aggregate of 2,627,018 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014,    warrants to purchase an aggregate of 2,763,552 restricted shares of common stock exercisable within 60 days of June 19, 2014 and 44,600 restricted shares of common stock upon conversion of a currently convertible promissory note and accrued interest.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

Equity Grants
 
As of March 31, 2012,2014, options to purchase a total of 4,805,7714,249,271 restricted shares of our common stock are outstanding at a weighted average exercise price of $1.53$0.50 per share, of which 3,740,1353,655,061 options are vested and exercisable at a weighted average exercise price of $1.45$0.50 per share and 1,065,636593,867 are unvested and unexercisablenot exercisable at a weighted average exercise price of $1.83$0.51 per share. These options were issued under our 2008 Plan which has been approved by our stockholders, and under our 1999 Plan, which has now expired, but was not approved by our stockholders.  Aneach as described below. At March 31, 2014, an additional 433,700735,200 shares remain available for future equity grants under our 2008 Plan.

 
 
Plan category
 
Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(a)
  
Weighted-average
exercise
price of
outstanding
options, warrants
and rights
(b)
  
Number of securities
remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities
reflected in column (a))
(c)
 
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders  3,964,800  $0.50   735,200 
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders     284,471   0.59               -- 
Total  4,249,271  $0.50   735,200 
 
Plan category 
Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(a)
  
Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding
options, warrants
and rights
(b)
  
Number of securities
remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans
(excluding securities
reflected in column (a))
(c)
 
Equity compensation plans approved by  security holders  4,266,300  $1.57   433,700 
Equity compensation plans not approved  by security holders     539,471   1.23               -- 
Total  4,805,771  $1.53   433,700 
2008 Stock Incentive Plan
Shareholders of VistaGen California adopted our 2008 Plan on December 19, 2008 and we assumed the plan in connection with the Merger (as defined in Item 7 below).  The maximum number of shares of common stock that may be granted pursuant to the 2008 Plan is 5,000,000. In all cases, the maximum number of shares of common stock under the 2008 Plan will be subject to adjustments for stock splits, stock dividends or other similar changes in our common stock or our capital structure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum number of shares of common stock available for grant of options intended to qualify as “incentive stock options” under the provisions of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), is 5,000,000.

Our 2008 Plan provides for the grant of stock options, restricted shares of common stock, stock appreciation rights and dividend equivalent rights, collectively referred to as “awards”. Stock options granted under the 2008 Plan may be either incentive stock options under the provisions of Section 422 of the Code, or non-qualified stock options. We may grant incentive stock options only to employees of VistaGen or any parent or subsidiary of VistaGen. Awards other than incentive stock options may be granted to employees, directors and consultants.

Our Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, referred to as the “Administrator”, administers our 2008 Plan, including selecting the award recipients, determining the number of shares to be subject to each award, the exercise or purchase price of each award and the vesting and exercise periods of each award.

The exercise price of all incentive stock options granted under our 2008 Plan must be at least equal to 100% of the fair market value of the shares on the date of grant. If, however, incentive stock options are granted to an employee who owns stock possessing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of our stock or the stock of any of our subsidiaries, the exercise price of any incentive stock option granted may not be less than 110% of the fair market value on the grant date. The maximum term of incentive stock options granted to employees who own stock possessing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of our stock or the stock of any of our subsidiaries may not exceed five years. The maximum term of an incentive stock option granted to any other participant may not exceed ten years. The Administrator determines the term and exercise or purchase price of all other awards granted under our 2008 Plan.
Under the 2008 Plan, incentive stock options may not be sold, pledged, assigned, hypothecated, transferred or disposed of in any manner other than by will or by the laws of descent or distribution and may be exercised, during the lifetime of the participant, only by the participant. Other awards shall be transferable:
by will and by the laws of descent and distribution; and

during the lifetime of the participant, to the extent and in the manner authorized by the Administrator by gift or pursuant to a domestic relations order to members of the participant’s immediate family.
The 2008 Plan permits the designation of beneficiaries by holders of awards, including incentive stock options.

In the event of termination of a participant’s service for any reason other than disability or death, such participant may, but only during the period specified in the award agreement of not less than 30 days (generally 90 days) commencing on the date of termination (but in no event later than the expiration date of the term of such award as set forth in the award agreement), exercise the portion of the participant’s award that was vested at the date of such termination or such other portion of the participant’s award as may be determined by the Administrator. The participant’s award agreement may provide that upon the termination of the participant’s service for cause, the participant’s right to exercise the award shall terminate concurrently with the termination of the participant’s service. In the event of a participant’s change of status from employee to consultant, an employee’s incentive stock option shall convert automatically into a non-qualified stock option on the day three months and one day following such change in status. To the extent that the participant’s award was unvested at the date of termination, or if the participant does not exercise the vested portion of the participant’s award within the period specified in the award agreement of not less than 30 days commencing on the date of termination, the award shall terminate. If termination was caused by death or disability, any options which have become exercisable prior to the time of termination, will remain exercisable for twelve months from the date of termination (unless a shorter or longer period of time is determined by the Administrator).
Following the date that the exemption from application of Section 162(m) of the Code ceases to apply to awards, the maximum number of shares with respect to which options and stock appreciation rights may be granted to any participant in any calendar year will be 2,500,000 shares of common stock. In connection with a participant’s commencement of service with us, a participant may be granted options and stock appreciation rights for up to an additional 500,000 shares that will not count against the foregoing limitation. In addition, following the date that the exemption from application of Section 162(m) of the Code ceases to apply to awards, for awards of restricted stock and restricted shares of common stock that are intended to be “performance-based compensation” (within the meaning of Section 162(m)), the maximum number of shares with respect to which such awards may be granted to any participant in any calendar year will be 2,500,000 shares of common stock. The limits described in this paragraph are subject to adjustment in the event of any change in our capital structure as described below.

