Document and Entity Information - USD ($)	12 Months Ended
Document and Entity Information - USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2016	Aug. 18, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Document and Entity Information
Entity Registrant Name	IMMUNOGEN INC
Entity Central Index Key	0000855654
Document Type	10-K
Document Period End Date	Jun. 30, 2016
Amendment Flag	false
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--06-30
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer	No
Entity Voluntary Filers	No
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity Public Float			$ 1,176,154,266
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		87,326,441
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2016
Document Fiscal Period Focus	FY

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 245,026	$ 278,109
Accounts receivable	883	5,088
Unbilled revenue	1,409	714
Inventory	907	2,935
Current portion of deferred financing costs	1,674	1,159
Prepaid and other current assets	4,881	4,175
Total current assets	254,780	292,180
Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation	22,704	16,254
Deferred financing costs, net of current portion	6,171	4,415
Other assets	3,430	974
Total assets	287,085	313,823
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' (DEFICIT) EQUITY
Accounts payable	11,510	8,138
Accrued compensation	10,724	8,346
Other accrued liabilities	9,713	10,441
Current portion of deferred lease incentive	772	646
Current portion of liability related to the sale of future royalties	15,138	7,906
Current portion of deferred revenue	13,582	333
Total current liabilities	61,439	35,810
Deferred lease incentive, net of current portion	6,236	6,301
Deferred revenue, net of current portion	19,288	40,855
Convertible 4.5% senior notes	100,000
Liability related to the sale of future royalties, net of current portion	178,234	191,756
Other long-term liabilities	4,192	3,997
Total liabilities	369,389	278,719
Commitments and contingencies
Shareholders' (deficit) equity:
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value; authorized 5,000 shares; no shares issued and outstanding
Common stock, $0.01 par value; authorized 150,000 shares; issued and outstanding 87,209 and 86,579 shares as of June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015, respectively	872	866
Additional paid-in capital	770,511	743,108
Accumulated deficit	(853,687)	(708,870)
Total shareholders' (deficit) equity	(82,304)	35,104
Total liabilities and shareholders' (deficit) equity	$ 287,085	$ 313,823

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Parenthetical) - $ / shares shares in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
Interest rate (as a percent)	4.50%
Preferred stock, par value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Preferred stock, authorized shares	5,000	5,000
Preferred stock, shares issued	0	0
Preferred stock, shares outstanding	0	0
Common stock, par value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Common stock, authorized shares	150,000	150,000
Common stock, issued shares	87,209	86,579
Common stock, outstanding shares	87,209	86,579

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS - USD ($) shares in Thousands, $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2014
Revenues:
License and milestone fees	$ 26,915	$ 57,815	$ 39,455
Royalty revenue	195	13,867	10,346
Non-cash royalty revenue related to the sale of future royalties	25,299	5,484
Research and development support	4,014	2,848	7,187
Clinical materials revenue	3,579	5,527	2,908
Total revenues	60,002	85,541	59,896
Operating Expenses:
Research and development	148,077	111,768	106,958
General and administrative	36,916	28,228	24,469
Total operating expenses	184,993	139,996	131,427
(Loss) income from operations	(124,991)	(54,455)	(71,531)
Investment income, net	325	69	44
Non-cash interest expense on liability related to the sale of future royalties and convertible senior notes	(20,130)	(5,437)
Other income (expense), net	(21)	(916)	123
Net (loss) income	$ (144,817)	$ (60,739)	$ (71,364)
Basic and diluted net (loss) income per common share (in dollars per share)	$ (1.67)	$ (0.71)	$ (0.83)
Basic and diluted weighted average common shares outstanding (in shares)	86,976	86,038	85,481
Total comprehensive (loss) income	$ (144,817)	$ (60,739)	$ (71,364)

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS' (DEFICIT) EQUITY - USD ($) shares in Thousands, $ in Thousands	Common Stock	Additional Paid-In Capital	Accumulated Deficit	Total
Balance at Jun. 30, 2013	$ 847	$ 697,767	$ (576,767)	$ 121,847
Balance (in shares) at Jun. 30, 2013	84,725
Increase (Decrease) in Shareholders' (Deficit) Equity
Net loss			(71,364)	(71,364)
Stock options exercised	$ 11	9,125		9,136
Stock options exercised (in shares)	1,134
Stock option and restricted stock compensation expense		15,647		15,647
Directors' deferred share units converted	$ 1	(1)
Directors' deferred share units converted (in shares)	44
Directors' deferred share unit compensation		433		433
Balance at Jun. 30, 2014	$ 859	722,971	(648,131)	75,699
Balance (in shares) at Jun. 30, 2014	85,903
Increase (Decrease) in Shareholders' (Deficit) Equity
Net loss			(60,739)	(60,739)
Stock options exercised	$ 7	4,422		4,429
Stock options exercised (in shares)	651
Restricted stock award (in shares)	25
Stock option and restricted stock compensation expense		15,326		15,326
Directors' deferred share unit compensation		389		389
Balance at Jun. 30, 2015	$ 866	743,108	(708,870)	$ 35,104
Balance (in shares) at Jun. 30, 2015	86,579			86,579
Increase (Decrease) in Shareholders' (Deficit) Equity
Net loss			(144,817)	$ (144,817)
Stock options exercised	$ 5	5,156		5,161
Stock options exercised (in shares)	555
Restricted stock award	$ 1	(1)
Restricted stock award (in shares)	75
Stock option and restricted stock compensation expense		21,868		21,868
Directors' deferred share unit compensation		380		380
Balance at Jun. 30, 2016	$ 872	$ 770,511	$ (853,687)	$ (82,304)
Balance (in shares) at Jun. 30, 2016	87,209			87,209

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2014
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$ (144,817)	$ (60,739)	$ (71,364)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used for operating activities:
Non-cash royalty revenue related to sale of future royalties	(25,299)	(5,484)
Non-cash interest expense on liability related to sale of future royalties and convertible senior notes	20,130	5,437
Depreciation and amortization	5,327	5,513	4,598
(Gain) Loss on sale/disposal of fixed assets	(21)	7	20
Gain on forward contracts			(2)
Non-cash licensing fee			12,830
Stock and deferred share unit compensation	22,248	15,715	16,080
Deferred rent	161	195	297
Change in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable	4,205	(3,192)	(1,896)
Unbilled revenue	(695)	615	792
Inventory	2,028	15	(2,247)
Prepaid and other current assets	(706)	(1,855)	571
Restricted cash			2,231
Other assets	(2,456)	(761)	4
Accounts payable	2,649	3,319	321
Accrued compensation	2,378	1,481	712
Other accrued liabilities	(1,434)	3,248	(394)
Deferred revenue	(8,318)	(20,155)	(16,675)
Proceeds from landlord for tenant improvements	144	1,350	472
Net cash used for operating activities	(124,476)	(55,291)	(53,650)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment	(10,376)	(7,425)	(8,184)
Payments from settlement of forward contracts			(1)
Net cash used for investing activities	(10,376)	(7,425)	(8,185)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from stock options exercised	5,161	4,429	9,136
Proceeds from sale of future royalties, net of $5,865 of transaction costs		194,135
Proceeds from issuance of convertible 4.5% notes, net of $3,392 of transaction costs	96,608
Net cash provided by financing activities	101,769	198,564	9,136
Net change in cash and cash equivalents	(33,083)	135,848	(52,699)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning balance	278,109	142,261	194,960
Cash and cash equivalents, ending balance	$ 245,026	$ 278,109	$ 142,261