The terms and conditions of awards are determined by the Administrator, including the vesting schedule and any forfeiture provisions. Awards under the plan may vest upon the passage of time or upon the attainment of certain performance criteria. Although we do not currently have any awards outstanding that vest upon the attainment of performance criteria, the Administrator may establish criteria based on any one of, or combination of, the following:
increase in share price;
earnings per share;
total shareholder return;
operating margin;
gross margin;
return on equity;
return on assets;
return on investment;
operating income;
net operating income;
pre-tax profit;
cash flow;
revenue;
expenses;
earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation;
economic value added; and
market share.

-90-


Subject to any required action by our stockholders, the number of shares of common stock covered by outstanding awards, the number of shares of common stock that have been authorized for issuance under the 2008 Plan, the exercise or purchase price of each outstanding award, the maximum number of shares of common stock that may be granted subject to awards to any participant in a calendar year, and the like, shall be proportionally adjusted by the Administrator in the event of any increase or decrease in the number of issued shares of common stock resulting from certain changes in our capital structure as described in the 2008 Plan.

Effective upon the consummation of a Corporate Transaction (as defined below), all outstanding awards under the 2008 Plan will terminate unless the acquirer assumes or replaces such awards. The Administrator has the authority, exercisable either in advance of any actual or anticipated Corporate Transaction or Change in Control (as defined below) or at the time of an actual Corporate Transaction or Change in Control and exercisable at the time of the grant of an award under the 2008 Plan or any time while an award remains outstanding, to provide for the full or partial automatic vesting and exercisability of one or more outstanding unvested awards under the 2008 Plan and the release from restrictions on transfer and repurchase or forfeiture rights of such awards in connection with a Corporate Transaction or Change in Control, on such terms and conditions as the Administrator may specify. The Administrator also has the authority to condition any such award vesting and exercisability or release from such limitations upon the subsequent termination of the service of the grantee within a specified period following the effective date of the Corporate Transaction or Change in Control. The Administrator may provide that any awards so vested or released from such limitations in connection with a Change in Control, shall remain fully exercisable until the expiration or sooner termination of the award.

Under our 2008 Plan, a Corporate Transaction is generally defined as:
an acquisition of securities possessing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of our outstanding securities but excluding any such transaction or series of related transactions that the Administrator determines shall not be a Corporate Transaction;
a reverse merger in which we remain the surviving entity but: (i) the shares of common stock outstanding immediately prior to such merger are converted or exchanged by virtue of the merger into other property, whether in the form of securities, cash or otherwise; or (ii) in which securities possessing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of our outstanding securities are transferred to a person or persons different from those who held such securities immediately prior to such merger;

a sale, transfer or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of our Corporation;

a merger or consolidation in which our Corporation is not the surviving entity; or

a complete liquidation or dissolution.

Under our 2008 Plan, a Change in Control is generally defined as: (i) the acquisition of more than 50% of the total combined voting power of our stock by any individual or entity which a majority of our Board of Directors (who have served on our board for at least 12 months) do not recommend our shareholders accept; (ii) or a change in the composition of our Board of Directors over a period of 12 months or less.

Unless terminated sooner, our 2008 Plan will automatically terminate in 2017. Our Board of Directors may at any time amend, suspend or terminate our 2008 Plan. To the extent necessary to comply with applicable provisions of U.S. federal securities laws, state corporate and securities laws, the Internal Revenue Code, the rules of any applicable stock exchange or national market system, and the rules of any non-U.S. jurisdiction applicable to awards granted to residents therein, we shall obtain shareholder approval of any such amendment to the 2008 Stock Plan in such a manner and to such a degree as required.

As of March 31, 2014, we have options to purchase an aggregate of 3,964,800 restricted shares of common stock outstanding under our 2008 Plan.

-91-


1999 Stock Incentive Plan
 
VistaGen’sVistaGen California’s Board of Directors adopted the 1999 Plan on December 6, 1999.  The 1999 Plan has terminated under its own terms in December 2009, and as a result, no awards may currently be granted under the 1999 Plan. However, the options and awards that have already been granted pursuant to the 1999 Plan prior to its expiration remain operative.

The 1999 Plan permitted VistaGen California to make grants of incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options and restricted stock awards. VistaGen California initially reserved 450,000 restricted shares of its common stock for the issuance of awards under the 1999 Plan, which number was subject to adjustment in the event of a stock split, stock dividend or other change in our capitalization. Generally,Prior to the 1999 Plan’s expiration, shares that were forfeited or cancelled from awards under the 1999 Plan also were generally available for future awards.

The 1999 Plan could be administered by either VistaGen’sVistaGen California’s Board of Directors or a committee designated by VistaGen’sits Board of Directors. VistaGen’sVistaGen California’s Board of Directors designated its Compensation Committee as the committee with full power and authority to select the participants to whom awards were granted, to make any combination of awards to participants, to accelerate the exercisability or vesting of any award and to determine the specific terms and conditions of each award, subject to the provisions of the 1999 Plan. All directors, executive officers, and certain other key persons (including employees, consultants and advisors) of VistaGen California were eligible to participate in the 1999 Plan.  

The exercise price of incentive stock options awarded under the 1999 Plan could not be less than the fair market value of the common stock on the date of the option grant and could not be less than 110% of the fair market value of the common stock to persons owning stock representing more than 10% of the voting power of all classes of our stock. The exercise price of non-qualified stock options could not be less than 85% of the fair market value of the common stock. It is expected that theThe term of each option granted under the 1999 Plan willcould not exceed ten years (or five years, in the case of an incentive stock option granted to a 10% shareholder) from the date of grant. VistaGen’sVistaGen California’s Compensation Committee determined at what time or times each option maymight be exercised (provided that in no event maycould it exceed ten years from the date of grant) and, subject to the provisions of the 1999 Plan, the period of time, if any, after retirement, death, disability or other termination of employment during which options could be exercised.

RestrictedThe 1999 Plan also permitted the issuance of restricted stock could also be granted under our 1999 Plan.awards.  Restricted stock awards issued by VistaGen California were shares of common stock that vest in accordance with terms and conditions established by VistaGen’sVistaGen California’s Compensation Committee. VistaGen’sThe Compensation Committee could impose conditions to vesting that it determined to be appropriate. Shares of restricted stock that dodid not vest arewere subject to our right of repurchase or forfeiture. VistaGen’sVistaGen California’s Compensation Committee determined the number of shares of restricted stock granted to any employee. Our 1999 Plan also gave VistaGen’sVistaGen California’s Compensation Committee discretion to grant stock awards free of any restrictions.


Unless the Compensation Committee provided otherwise, ourthe 1999 Plan did not generally allow for the transfer of incentive stock options and other awards and only the recipient of an award could exercise an award during his or her lifetime. Non-qualified stock options were transferable only to the extent provided in the award agreement, in a manner consistent with the applicable law, and by will and by the laws of descent and distribution. In the event of a change in control of the Company, as defined in the 1999 Plan, the outstanding options will automatically vest unless our Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of the surviving or acquiring entity shall make appropriate provisions for the continuation or assumption of any outstanding awards under the 1999 Plan.

As of March 31, 2012,2014, we have options outstanding under the 1999 Plan to purchase an aggregate of 539,471284,471 restricted shares of our common stock outstanding under our 1999 Plan.stock.


-92-

Item13.  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Sales of Securities to Cato Holding Company

Cato Holding Company dba(CHC), doing business as Cato BioVentures ("CBV"(CBV), the parent of Cato Research Ltd. (CRL), is currently the Company’sone of our largest stockholder,institutional stockholders at March 31, 2014, holding common stock and warrants to purchase common stock. Prior to the May 11, 2011 conversion of the 2006/2007 Notescertain of VistaGen California’s outstanding promissory notes and the August 2010 Short-Term Notes, and the conversionexchange of its preferred stock into shares of common stock on May 11, 2011,in connection with the Merger, CBV held 2006/2007 Notes, August 2010 Short-Terms Notes,various promissory notes and a majority of the Company'sVistaGen California’s Series B-1 Preferred Stock.  Shawn Singh, the Company’sour Chief Executive Officer and member of itsour Board of Directors, served as Managing Principal of CBV and as an officer of CRL until August 2009. As described in Note 5, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, inIn April 2011, CBV loaned us $352,300 under the Company issuedterms of a Promissory Note (2011 CHC Note).  On October 10, 2012, we agreed with CHC to CBVcancel the 2011 CHC Note and exchange it for a new unsecured promissory note in the faceprincipal amount of $352,273 that bears$310,400 (2012 CHC Note) and a five-year warrant to purchase 250,000 restricted shares of our common stock at a price of $1.50 per share (CHC Warrant).  Additionally, on October 10, 2012, we issued to CRL: (i) an unsecured promissory note in the initial principal amount of $1,009,000, which is payable solely in restricted shares of our common stock and which accrues interest at athe rate of 7%7.5% per annum.  annum, compounded monthly (CRL Note), as payment in full for all contract research and development services and regulatory advice rendered by CRL to us through December 31, 2012 with respect to the preclinical and clinical development of AV-101, and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase, at a price of $1.00 per share, 1,009,000 restricted shares of our common stock.  Total interest expense on notes payable to CHC and CRL was $167,900 and $101,700 for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013.

Contract Research and Development Agreement with Cato Research Ltd.

During fiscal year 2007, the Companywe entered into a contract research organization arrangement with CRL related to the development of its lead drug candidate, AV-101, under which the Companywe incurred expenses of $1,461,300$52,500 and $429,200$703,800 for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, respectively, with a substantial portion of the majority of which werefiscal year 2013 expense reimbursed under the NIH grant.  Total interest expense under notes payable to CBV and under the line of credit facility was $93,100 and $92,600 for the years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, with the majority of amounts reported for periods prior to May 2011 converted to equity. On April 29, 2011, the Company issued 157,143 shares of common stock, valued at $1.75 per share, as prepayment for research and development services to be performed by CRL during 2011.  In December 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement Regarding Payment of Invoices and Warrant Exercises with CHC, CRL and certain CHC affiliates under which CHC and the CHC affiliates exercised warrants at discounted exercise prices to purchase an aggregate of 492,541 shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company received $60,207 cash, and, in lieu of cash payment for certain of the warrant exercises, settled outstanding liabilities of $245,300 for past services received from CRL and prepaid $226,400 for future services to be received from CRL, all of which services had been received by March 31, 2012.