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Parenthetical) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Transaction costs for royalty agreements	$ 5,865
Interest rate (as a percent)	4.50%
Issuance of debt transaction costs	$ 3,392

Nature of Business and Plan of Operations	12 Months Ended
Nature of Business and Plan of Operations	Jun. 30, 2016
Nature of Business and Plan of Operations
Nature of Business and Plan of Operations	A. Nature of Business and Plan of Operations ImmunoGen, Inc. (the Company) was incorporated in Massachusetts in 1981 and is focused on the development of antibody‑based anticancer therapeutics. The Company has incurred operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since inception, incurred a net loss of approximately $144.8 million during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, and has an accumulated deficit of approximately $853.7 million as of June 30, 2016. The Company has primarily funded these losses through payments received from its collaborations and equity and convertible debt financings. To date, the Company has no product revenue and management expects operating losses to continue for the foreseeable future. At June 30, 2016, the Company had $245 million of cash and cash equivalents on hand. The Company anticipates that its current capital resources and expected future collaborator payments under existing collaborations will enable it to meet its operational expenses and capital expenditures through approximately December 2017. The Company may raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or generate revenues from collaborative partners through a combination of upfront license payments, milestone payments, royalty payments, research funding, and clinical material reimbursement. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain additional debt or equity financing or generate revenues from collaborative partners on terms acceptable to the Company or at all. The failure of the Company to obtain sufficient funds on acceptable terms when needed could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition and require the Company to defer or limit some or all of its research, development and/or clinical projects. The Company is subject to risks common to companies in the biotechnology industry including, but not limited to, the development by its competitors of new technological innovations, dependence on key personnel, protection of proprietary technology, manufacturing and marketing limitations, collaboration arrangements, third‑party reimbursements and compliance with governmental regulations. On June 15, 2016 the company’s Board of Directors approved a change in the Company’s fiscal year from a fiscal year ending on the last day of June of each year to a calendar fiscal year ending on the last day of December of each year, effective January 1, 2017. Accordingly the Company will be issuing six month transitional financial statements as of December 31, 2016, and calendar year financial statements thereafter.

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

B. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries, ImmunoGen Securities Corp., ImmunoGen Europe Limited and Hurricane, LLC. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (U.S.) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Subsequent Events

The Company has evaluated all events or transactions that occurred after June 30, 2016 up through the date the Company issued these financial statements. The Company did not have any material recognizable or unrecognizable subsequent events.

Related party transaction

During fiscal year 2016, the Company entered into a transaction with Sanofi to purchase drug product along with the master and working cell banks for a product that Sanofi previously discontinued and had returned its rights back to the Company. The Company entered into this transaction, at a cost of €1.6 million, in order to continue development of the product, or make it more attractive to re-license the target to another partner. A relationship between an executive from the Company and an executive from Sanofi qualified this transaction as potentially between related parties, and accordingly, the audit committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the terms and conditions of the transaction, believing that it was in the best interest of the Company to proceed and that it was done at an arms-length amount. The transaction was substantially completed during the year; however, as of June 30, 2016, $44,000 is classified as a prepaid expense and approximately $258,000 more will be payable when a deliverable still pending from Sanofi is received.

Revenue Recognition

The Company enters into licensing and development agreements with collaborative partners for the development of monoclonal antibody‑based anticancer therapeutics. The terms of these agreements contain multiple deliverables which may include (i) licenses, or options to obtain licenses, to the Company’s antibody‑drug conjugate, or ADC, technology, (ii) rights to future technological improvements, (iii) research activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborative partner, (iv) delivery of cytotoxic agents and (v) the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials for the collaborative partner. Payments to the Company under these agreements may include upfront fees, option fees, exercise fees, payments for research activities, payments for the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials, payments based upon the achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales. The Company follows the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, Topic 605‑25, “Revenue Recognition—Multiple‑Element Arrangements,” and ASC Topic 605‑28, “Revenue Recognition—Milestone Method,” in accounting for these agreements. In order to account for these agreements, the Company must identify the deliverables included within the agreement and evaluate which deliverables represent separate units of accounting based on whether certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered element has stand‑alone value to the collaborator. The consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting, and the applicable revenue recognition criteria are applied to each of the separate units.

At June 30, 2016, the Company had the following two types of agreements with the parties identified below:

Development and commercialization licenses, which provide the party with the right to use the Company’s ADC technology and/or certain other intellectual property to develop compounds to a specified antigen target:

Amgen (two exclusive single-target licenses(1))

Bayer (one exclusive single-target license)

Biotest (one exclusive single-target license)

CytomX (one exclusive single-target license)

Lilly (three exclusive single-target licenses)

Novartis (five exclusive single-target licenses and one license to two related targets: one target on an exclusive basis and the second target on a non-exclusive basis)

Roche, through its Genentech unit (five exclusive single-target licenses)

Sanofi (one exclusive single-target license and one exclusive license to multiple individual targets)

Takeda, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (one exclusive single-target license)

⁽¹⁾

Amgen has sublicensed one of its exclusive single-target licenses to Oxford BioTherapeutics Ltd.

Research license/option agreement for a defined period of time to secure development and commercialization licenses to use the Company’s ADC technology to develop anticancer compounds to specified targets on established terms (referred to herein as right-to-test agreements):

CytomX

Takeda, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

There are no performance, cancellation, termination or refund provisions in any of the arrangements that contain material financial consequences to the Company.

Development and Commercialization Licenses

The deliverables under a development and commercialization license agreement generally include the license to the Company’s ADC technology with respect to a specified antigen target, and may also include deliverables related to rights to future technological improvements, research activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborative partner and the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials for the collaborative partner.

Generally, development and commercialization licenses contain non‑refundable terms for payments and, depending on the terms of the agreement, provide that the Company will (i) at the collaborator’s request, provide research services at negotiated prices which are generally consistent with what other third parties would charge, (ii) at the collaborator’s request, manufacture and provide to it preclinical and clinical materials or deliver cytotoxic agents at negotiated prices which are generally consistent with what other third parties would charge, (iii) earn payments upon the achievement of certain milestones and (iv) earn royalty payments, generally until the later of the last applicable patent expiration or 10 to 12 years after product launch. In the case of Kadcyla, however, the minimum royalty term is 10 years and the maximum royalty term is 12 years on a country‑by‑country basis, regardless of patent protection. Royalty rates may vary over the royalty term depending on the Company’s intellectual property rights and/or the presence of comparable competing products. The Company may provide technical assistance and share any technology improvements with its collaborators during the term of the collaboration agreements. The Company does not directly control when or whether any collaborator will request research or manufacturing services, achieve milestones or become liable for royalty payments. As a result, the Company cannot predict when or if it will recognize revenues in connection with any of the foregoing.

In determining the units of accounting, management evaluates whether the license has stand‑alone value from the undelivered elements to the collaborative partner based on the consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances for each arrangement. Factors considered in this determination include the research capabilities of the partner and the availability of ADC technology research expertise in the general marketplace. If the Company concludes that the license has stand‑alone value and therefore will be accounted for as a separate unit of accounting, the Company then determines the estimated selling prices of the license and all other units of accounting based on market conditions, similar arrangements entered into by third parties, and entity‑specific factors such as the terms of the Company’s previous collaborative agreements, recent preclinical and clinical testing results of therapeutic products that use the Company’s ADC technology, the Company’s pricing practices and pricing objectives, the likelihood that technological improvements will be made, and, if made, will be used by the Company’s collaborators and the nature of the research services to be performed on behalf of its collaborators and market rates for similar services.

Upfront payments on development and commercialization licenses may be recognized upon delivery of the license if facts and circumstances dictate that the license has stand‑alone value from the undelivered elements, which generally include rights to future technological improvements, research services, delivery of cytotoxic agents and the manufacture of preclinical and clinical materials.

The Company recognizes revenue related to research services that represent separate units of accounting as they are performed, as long as there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the fee is fixed or determinable, and collection of the related receivable is probable. The Company recognizes revenue related to the rights to future technological improvements over the estimated term of the applicable license.

The Company may also provide cytotoxic agents to its collaborators or produce preclinical and clinical materials at negotiated prices which are generally consistent with what other third parties would charge. The Company recognizes revenue on cytotoxic agents and on preclinical and clinical materials when the materials have passed all quality testing required for collaborator acceptance and title and risk of loss have transferred to the collaborator. Arrangement consideration allocated to the manufacture of preclinical and clinical materials in a multiple‑deliverable arrangement is below the Company’s full cost, and the Company’s full cost is not expected to ever be below its contract selling prices for its existing collaborations. During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014, the difference between the Company’s full cost to manufacture preclinical and clinical materials on behalf of its collaborators as compared to total amounts received from collaborators for the manufacture of preclinical and clinical materials was $6.9 million, $9.2 million and $2.3 million, respectively. The majority of the Company’s costs to produce these preclinical and clinical materials are fixed and then allocated to each batch based on the number of batches produced during the period. Therefore, the Company’s costs to produce these materials are significantly impacted by the number of batches produced during the period. The volume of preclinical and clinical materials the Company produces is directly related to the number of clinical trials the Company and its collaborators are preparing for or currently have underway, the speed of enrollment in those trials, the dosage schedule of each clinical trial and the time period such trials last. Accordingly, the volume of preclinical and clinical materials produced, and therefore the Company’s per‑batch costs to manufacture these preclinical and clinical materials, may vary significantly from period to period.

The Company may also produce research material for potential collaborators under material transfer agreements. Additionally, the Company performs research activities, including developing antibody specific conjugation processes, on behalf of its collaborators and potential collaborators during the early evaluation and preclinical testing stages of drug development. The Company records amounts received for research materials produced or services performed as a component of research and development support revenue. The Company also develops conjugation processes for materials for later stage testing and commercialization for certain collaborators. The Company is compensated at negotiated rates and may receive milestone payments for developing these processes which are recorded as a component of research and development support revenue.

The Company’s development and commercialization license agreements have milestone payments which for reporting purposes are aggregated into three categories: (i) development milestones, (ii) regulatory milestones, and (iii) sales milestones. Development milestones are typically payable when a product candidate initiates or advances into different clinical trial phases. Regulatory milestones are typically payable upon submission for marketing approval with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or other countries’ regulatory authorities or on receipt of actual marketing approvals for the compound or for additional indications. Sales milestones are typically payable when annual sales reach certain levels.

At the inception of each agreement that includes milestone payments, the Company evaluates whether each milestone is substantive and at risk to both parties on the basis of the contingent nature of the milestone. This evaluation includes an assessment of whether (a) the consideration is commensurate with either (1) the entity’s performance to achieve the milestone, or (2) the enhancement of the value of the delivered item(s) as a result of a specific outcome resulting from the entity’s performance to achieve the milestone, (b) the consideration relates solely to past performance and (c) the consideration is reasonable relative to all of the deliverables and payment terms within the arrangement. The Company evaluates factors such as the scientific, regulatory, commercial and other risks that must be overcome to achieve the respective milestone, the level of effort and investment required to achieve the respective milestone and whether the milestone consideration is reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement in making this assessment.

Non‑refundable development and regulatory milestones that are expected to be achieved as a result of the Company’s efforts during the period of substantial involvement are considered substantive and are recognized as revenue upon the achievement of the milestone, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met. Milestones that are not considered substantive because we do not contribute effort to the achievement of such milestones are generally achieved after the period of substantial involvement and are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone, as there are no undelivered elements remaining and no continuing performance obligations, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met.

Under the Company’s development and commercialization license agreements, the Company receives royalty payments based upon its licensees’ net sales of covered products. Generally, under these agreements the Company is to receive royalty reports and payments from its licensees approximately one quarter in arrears, that is, generally in the second or third month of the quarter after the licensee has sold the royalty bearing product or products. The Company recognizes royalty revenues when it can reliably estimate such amounts and collectability is reasonably assured. As such, the Company generally recognizes royalty revenues in the quarter reported to the Company by its licensees, or one quarter following the quarter in which sales by the Company’s licensees occurred.

Right‑to‑Test Agreements

The Company’s right‑to‑test agreements provide collaborators the right to (a) test the Company’s ADC technology for a defined period of time through a research, or right‑to‑test, license, (b) take options, for a defined period of time, to specified targets and (c) upon exercise of those options, secure or “take” licenses to develop and commercialize products for the specified targets on established terms. Under these agreements, fees may be due to the Company (i) at the inception of the arrangement (referred to as “upfront” fees or payments), (ii) upon taking an option with respect to a specific target (referred to as option fees or payments earned, if any, when the option is “taken”), (iii) upon the exercise of a previously taken option to acquire a development and commercialization license(s) (referred to as exercise fees or payments earned, if any, when the development and commercialization license is “taken”), or (iv) some combination of all of these fees.