PriorNote Receivable from Shawn K. Singh, JD and Advances to his appointment as one of the Company’s officers (on a part-time basis) and directors, in April 2003, the Company retainedus by Mr. Singh as a consultant to provide legal and other consulting services. During the course of the consultancy, as payment for his services, the Company issued him warrants to purchase 55,898 shares of common stock at $0.80 per share and a 7% promissory note in the principal amount of $26,400. On May 11, 2011, and concurrent with the Merger, the Company paid the outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest totaling $36,000 (see Note 8, Convertible Promissory Notes and Other Notes Payable, to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this report).

Upon the approval byof the Board of Directors, in December 2006, the CompanyVistaGen California accepted a full-recourse promissory note in the amount of $103,400 from Mr. Singh in payment of the exercise price for options and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 126,389 restricted shares of the Company’sVistaGen California’s common stock. The note bearsaccrued interest at a rate of 4.90% per annum and iswas due and payable no later than the earlier of (i) December 1, 2016 or (ii) ten days prior to the Companyour becoming subject to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”).Act.  On May 11, 2011, in connection with the Merger, the $128,200 outstanding balance of the principal and accrued interest on this note was cancelled in accordance with Mr. Singh's employment agreement and recorded as additional compensation. In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Singh is also entitled to receive an income tax gross-up on the compensation related to the note cancellation.  At March 31, 2012, the Company2014 and 2013, we had accrued $101,900 as an estimate of the gross-up amount payable to Mr. Singh, but we had not yet paid it to Mr. Singh.  Also, on May 11, 2011, the 7% note payable to Mr. Singh including principal and accrued interest totaling $36,000 was paid.
 
In March 2007, the Company accepted a full recourse promissory note in the amount of $46,360 from Franklin Rice, its former Chief Financial Officer and a former director of the Company in exchange for his exercise of options to purchase 52,681 shares of the Company’s common stock.  The note bears interest at a rate of 4.90% per annum and is due and payable no later than the earlier of (i) March 1, 2017 or (ii) ten days prior to the Company becoming subject to the requirements of the Exchange Act.  On May 11, 2011, in connection with the Merger, the $57,000 outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest on this note was cancelled in accordance with Mr. Rice's employment agreement and recorded as additional compensation.  In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Rice is entitled to an income tax gross-up on the compensation related to the note cancellation.  At March 31, 2012, the Company had accrued $33,900 as an estimate of the gross-up amount, but had not paid it to Mr. Rice.


The Company previously engaged Jon A. Saxe, a current director, separately from his duties as a director, as a management consultant from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2010
Between September and December 2013, Mr. Singh provided short-term cash advances aggregating $64,000 to provide strategic and other business advisory services. As payment for consulting services rendered through June 30, 2010, Mr. Saxe has been issued warrants and non-qualified options to purchase an aggregatemeet our short-term working capital requirements. In lieu of 250,815 sharescash repayment of the Company’s common stock,advances, in December 2013, Mr. Singh elected to invest $50,000 of which he has exercised warrants to purchase for 18,568 shares.  Additionally, Mr. Saxe was issued a 7% promissory notethe balance due him in the amount of $8,000.  On May 11, 2011,2013 Unit Private Placement.  At March 31, 2014, we have partially repaid Mr. Singh the $14,400remaining balance of the note and related accrued interest plus a note cancellation premium of $5,100 was converted to 11,142 shares of the Company’s common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase 2,784 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share.  In lieu of payment from the Company, in December 2011, Mr. Saxe exercised the warrant as a part of the Discounted Warrant Exercise Program at an exercise price of $1.25 per share in satisfaction for amounts owed to him in conjunction with his service as a member of the Board of Directors.

Issuance of Long-Term Promissory Note and Cancellation of Note Payable to Cato BioVentures Under Line of Credit and Partial Cancellation of August 2010 Short-Term Notesadvances.
 
In April 2011, all amounts owed by the Company to Cato Holding Company ("CHC") or its affiliates were consolidated into a single note, in the principal amount of $352,273.  Additionally, CHC released certain security interests in the Company’s personal property.  The CHC note bears interest at 7% per annum, compounded monthly.  Under the terms of the note, the Company is to make six monthly payments of $10,000 each beginning June 1, 2011; and thereafter will make payments of $12,500 monthly until the note is repaid in full. The Company may prepay the outstanding balance under this note in full or in part at any time during the term of this note without penalty. 

Director Independence
Our securities are not currently listed on a national securities exchange or on any inter-dealer quotation system which has a requirement that directors be independent.  We evaluate independence by the standards for director independence established by applicable laws, rules, and listing standards, including, without limitation, the standards for independent directors established by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the Nasdaq National Market, and the SEC.
Subject to some exceptions, these standards generally provide that a director will not be independent if (a) the director is, or in the past three years has been, an employee of ours; (b) a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, an executive officer of ours; (c) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family has received more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from us other than for service as a director (or for a family member, as a non-executive employee); (d) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, employed in a professional capacity by our independent public accountants, or has worked for such firm in any capacity on our audit; (e) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is, or in the past three years has been, employed as an executive officer of a company where one of our executive officers serves on the compensation committee; or (f) the director or a member of the director’s immediate family is an executive officer of a company that makes payments to, or receives payments from, us in an amount which, in any twelve-month period during the past three years, exceeds the greater of $1,000,000 or two percent of that other company’s consolidated gross revenues.
Jon S. Saxe, Gregory A. Bonfiglio and Brian J. Underdown each qualify as an independent director.  