The accounting for right to test agreements is dependent on the nature of the options granted to the collaborative partner. Options are considered substantive if, at the inception of a right to test agreement, the Company is at risk as to whether the collaborative partner will choose to exercise the options to secure development and commercialization licenses. Factors that are considered in evaluating whether options are substantive include the overall objective of the arrangement, the benefit the collaborator might obtain from the agreement without exercising the options, the cost to exercise the options relative to the total upfront consideration, and the additional financial commitments or economic penalties imposed on the collaborator as a result of exercising the options. None of the Company’s right to test agreements entered into subsequent to the adoption of Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, No. 2009 13, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables” on July 1, 2010 has been determined to contain substantive options. For right to test agreements where the options to secure development and commercialization licenses to the Company’s ADC technology are not considered substantive, the Company considers the development and commercialization licenses to be a deliverable at the inception of the agreement and applies the multiple element revenue recognition criteria to determine the appropriate revenue recognition. Subsequent to the adoption of ASU No. 2009-13, the Company determined that its research licenses lack stand-alone value and are considered for aggregation with the other elements of the arrangement and accounted for as one unit of accounting.

The Company does not directly control when or if any collaborator will exercise its options for development and commercialization licenses. As a result, the Company cannot predict when or if it will recognize revenues in connection with any of the foregoing.

Inventory

Inventory costs relate to clinical trial materials being manufactured for sale to the Company’s collaborators. Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market as determined on a first‑in, first‑out (FIFO) basis.

Inventory at June 30, 2016 and 2015 is summarized below (in thousands):


	June 30,
	2016		2015
Raw materials	$	317	$	279
Work in process		590		2,656
Total	$	907	$	2,935

Raw materials inventory consists entirely of proprietary cell‑killing agents the Company developed as part of its ADC technology. All raw materials inventory is currently procured from two suppliers.

Work in process inventory consists of conjugate manufactured for sale to the Company’s collaborators to be used in preclinical and clinical studies. All conjugate is made to order at the request of the collaborators and subject to the terms and conditions of respective supply agreements. As such, no excess reserve for work in process inventory is required. As discussed above, the Company’s costs to manufacture conjugate on behalf of its partners are greater than the supply prices charged to partners, and therefore costs are capitalized into inventory at the supply prices.

Raw materials inventory cost is stated net of write‑downs of $1.4 million as of June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015. The write‑downs represent the cost of raw materials that the Company considers to be in excess of a twelve‑month supply based on firm, fixed orders and projections from its collaborators as of the respective balance sheet date.

Due to yield fluctuations, the actual amount of raw materials that will be produced in future periods under third‑party supply agreements is highly uncertain. As such, the amount of raw materials produced could be more than is required to support the development of the Company’s collaborators’ product candidates. Such excess supply, as determined under the Company’s inventory reserve policy, is charged to research and development expense.

The Company produces preclinical and clinical materials for its collaborators either in anticipation of or in support of preclinical studies and clinical trials, or for process development and analytical purposes. Under the terms of supply agreements with its collaborators, the Company generally receives rolling six‑month firm, fixed orders for conjugate that the Company is required to manufacture, and rolling twelve‑month manufacturing projections for the quantity of conjugate the collaborator expects to need in any given twelve‑month period. The amount of clinical material produced is directly related to the number of collaborator anticipated or on‑going clinical trials for which the Company is producing clinical material, the speed of enrollment in those trials, the dosage schedule of each clinical trial and the time period, if any, during which patients in the trial receive clinical benefit from the clinical materials. Because these elements are difficult to estimate over the course of a trial, substantial differences between collaborators’ actual manufacturing orders and their projections could result in the Company’s usage of raw materials varying significantly from estimated usage at an earlier reporting period. To the extent that a collaborator has provided the Company with a firm, fixed order, the collaborator is required by contract to reimburse the Company the full negotiated price of the conjugate, even if the collaborator subsequently cancels the manufacturing run.

The Company capitalizes raw material as inventory upon receipt and accounts for the raw material inventory as follows:

to the extent that the Company has up to twelve months of firm, fixed orders and/or projections from its collaborators, the Company capitalizes the value of raw materials that will be used in the production of conjugate subject to these firm, fixed orders and/or projections;

the Company considers more than a twelve month supply of raw materials that is not supported by firm, fixed orders and/or projections from its collaborators to be excess and establishes a reserve to reduce to zero the value of any such excess raw material inventory with a corresponding charge to research and development expense; and

the Company also considers any other external factors and information of which it becomes aware and assesses the impact of such factors or information on the net realizable value of the raw material inventory at each reporting period.

During fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, the Company obtained additional amounts of its cell-killing agents DMx from its supplier which yielded more material than would be required by the Company’s collaborators over the next twelve months, and as a result, the Company recorded $1.1 million, $1.0 million and $364,000,respectively, of charges to research and development expense related to raw material inventory identified as excess. Increases in the Company’s on‑hand supply of raw materials, or a reduction to the Company’s collaborators’ projections, could result in significant changes in the Company’s estimate of the net realizable value of such raw material inventory. Reductions in collaborators’ projections could indicate that the Company has excess raw material inventory and the Company would then evaluate the need to record write‑downs as charges to research and development expense.

Unbilled Revenue

The majority of the Company’s unbilled revenue at June 30, 2016 and 2015 represents research funding earned based on actual resources utilized under the Company’s various collaborator agreements.

Other Accrued Liabilities

Other accrued liabilities consisted of the following at June 30, 2016 and 2015 (in thousands):


	June 30,
	2016		2015
Accrued contract payments	$	4,202	$	5,830
Accrued clinical trial costs		3,096		1,735
Accrued professional services		1,028		788
Accrued employee benefits		640		567
Accrued public reporting charges		192		192
Other current accrued liabilities		555		1,329
Total	$	9,713	$	10,441

Research and Development Expenses

The Company’s research and development expenses are charged to expense as incurred and relate to (i) research to evaluate new targets and to develop and evaluate new antibodies, linkers and cytotoxic agents, (ii) preclinical testing of its own and, in certain instances, its collaborators’ product candidates, and the cost of its own clinical trials, (iii) development related to clinical and commercial manufacturing processes and (iv) manufacturing operations which also include raw materials. Payments made by the Company in advance for research and development services not yet provided and/or materials not yet delivered and accepted are recorded as prepaid expenses and are included in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as prepaid and other current assets.

Income Taxes

The Company uses the liability method to account for income taxes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on differences between the financial reporting and income tax basis of assets and liabilities, as well as net operating loss carry forwards and tax credits and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences reverse. A valuation allowance against net deferred tax assets is recorded if, based on the available evidence, it is more likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.

Financial Instruments and Concentration of Credit Risk

Cash and cash equivalents are primarily maintained with three financial institutions in the U.S. Deposits with banks may exceed the amount of insurance provided on such deposits. Generally, these deposits may be redeemed upon demand and, therefore, bear minimal risk. The Company’s cash equivalents consist of money market funds with underlying investments primarily being U.S. Government‑ issued securities and high quality, short‑term commercial paper. Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. The Company held no marketable securities as of June 30, 2016. The Company’s investment policy, approved by the Board of Directors, limits the amount it may invest in any one type of investment, thereby reducing credit risk concentrations.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

All highly liquid financial instruments with maturities of three months or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. As of June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015, the Company held $245.0 million and $278.1 million, respectively, in cash and money market funds consisting principally of U.S. Government-issued securities and high quality, short-term commercial paper which were classified as cash and cash equivalents.

Non-cash Investing Activities

The Company had $804,000 of accrued capital expenditures as of June 30, 2016 which have been treated as a non-cash investing activity and, accordingly, are not reflected in the consolidated statement of cash flows. Accrued capital expenditures as of June 30, 2015 were not material and are included in the consolidated statement of cash flows.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

ASC Topic 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. Fair value is defined under ASC Topic 820 as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value must maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The standard describes a fair value hierarchy to measure fair value which is based on three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered observable and the last unobservable, as follows:

Level 1—Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

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 that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.

As of June 30, 2016, the Company held certain assets that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. The following table represents the fair value hierarchy for the Company’s financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2016 (in thousands):

Fair Value Measurements at June 30, 2016 Using

Quoted Prices in

Significant

Active Markets for

Significant Other

Unobservable

Identical Assets

Observable Inputs

Inputs

Total

(Level 1)

(Level 2)

(Level 3)

Cash equivalents

219,918

—

As of June 30, 2015, the Company held certain assets that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. The following table represents the fair value hierarchy for the Company’s financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2015 (in thousands):

Fair Value Measurements at June 30, 2015 Using

Quoted Prices in

Significant

Active Markets for

Significant Other

Unobservable

Identical Assets

Observable Inputs

Inputs

Total

(Level 1)

(Level 2)

(Level 3)

Cash equivalents

269,304

—

The fair value of the Company’s cash equivalents is based primarily on quoted prices from active markets.

The carrying amounts reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for accounts receivable, unbilled revenue, prepaid and other current assets, accounts payable, accrued compensation, and other accrued liabilities approximate fair value due to their short‑term nature. The carrying amount and estimated fair value of the convertible 4.5% senior notes was $100.0 million and $91.2 million, respectively, as of June 30, 2016. The fair value of the Convertible Notes is influenced by interest rates, the Company’s stock price and stock price volatility and is determined by prices for the Convertible Notes observed in a market which is a Level 2 input for fair value purposes.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are stated at cost. The Company provides for depreciation based upon expected useful lives using the straight‑line method over the following estimated useful lives:


Machinery and equipment		5 years
Computer hardware and software		3 years
Furniture and fixtures		5 years
Leasehold improvements		Shorter of remaining lease term or 7 years

Equipment under capital leases is amortized over the lives of the respective leases or the estimated useful lives of the assets, whichever is shorter, and included in depreciation expense.

Maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred. Upon retirement or sale, the cost of disposed assets and the related accumulated depreciation are removed from the accounts and any resulting gain or loss is included in the statement of operations. The Company recorded $21,000, $(7,000) and $(20,000) of gains (losses) on the sale/disposal of certain furniture and equipment during the years ended June 30, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

Impairment of Long‑Lived Assets

In accordance with ASC Topic 360, “Property, Plant, and Equipment,” the Company continually evaluates whether events or circumstances have occurred that indicate that the estimated remaining useful life of its long‑lived assets may warrant revision or that the carrying value of these assets may be impaired if impairment indicators are present. The Company evaluates the realizability of its long‑lived assets based on cash flow expectations for the related asset. Any write‑downs to fair value are treated as permanent reductions in the carrying amount of the assets. Based on this evaluation, the Company believes that, as of each of the balance sheet dates presented, none of the Company’s long‑lived assets were impaired.

Computation of Net Loss per Common Share

Basic and diluted net loss per share is calculated based upon the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. During periods of income, participating securities are allocated a proportional share of income determined by dividing total weighted average participating securities by the sum of the total weighted average common shares and participating securities (the “two‑class method”). Shares of the Company’s restricted stock participate in any dividends that may be declared by the Company and are therefore considered to be participating securities. Participating securities have the effect of diluting both basic and diluted earnings per share during periods of income. During periods of loss, no loss is allocated to participating securities since they have no contractual obligation to share in the losses of the Company. Diluted (loss) income per share is computed after giving consideration to the dilutive effect of stock options that are outstanding during the period, except where such non-participating securities would be anti-dilutive.

The Company’s common stock equivalents, as calculated in accordance with the treasury‑stock method for the options and the if-converted method for the convertible notes, are shown in the following table (in thousands):


	June 30,
	2016	2015	2014
Options outstanding to purchase common stock and unvested restricted stock	11,919	9,739	8,486
Common stock equivalents under treasury stock method for options	735	770	1,820
Shares issuable upon conversion of convertible notes	23,878	—	—
Common stock equivalents under if-converted method for convertible notes	718	—	—

The Company’s common stock equivalents have not been included in the net loss per share calculation because their effect is anti‑dilutive due to the Company’s net loss position.

Stock‑based Compensation

As of June 30, 2015, the Company is authorized to grant future awards under one employee share‑based compensation plan, which is the ImmunoGen, Inc. 2006 Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2006 Plan. At the annual meeting of shareholders on November 11, 2014, an amendment to the 2006 Plan was approved and an additional 5,500,000 shares were authorized for issuance under this plan. As amended, the 2006 Plan provides for the issuance of Stock Grants, the grant of Options and the grant of Stock‑Based Awards for up to 17,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, as well as 1,676,599 shares of common stock which represent awards granted under the previous stock option plan, the ImmunoGen, Inc. Restated Stock Option Plan, or the Former Plan, that were forfeited, expired or were cancelled without delivery of shares of common stock or which resulted in the forfeiture of shares of common stock back to the Company between November 11, 2006 and June 30, 2014. Option awards are granted with an exercise price equal to the market price of the Company’s stock at the date of grant. Options vest at various periods of up to four years and may be exercised within ten years of the date of grant.