Item14.  Principal Accounting Fees and ServicesServices.

Fees and Services
OUM & Co. LLP (“OUM”(OUM) served as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and March 31, 2011.2013.  Information provided below includes fees for professional services provided to VistaGenus by OUM for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and March 31, 2011.

  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2012  2011 
       
Audit fees $152,500  $127,820 
Audit-related fees  -   89,634.00 
Tax fees  15,000   22,683 
All other fees  -   - 
         
Total fees $167,500  $240,137 
2013.
 
  Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 
  2014  2013 
       
Audit fees $172,500  $167,500 
Audit-related fees  4,600   - 
Tax fees  12,643   18,747 
All other fees  -   - 
Total fees $189,743  $186,247 
-114-

Audit Fees:

Audit fees include fees billed for the annual audit of the Company’s financial statements and quarterly reviews for the fiscal years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, and for services normally provided by OUM & Co LLP in connection with routine statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.
Audit-Related Fees:

Audit- related fees includes fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the annual audit or reviews of the Company’s financial statements and are not reported under “Audit Fees.”  ForDuring the fiscal yearyears ended March 31, 2011, audit-related services relate to the Company’s reverse merger transaction.2014 or 2013, no such fees were billed by OUM.

Tax Fees:

Tax fees include fees for professional services for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning for the tax years ended March 31, 20122014 and 2011.2013.

All Other Fees:

All other fees includesinclude fees for products and services other than the servicesthose described above.  During the fiscal years ended March 31, 2012 or 2011,2014 and 2013, no such fees were billed by OUM & Co. LLP.OUM.
 
Pre-Approval of Audit and Non-Audit Services
 
All auditing services and non-audit services provided to us by our independent registered public accounting firm are required to be pre-approved by the Audit Committee.  OUM did not provide any audit-related or other services in fiscal 20122014 and 2011.2013. The pre-approval of non-audit services to be provided by OUM includes making a determination that the provision of the services is compatible with maintaining the independence of OUM as an independent registered public accounting firm and would be approved in accordance with SEC rules for maintaining auditor independence. None of the fees outlined above were approved using the “de minimis exception” under SEC rules.

Report of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors

The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed with management and Odenberg, Ullakko, MuranishiOUM & Co. LLP (“OUM”(OUM), our independent registered public accounting firm, the audited consolidated financial statements in the VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2012.2014. The Audit Committee has also discussed with OUM those matters required to be discussed by the statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended (AICPA, Professional Standard, Vol. 1. AU section 380), as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) in Rule 3200T.Auditing Standard No. 16.

OUM also provided the Audit Committee with the written disclosures and the letter required by the applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent auditor’s communication with the Audit Committee concerning independence. The Audit Committee has discussed with the registered public accounting firm their independence from our company.

Based on its discussions with management and the registered public accounting firm, and its review of the representations and information provided by management and the registered public accounting firm, including as set forth above, the Audit    Committee recommended to our board of directors that the audited financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2012.2014.

 Respectfully Submitted by:

 MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
 Jon S. Saxe, Audit Committee Chairman
 Gregory A. Bonfiglio
Brian J. Underdown
Dated: June 22, 201223, 2014

The information contained above under the caption “Report of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors” shall not be deemed to be soliciting material or to be filed with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.



Item 15.  Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

(a)(1) Financial Statements
See Index to Financial Statements under Item 8 on page 51.67.

(a)(2) Consolidated Financial Statement Schedules
Financial
Consolidated financial statement schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or are not required or the information required to be set forth therein is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or notes thereto.

(a)(3) Exhibits
The exhibits listed in the Exhibit Index below are filed or incorporated by reference as part of this report.

 Exhibit Exhibit Index

Exhibit No.Description*
2.1 *Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd., VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. and Excaliber Merger Subsidiary, Inc.
3. 13.1 *Articles of Incorporation, dated October 6, 2005.
3.2Certificate of Amendment filed with the Nevada Secretary of State on December 6, 2011, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.3 to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed July 2, 2012.
3.3Amended and Restated Bylaws as of February 5, 2014, incorporated by reference from the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed on February 7, 2014.
3.4Bylaws in effect aseffect.as of May 11, 2011, incorporated by reference from the document filed as Exhibit 3.2 in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 16, 2011.
3.23.5Articles of Merger filed with the Nevada Secretary of State on May 24, 2011.
3.3Certificate of Amendment filed with the Nevada Secretary of State on December 6, 2011.
3.4Bylaws in effect as of May 11, 2011, incorporated by reference from the document filed as Exhibit 3.23.1 to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 16,31, 2011.
3.53.6Certificate of Designations Series A Preferred, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed on December 22,23, 2011.
4.1 *Fourth Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement, dated August 1, 2005, by and among VistaGen and certain (former) holders of Preferred Stock of VistaGen, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Fourth Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement, dated July 10, 2010.
10.1 *VistaGen’s 1999 Stock Incentive Plan.
10.2 *Form of Option Agreement under VistaGen’s 1999 Stock Incentive Plan.
10.3 *VistaGen’s Scientific Advisory Board 1998 Stock Incentive Plan.
10.4 *Form of Option Agreement under VistaGen’s Scientific Advisory Board 1998 Stock Incentive Plan.
10.5 *VistaGen’s 2008 Stock Incentive Plan.
10.6 *Form of Option Agreement under VistaGen’s 2008 Stock Incentive Plan.
10.7 *Securities Purchase Agreement, dated October 30, 2009, by and between VistaGen and Cato BioVentures.
10.8 *Securities Purchase Agreement, dated April 27, 2011, by and between VistaGen and Cato BioVentures.
10.9 *Securities Purchase Agreement, dated November 5, 2009, by and between VistaGen and Platinum Long Term Growth Fund.
10.10 *Securities Purchase Agreement, dated December 2, 2009, by and between VistaGen and University Health Network.
10.11 *Securities Purchase Agreement, dated April 25, 2011, by and between VistaGen and University Health Network.
10.12 *Form of Subscription Agreement, dated May 11, 2011, by and between VistaGen and certain investors.
10.13 *Indemnification Agreement, dated August 27, 2001, by and between VistaGen and Shawn K. Singh. 
10.14 *Indemnification Agreement, dated August 27, 2001, by and between VistaGen and H. Ralph Snodgrass.
10.15 *Indemnification Agreement, dated August 27, 2001, by and between VistaGen and A. Franklin Rice.
10.16 *Indemnification Agreement, dated August 27, 2001, by and between VistaGen and Jon S. Saxe.
10.17 *
Indemnification Agreement, dated February 9, 2007, by and between VistaGen and Gregory Bonfiglio. 
10.18 *Industrial Lease, dated March 5, 2007, by and between Oyster Point LLC and VistaGen, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated as of April 24, 2009, and as further amended by that certain Second Amendment to Lease, dated as of October 19, 2010 and that certain Third Amendment to Lease, dated as of April 1, 2011.
10.19 *Clinical Study Agreement, dated April 15, 2010, by and between VistaGen and Progressive Medical Concepts, LLC.
10.20 *Strategic Development Services Agreement, dated February 26, 2007, by and between VistaGen and Cato Research Ltd.
10.21 *License Agreement by and between National Jewish Medical and Research Center and VistaGen, dated July 12, 1999, as amended by that certain Amendment to License Agreement dated January 25, 2001, as amended by that certain Second Amendment to License Agreement dated November 6, 2002, as amended by that certain Third Amendment to License Agreement dated March 1, 2003, and as amended by that certain Fourth Amendment to License Agreement dated April 15, 2010.
10.22 *License Agreement by and between Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York University and the Company, dated October 1, 2004.
10.23 *Non-Exclusive License Agreement, dated December 5, 2008, by and between VistaGen and Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, as amended by that certain Wisconsin Materials Addendum, dated February 2, 2009.
10.24 *Sponsored Research Collaboration Agreement, dated September 18, 2007, between VistaGen and University Health Network, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 32, dated April 19, 2010 and December 15, 2010, and April, 25, 2011, respectively.
10.25 *Letter Agreement, dated Feb 12, 2010, by and between VistaGen and The Regents of the University of California.
10.26 *License Agreement, dated October 24, 2001, by and between the University of Maryland, Baltimore, Cornell Research Foundation and Artemis Neuroscience, Inc.
10.27 *Non-exclusive License Agreement, dated September 1, 2010, by and between VistaGen and TET Systems GmbH & Co. KG.
10.28 *Amended and Restated Senior Convertible Promissory Bridge Note dated June 19, 2007 issued by VistaGen to Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC.
10.29 *Second Amended and Restated Letter Loan Agreement dated May 16, 2008, by and between VistaGen and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Second Amended and Restated Letter Loan Agreement dated October 16 2009, as further amended by that certain Amendment to Letter Loan Agreement dated May 5, 2011.
10.30 *Promissory Note dated April 29, 2011 issued by VistaGen to Cato Holding Company.
10.31 *Unsecured Promissory Note dated April 28, 2011 issued by VistaGen to Desjardins Securities.
10.32 *Unsecured Promissory Note dated April 28, 2011 issued by VistaGen to McCarthy Tetrault LLP.
10.33 *Unsecured Promissory Note dated April 28, 2011 issued by VistaGen to Morrison & Foerster LLP
10.34 *Promissory Note dated February 25, 2010 issued by VistaGen to The Regents of the University of California.
10.35 *Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated August 4, 2010, by and between VistaGen and certain investors, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement, dated November 10, 2010.
10.36 *Conversion Agreement, dated April 29, 2011, by and among VistaGen and certain holders of unsecured promissory notes issued pursuant to that certain Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement, dated August 4, 2010, by and between VistaGen and such note holders.
10.37 *Agreement regarding Conversion of Unsecured Promissory Note, dated April 29, 2011, by and between VistaGen and The Dillon Family Trust.
10.38 *Senior Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated August 13, 2006, by and between VistaGen and certain investors, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Senior Convertible Bridge Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated January 31, 2007, as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 2 to Senior Convertible Bridge Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated June 11, 2007, as further amended by that certain Omnibus Amendment dated April 28, 2011
10.39 *Senior Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated May 16, 2008, by and between VistaGen and certain investors, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Senior Convertible Bridge Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated November 2, 2009, as further amended by that certain Omnibus Amendment dated April 28, 2011.
10.40 *Employment Agreement, by and between, VistaGen and Shawn K. Singh, dated April 28, 2010, as amended May 9, 2011.
10.41 *Employment Agreement, by and between, VistaGen and H. Ralph Snodgrass, PhD, dated April 28, 2010, as amended May 9, 2011.
10.42 *Employment Agreement, by and between VistaGen and A. Franklin Rice, dated April 28, 2010, as amended May 9, 2011.
10.43 *Agreement regarding sale of shares of common stock dated May 9, 2011 by and between Excaliber and Stephanie Y. Jones, whereby Excaliber purchased from Mrs. Jones 4,982,103 shares of Excaliber common stock for $10.
10.44 *Agreement regarding sale of shares of common stock dated May 9, 2011 by and between Excaliber and Nicole Jones, whereby Excaliber purchased from Nicole Jones 82,104 shares of Excaliber common stock for $10.
10.45 *Joinder Agreement dated May 11, 2011 by and between Excaliber, Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC and VistaGen
10.46Notice of Award by National Institutes of Health, Small Business Innovation Research Program, to VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. for project, Clinical Development of 4-CI-KYN to Treat Pain dated June 22, 2009, with revisions dated July 19, 2010 and August 9, 2011, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.46 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on December 20, 2011.
10.47Notice of Grant Award by California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.  for Project:  Development of an hES Cell-Based Assay System for Hepatocyte Differentiation Studies and Predictive Toxicology Drug Screening, dated April 1, 2009, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.47 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on December 20, 2011.
10.48Amendment No. 4, dated October 24, 2011, to Sponsored Research Collaboration Agreement between VistaGen and University Health Network, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed on November 30, 2011.
10.49
License Agreement No. 1, dated as of October 24, 2011 between University Health Network and VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed on November 30, 2011.
10.50
Strategic Medicinal Chemistry Services Agreement, dated as of December 6, 2011, between Synterys, Inc. and VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed on December 7, 2011.
10.51
Common Stock Exchange Agreement, dated as of December 22, 2011 between Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC and VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed on December 23, 2011.
10.52
Note and Warrant Exchange Agreement, dated as of December 28, 2011 between Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC and VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed on January 4, 2012.