The stock‑based awards are accounted for under ASC Topic 718, “Compensation—Stock Compensation.” Pursuant to Topic 718, the estimated grant date fair value of awards is charged to the statement of operations over the requisite service period, which is the vesting period. Such amounts have been reduced by an estimate of forfeitures of all unvested awards. The fair value of each stock option is estimated on the date of grant using the Black‑ Scholes option‑pricing model with the weighted average assumptions noted in the following table. As the Company has not paid dividends since inception, nor does it expect to pay any dividends for the foreseeable future, the expected dividend yield assumption is zero. Expected volatility is based exclusively on historical volatility data of the Company’s stock. The expected term of stock options granted is based exclusively on historical data and represents the period of time that stock options granted are expected to be outstanding. The expected term is calculated for and applied to one group of stock options as the Company does not expect substantially different exercise or post‑vesting termination behavior amongst its employee population. The risk‑free rate of the stock options is based on the U.S. Treasury rate in effect at the time of grant for the expected term of the stock options.


	Year Ended June 30,
	2016		2015		2014
Dividend	None		None		None
Volatility	66.34	%	60.86	%	60.40	%
Risk-free interest rate	1.80	%	1.84	%	1.74	%
Expected life (years)	6.3		6.3		6.3

Using the Black‑Scholes option‑pricing model, the weighted average grant date fair values of options granted during fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014 were $8.91, $6.04, and $10.50 per share, respectively.

A summary of option activity under the 2006 Plan as of June 30, 2016, and changes during the twelve month period then ended is presented below (in thousands, except weighted‑average data):


		Weighted‑		Weighted‑
	Number of	Average		Average	Aggregate
	Stock	Exercise		Remaining	Intrinsic
	Options	Price		Life in Yrs	Value
Outstanding at June 30, 2015	9,689	$	12.49
Granted	3,340	$	14.34
Exercised	(555)	$	9.30
Forfeited/Canceled	(661)	$	14.84
Outstanding at June 30, 2016	11,813	$	13.03	6.82	$	—
Outstanding at June 30, 2016—vested or unvested and expected to vest	11,475	$	13.05	6.76	$	—
Exercisable at June 30, 2016	6,453	$	12.63	5.30	$	—

In May 2016, November 2012 and January 2015, the Company granted three officers of the Company 75,000, 50,000 and 25,000 shares of restricted stock, respectively, upon hire. Pursuant to the agreements, the shares vest ratably in annual installments over the subsequent four years. The fair value of the restricted stock was determined by the closing price on the date of grant. A summary of restricted stock activity under the 2006 Plan as of June 30, 2016, and changes during the twelve month period then ended is presented below (in thousands, except weighted‑average data):


		Weighted‑
	Number of	Average
	Restricted	Exercise
	Stock Shares	Price
Unvested at June 30, 2015	50,000	$	9.23
Awarded	75,000	$	5.65
Vested	(18,750)	$	10.13
Unvested at June 30, 2016	106,250	$	6.54

In August 2016, the Company granted 117,800 shares of restricted common stock to certain officers of the Company. These restrictions will lapse in three equal installments over five years upon the achievement of specified performance goals.

Stock compensation expense related to stock options and restricted stock awards granted under the 2006 Plan was $21.9 million, $15.3 million and $15.6 million during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. During fiscal year 2016, the Company recorded approximately $3.1 million of stock compensation cost related to the modification of certain outstanding common stock options with the former Chief Executive Officer’s succession plan. No similar charges were recorded in fiscal years 2015 and 2014. As of June 30, 2016, the estimated fair value of unvested employee awards was approximately $26.6 million, net of estimated forfeitures. The weighted‑average remaining vesting period for these awards is approximately two years. Included in stock compensation expense for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are $380,000, $389,000 and $433,000, respectively, of expense recorded for directors’ deferred share units, the details of which are discussed in Note H of the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

A summary of option activity for options vested during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 is presented below (in thousands):


	Year Ended June 30,
	2016		2015		2014
Total fair value of options vested	$	15,298	$	16,145	$	12,535
Total intrinsic value of options exercised		3,142		3,275		9,961
Cash received for exercise of stock options		5,161		4,429		9,136

Comprehensive Loss

The Company presents comprehensive loss in accordance with ASC Topic 220, Comprehensive Income. Comprehensive loss is comprised of the Company’s net loss for the years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

Segment Information

During the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2016, the Company continued to operate in one reportable business segment under the management approach of ASC Topic 280, Segment Reporting, which is the business of discovery of monoclonal antibody‑based anticancer therapeutics.

The percentages of revenues recognized from significant customers of the Company in the years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are included in the following table:


	Year Ended
	June 30,
Collaborative Partner:	2016		2015		2014
Bayer	17	%	—	%	—	%
Lilly	11	%	21	%	18	%
Novartis	1	%	43	%	38	%
Roche	43	%	23	%	34	%
Takeda	16	%	—	%	—	%

There were no other customers of the Company with significant revenues in the years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014‑9, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”), to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue. This update provides a comprehensive new revenue recognition model that requires revenue to be recognized in a manner to depict the transfer of goods or services to a customer at an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be received in exchange for those goods or services. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date, which delayed the effective date of the new standard from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018. The FASB also agreed to allow entities to choose to adopt the standard as of the original effective date. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations, which clarifies the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing, which clarifies certain aspects of identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation guidance. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients related to disclosures of remaining performance obligations, as well as other amendments to guidance on collectibility, non-cash consideration and the presentation of sales and other similar taxes collected from customers. These standards have the same effective date and transition date of January 1, 2018. The new revenue standard allows for either full retrospective or modified retrospective application. The Company is currently evaluating the timing of its adoption, the transition method to apply and the impact that this guidance will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014‑15, Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This new standard gives a company’s management the final responsibilities to decide whether there’s substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. The standard provides guidance to management, with principles and definitions that are intended to reduce diversity in the timing and content of disclosures that companies commonly provide in their footnotes. Under the new standard, management must decide whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued, or within one year after the date that the financial statements are available to be issued when applicable. This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within the year of adoption, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on January 1, 2017. The Company has not yet completed its analysis of the impact of the adoption of this guidance. Refer to Note A, Nature of Business and Plan of Operations for further discussion.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Interest-Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs. To simplify presentation of debt issuance costs, this new standard requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. The recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs are not affected by this update. This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2015, including interim periods within the year of adoption, and calls for retrospective application, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on July 1, 2016. The Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2016 includes in assets $7.8 million of debt issuance costs classified as deferred financing costs.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory (Topic 330). To simplify the principles for subsequent measurement of inventory, this new standard requires inventory measured using any method other than LIFO or the retail method shall be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value, rather than lower of cost or market. This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within the year of adoption, and calls for prospective application, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on January 1, 2017. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (Topic 740). To simplify the presentation of deferred income taxes, the amendments in this Update require that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within the year of adoption, with early application permitted. The Company implemented the recommendations of this Update prospectively in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016, resulting in a reduction of long-term assets and current liabilities of approximately $843,000 as of December 31, 2015. The prior period balances were not retrospectively adjusted.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-1, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Topic 825). The amendments in this Update supersede the guidance to classify equity securities with readily determinable fair values into different categories (that is, trading or available-for-sale) and require equity securities (including other ownership interests, such as partnerships, unincorporated joint ventures, and limited liability companies) to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income. The amendments allow equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values to be remeasured at fair value either upon the occurrence of an observable price change or upon identification of an impairment. The amendments also require enhanced disclosures about those investments. The amendments improve financial reporting by providing relevant information about an entity’s equity investments and reducing the number of items that are recognized in other comprehensive income. This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within the year of adoption, and calls for prospective application, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on January 1, 2018. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-2, Leases (Topic 842) that primarily requires lessees to recognize most leases on their balance sheets but record expenses on their income statements in a manner similar to current accounting. For lessors, the guidance modifies the classification criteria and the accounting for sales-type and direct financing leases. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years, and calls for retrospective application, with early adoption permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on January 1, 2019. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our financial statements and the timing of adoption.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-9, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting (Topic 718) that changes the accounting for certain aspects of share-based payments to employees. The guidance requires the recognition of the income tax effects of awards in the income statement when the awards vest or are settled, thus eliminating additional paid in capital pools. The guidance also allows for the employer to repurchase more of an employee’s shares for tax withholding purposes without triggering liability accounting. In addition, the guidance allows for a policy election to account for forfeitures as they occur rather than on an estimated basis. The guidance is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods with early adoption permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on January 1, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our financial statements and the timing of adoption.

Agreements	12 Months Ended
Agreements	Jun. 30, 2016
Agreements
Agreements	C. Agreements Significant Collaborative Agreements Roche In 2000, the Company granted Genentech, now a unit of Roche, an exclusive license to use the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology with antibodies, such as trastuzumab, or other proteins that target HER2. Under the terms of this agreement, Roche has exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize maytansinoid ADC compounds targeting HER2. In 2013, the HER2‑targeting ADC compound, Kadcyla, was approved for marketing in the U.S., Japan and the European Union, or EU. Roche has also received marketing approval in various other countries around the world. Roche is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from the agreement. The Company is compensated for any preclinical and clinical materials that the Company manufactures under the agreement. The Company received a $2 million non‑refundable upfront payment from Roche upon execution of the agreement. The Company is also entitled to receive up to a total of $44 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of Kadcyla or any other resulting products. Total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$13.5 million; and regulatory milestones—$30.5 million. Through June 30, 2016, the Company has received and recognized $13.5 million and $20.5 million in development and regulatory milestone payments, respectively, related to Kadcyla. The Company received two $5 million regulatory milestone payments in connection with marketing approval of Kadcyla in Japan and in the EU, which is included in license and milestone fees for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. Based on an evaluation of the effort contributed to the achievement of these milestones in fiscal year 2014, the Company determined these milestones were not substantive. In consideration that there were no undelivered elements remaining, no continuing performance obligations and all other revenue recognition criteria had been met, the Company recognized the non‑refundable payments as revenue upon achievement of the milestones. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive will be a $5 million regulatory milestone for marketing approval of Kadcyla for a first extended indication as defined in the agreement. Based on an evaluation of the effort contributed towards the achievement of this future milestone, the Company determined this milestone is not substantive. The Company receives royalty reports and payments related to sales of Kadcyla from Roche one quarter in arrears. In accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policy, $25.3 million of non-cash royalties on net sales of Kadcyla for the twelve‑month period ended March 31, 2016 were recorded and included in royalty revenue for the year ended June 30, 2016 and $5.5 million of non-cash royalties and $13.9 million of cash royalties on net sales of Kadcyla for the twelve‑month period ended March 31, 2015 is included in royalty revenue for the year ended June 30, 2015. The Company recorded $10.3 million of cash royalties on net sales of Kadcyla for the twelve‑month period ended March 31, 2014 for the year ended June 30, 2014. Kadcyla sales occurring after January 1, 2015 are covered by a royalty purchase agreement whereby the associated cash is remitted to Immunity Royalty Holdings, L.P, or IRH, as discussed further in Note F. Roche, through its Genentech unit, also has licenses for the exclusive right to use the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology with antibodies to four undisclosed targets, which were granted under the terms of a separate, now expired 2000 right‑to‑test agreement with Genentech. For each of these licenses the Company received a $1 million license fee and is entitled to receive up to a total of $38 million in milestone payments and also royalties on the sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$8 million; regulatory milestones—$20 million; and sales milestones—$10 million. The Company has not received any milestone payments from these agreements through June 30, 2016. Roche is responsible for the development, manufacturing, and marketing of any products resulting from these licenses. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive under any of these agreements will be a development milestone for filing of an IND application which will result in a $1 million payment being due. At the time of execution of each of these development and commercialization licenses, there was significant uncertainty as to whether this milestone would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing these products, this milestone was deemed substantive. The Company received non‑refundable technology access fees totaling $5 million for the eight‑year term of the right‑to‑test agreement. The upfront fees were deferred and recognized ratably over the period during which Genentech could elect to obtain product licenses. Amgen Under a now‑expired right‑to‑test agreement established in 2000, Amgen took three exclusive development and commercialization licenses, for which the Company received an exercise fee of $1 million for each license taken. In May 2013, Amgen took one non‑exclusive development and commercialization license, for which the Company received an exercise fee of $500,000. In October 2013, the non‑exclusive license was amended and converted to an exclusive license, for which Amgen paid an additional $500,000 fee to the Company. Amgen has sublicensed its rights under this license to Oxford BioTherapeutics Ltd. In December 2015, Amgen advised the Company that it had discontinued development of two product candidates, AMG 595 and AMG 172 that had been covered by two of Amgen’s four exclusive licenses, and in February 2016, Amgen terminated these two licenses. For each of the two remaining development and commercialization license taken, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $34 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones per license are categorized as follows: development milestones—$9 million; regulatory milestones—$20 million; and sales milestones—$5 million. Amgen (or its sublicensee(s)) is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from these development and commercialization licenses. Through June 30, 2016, the Company has received and recognized an aggregate of $3 million in milestone payments for compounds covered under this agreement now or in the past. In September 2015, Amgen’s IND application under the remaining license not sublicensed to Oxford BioTherapeutics became effective, triggering a $1 million milestone payment to the Company which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2016. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive under this license will be a development milestone for the first dosing of a patient in a Phase II clinical trial, which will result in a $3 million payment being due. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive under the May 2013 license will be a $1 million development milestone for an IND becoming effective. At the time of execution of each of these development and commercialization licenses, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive. Since a deliverable to the original right‑to‑test agreement was determined to be materially modified at the time the non‑exclusive license was converted to exclusive in October 2013, the Company accounted for the multiple‑element agreement in accordance with ACS 605‑25 (as amended by ASU No. 2009‑13). As a result, all of the deferred revenue recorded on the date of the modification and the new consideration received as part of the modification was allocated to all of the remaining deliverables at the time of amendment of the right‑to‑test agreement based on the estimated selling price of each element. The remaining amount represents consideration for previously delivered elements and was recognized upon the execution of the modification. The outstanding licenses, including the exclusive license delivered upon the signing of the amendment, contain the rights to future technological improvements as well as options to purchase materials and research and development services. The Company concluded that additional materials and research and development services would be paid at a contractual price equal to the estimated selling price based estimated prices that would be charged by third parties for similar services. The estimated selling price of the right to technological improvements is the Company’s best estimate of selling price and was determined by estimating the probability that technological improvements will be made and the probability that such technological