10.53Form of Convertible Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement, dated as of February 28, 2012, by and between VistaGen and certain investors, incorporated by reference from the Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on March 2, 2012.
10.54Form of Convertible Promissory Note, dated as of February 28, 2012, incorporated by reference from the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on March 2, 2012.
10.55
Form of Warrant to Purchase Common Stock, dated as of February 28, 2012, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed on March 2, 2012.
10.56Form of Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of February 28, 2012, by and between VistaGen and certain investors, incorporated by reference from the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on March 2, 2012.
10.57
License Agreement No. 2, dated as of March 19, 2012 between University Health Network and VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.57 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 2, 2012.
10.58
Exchange Agreement dated as of June 29, 2012 between Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC and VistaGen Therapeutics,Therapeutics. Inc., incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.58 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 2, 2012.
10.5910.63
Unsecured Promissory Note in the face amount of $1,000,000 issued to Morrison & Foerster LLP on August 31, 2012 (Replacement Note A), incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2012.
10.64
Unsecured Promissory Note in the face amount of $1,379,376 issued to Morrison & Foerster LLP on August 31, 2012 (Replacement Note B), incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.4 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2012.
10.65
Stock Purchase Warrant issued to Morrison & Foerster LLP on August 31, 2012 to purchase 1,379,376 shares of the Company’s common stock (New Morrison & Foerster Warrant), incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.5 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2012.
10.66
Warrant to Purchase Common Stock issued to Morrison & Foerster LLP on August 31, 2012 to purchase 425,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (Amended Morrison & Foerster Warrant), incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.6 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2012.
10.67
Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement dated as of October 11, 2012 by and between VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 16, 2012.
10.68
Form of Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note issued to Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP under the Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 16, 2012.
10.69
Form of Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock issued to Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP under the Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 16, 2012.
10.70Amended and Restated Security Agreement as of October 11, 2012 between VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.4 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 16, 2012.
10.71Intellectual Property Security and Stock Pledge Agreement as of October 11, 2012 between VistaGen California and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.5 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 16, 2012.
10.72Negative Covenant Agreement dated October 11, 2012 between VistaGen California, Artemis Neuroscience, Inc. and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.6 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 16, 2012.
10.73Amendment to Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement as of November 14, 2012 between VistaGen Therapeutics Inc. and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 20, 2012.
10.75Amendment No. 2 to Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement as of January 31, 2013 between VistaGen Therapeutics Inc. and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on February 14, 2013.
10.76Amendment No. 3 to Note Exchange and Purchase Agreement as of February 22, 2013 between VistaGen Therapeutics Inc. and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 28, 2013.
10.77Form of Warrant to Purchase Common Stock issued to independent members of the Company’s Board of Directors and its executive officers on March 3, 2013, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 6, 2013.
10.78Securities Purchase Agreement between VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., and Autilion AG dated April 8, 2013, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 10, 2013.
10.79Voting Agreement between VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., and Autilion AG dated April 8, 2013, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 10, 2013.
10.80Note Conversion Agreement as of April 4, 2013 between VistaGen Therapeutics Inc. and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 10, 2013.
10.81
Assignment and Assumption Agreement between Autilion AG and Bergamo Acquisition Corp. PTE LTD dated April 12, 2013, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.81 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed July 18, 2013.
10.82Amendment No. 1 to Securities Purchase Agreement dated April 30, 2013 between VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. and Bergamo Acquisition Corp. PTE LTD, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 1, 2013.
10.83
Lease between Bayside Area Development, LLC and VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. (California) dated April 24, 2013, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.83 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed July 18, 2013.
10.84Indemnification Agreement effective May 20, 2013 between the Company and Jon S. Saxe, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.84 to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 18, 2013.
10.85
Indemnification Agreement effective May 20, 2013 between the Company and Shawn K. Singh, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.85 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 18, 2013.
10.86
Indemnification Agreement effective May 20, 2013 between the Company and H. Ralph Snodgrass, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.86 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 18, 2013.
10.87
Indemnification Agreement effective May 20, 2013 between the Company and Brian J. Underdown, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.87 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 18, 2013.
10.88
Indemnification Agreement effective May 20, 2013 between the Company and Jerrold D. Dotson, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.88 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 18, 2013.
10.89
Amendment and Waiver effective May 24, 2013 between the Company and Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLC, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 3, 2013.
10.90
Amendment No 2 to Securities Purchase Agreement dated June 27, 2013 between the Company, Autilion AG and Bergamo Acquisition Corp. PTE LTD, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 28, 2013.
10.91
Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated as of July 26, 2013 issued to Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 2, 2012.2013.
10.6010.92Security
Common Stock Warrant, dated July 26, 2013 issued to Platinum Long Term Growth VII, LLP, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 2, 2013.
10.93Form of Subscription Agreement between the Company and investors in the Fall 2013 Unit Private Placement.
10.94Form of Convertible Promissory Note between the Company and investors in the Fall 2013 Unit Private Placement.
10.95Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant between the Company and investors in the Fall 2013 Unit Private Placement.
10.96Form of Amendment to Convertible Promissory Note and Warrant between the Company and investors in the Fall 2013 Unit Private Placement, effective May 31, 2014.
10.97
Form of Unit Subscription Agreement between the Company and investors in the Spring 2014 Unit Private Placement dated April 1, 2014, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 8, 2014.
10.98
Form of Subordinate Convertible Promissory Note between the Company and investors in the Spring 2014 Unit Private Placement dated April 1, 2014, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 8, 2014.
10.99
Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant between the Company and investors in the Spring 2014 Unit Private Placement dated April 1, 2014, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 8, 2014.
10.100
Common Stock Purchase Warrant between the Company and Platinum Long Term Growth Fund VII dated May 14, 2014, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 19, 2014.
10.101
Subordinate Convertible Promissory Note between the Company and Platinum Long Term Growth Fund VII dated May 14, 2014, incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 19, 2014.
10.102Form of Promissory Note and Form of Warrant issued by the Company to Icahn School of Business at Mount Sinai effective April 10, 2014 in satisfaction of technology license maintenance fees and reimbursable patent costs.
10.103Amendment No. 3 to Sponsored Research Collaboration Agreement, dated as of July 2, 2012.April 25, 2011, by and between VistaGen and University Health Network.
16.1*10.104Letter regarding change in certifying accountant.Amendment No. 5 to Sponsored Research Collaboration Agreement, dated October 10, 2012, by and between VistaGen and University Health Network.
21.1*List of Subsidiaries.
24.1Power of Attorney
31.1Certification of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
31.2Certification of the Company’s Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1Certification of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
101.INS**101.INSXBRL Instance Document
101.SCH**101.SCHXBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema
101.CAL**101.CALXBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase
101.DEF**101.DEFXBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase
101.LAB**101.LABXBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase
101.PRE**101.PREXBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase
 
 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
*  Incorporated by reference from the like-numbered exhibit filed with our Current Report on Form 8-K on May 16, 2011.
**  Pursuant to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, these interactive data files are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or  prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 or Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and otherwise are not subject to liability.
 
SIGNSIGNATURESATURES
 
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the City of South San Francisco, State of California, on the 2nd24th day of July, 2012.June, 2014.
 
 VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.
   
 By: 
/s/    Shawn K. Singh      
   
Shawn K. Singh, J.D.
 Chief Executive Officer

POWERPOWER OF ATTORNEY
 
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints each of Shawn K. Singh, J.D. and Jerrold D. Dotson his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this annual report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney as of the date indicated opposite his name.
 
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
 
     
Signature
  
Title
 
Date
   
/s/    Shawn K. Singh
  Chief Executive Officer, and Director July 2, 2012June 24, 2014
Shawn K. Singh, JD (Principal Executive Officer)  
   
/s/    Jerrold D. Dotson
  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
July 2, 2012
June 24, 2014
Jerrold D. Dotson (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  
   
/s/    H. Ralph Snodgrass
  President, Chief Scientific Officer and Director 
July 2, 2012
June 24, 2014
H. Ralph Snodgrass, Ph.D   
   
/s/    Jon S. Saxe
  Chairman of the Board of Directors 
July 2, 2012
June 24, 2014
Jon S. Saxe    
   
/s/    Gregory A. Bonfiglio        Brian J. Underdown
  Director 
July 2, 2012
Gregory A. Bonfiglio, JD
/s/    Brian J. Underdown        
Director
July 2, 2012
June 24, 2014
Brian J. Underdown, PhDPh. D