improvements made will be used by Amgen. In estimating these probabilities, we considered factors such as the technology that is the subject of the development and commercialization licenses, our history of making technological improvements, and when such improvements, if any, were likely to occur relative to the stage of development of any product candidates pursuant to the development and commercialization licenses. The Company’s estimate of probability considered the likely period of time that any improvements would be utilized, which was estimated to be ten years following delivery of a commercialization and development license. The value of any technological improvements made available after this ten year period was considered to be de minimis due to the significant additional costs that would be incurred to incorporate such technology into any existing product candidates. The estimate of probability was multiplied by the estimated selling price of the development and commercialization licenses and the resulting cash flow was discounted at a rate of 13%, representing the Company’s estimate of its cost of capital at the time of amendment of the right‑to‑test agreement. The $430,000 determined to be the estimated selling price of the future technological improvements is being recognized as revenue ratably over the period the Company is obligated to make available any technological improvements, which is equivalent to the estimated term of the agreement. The Company estimates the term of a development and commercialization license to be approximately 25 years, which reflects management’s estimate of the time necessary to develop and commercialize products pursuant to the license plus the estimated royalty term. The Company reassesses the estimated term at the end of each reporting period. After accounting for the undelivered elements at the estimated selling price, the Company had $2.2 million of remaining allocable consideration which was determined to represent consideration for the previously delivered elements, including the exclusive license that was delivered upon the execution of the modification. This amount was recorded as revenue and is included in license and milestone fees for the year ended June 30, 2014. Costs directly attributable to the Amgen collaborative agreement are comprised of compensation and benefits related to employees who provided research and development services on behalf of Amgen as well as costs of clinical materials sold. Indirect costs are not identified to individual collaborators. The costs related to the research and development services amounted to approximately $15,000, $62,000 and $179,000 for fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The costs related to clinical materials sold were approximately $664,000 for fiscal year 2014. There were no similar costs recorded in fiscal years 2016 and 2015. Sanofi Collaboration Agreement In 2003, the Company entered into a broad collaboration agreement with Sanofi (formerly Aventis) to discover, develop and commercialize antibody‑based products. The collaboration agreement provides Sanofi with worldwide development and commercialization rights to new antibody‑based products directed to targets that are included in the collaboration, including the exclusive right to use the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology in the creation of products developed to these targets. The product candidates (targets) as of June 30, 2016 in the collaboration include isatuximab (CD38), SAR566658 (CA6), SAR408701 (CEACAM5) and one earlier‑stage program that has yet to be disclosed. The Company is entitled to receive milestone payments potentially totaling $21.5 million, per target, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$7.5 million; and regulatory milestones—$14 million. Through June 30, 2016, the Company has received and recognized an aggregate of $20.5 million in milestone payments for compounds covered under this agreement now or in the past, including a $3 million development milestone related to initiation of a Phase IIb clinical trial (as defined in the agreement) for isatuximab and a $1 million development milestone related to initiation of a Phase I clinical trial for SAR408701 which are included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2015. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive for each of SAR566658 and SAR408701 will be a development milestone for initiation of a Phase IIb clinical trial (as defined in the agreement), which will result in each case in a $3 million payment being due. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive with respect to isatuximab will be a development milestone for initiation of a Phase III clinical trial, which will result in a $3 million payment being due. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive for the unidentified target will be a development milestone for commencement of a Phase I clinical trial, which will result in a $1 million payment being due. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive. Right-to-Test Agreement Under a separate, now expired right-to-test agreement, in December 2013, Sanofi took one exclusive development and commercialization license. Under this license, the Company received an exercise fee of $2 million and was recognizing this amount as revenue ratably over the Company’s estimated period of its substantial involvement. The Company had previously estimated this development period would conclude at the end of non-pivotal Phase II testing. During fiscal 2015, the Company determined it would not be substantially involved in the development and commercialization of the product based on Sanofi’s current plans to develop and manufacture the product without the assistance of the Company. As a result of this determination, the Company recognized the balance of the upfront exercise fee during the first quarter of fiscal 2015. This change in estimate resulted in an increase to license and milestone fees of $1.5 million for the year ended June 30, 2015 compared to amounts that would have been recognized pursuant to the Company’s previous estimate. Under this license, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $30 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$10 million; and regulatory milestones—$20 million. In October 2015, Sanofi initiated Phase I, first-in-human clinical testing of its ADC product candidate, SAR428926 (LAMP1), triggering a $2 million development milestone payment to the Company which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2016. The next milestone payment the Company could receive would be a $4 million development milestone for commencement of a Phase IIb clinical trial (as defined in the agreement) under this license. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s expected involvement in the research and manufacturing of this product candidate, these milestones were deemed substantive. Sanofi is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from the agreement. Biotest In 2006, the Company granted Biotest an exclusive development and commercialization license to our maytansinoid ADC technology for use with antibodies that target CD138. The product candidate indatuximab ravtansine is in development under this agreement. Biotest is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from the agreement. The Company received a $1 million upfront payment upon execution of the agreement and could receive up to $35.5 million in milestone payments, as well as royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$4.5 million; and regulatory milestones—$31 million. The Company receives payments for manufacturing any preclinical and clinical materials made at the request of Biotest. In September 2008, Biotest began Phase I evaluation of indatuximab ravtansine which triggered a $500,000 milestone payment to the Company. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive will be a development milestone for commencement of a Phase IIb clinical trial (as defined in the agreement) which will result in a $2 million payment being due. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing of this product, these milestones were deemed substantive. The agreement also provided the Company with the right to elect at specific stages during the clinical evaluation of any compound created under this agreement, to participate in the U.S. development and commercialization of that compound in lieu of receiving the milestone payments not yet earned and royalties on sales in the U.S. Currently, the Company can exercise this right during an exercise period specified in the agreement by notice and payment to Biotest of an agreed upon opt‑in fee of $15 million. Upon exercise of this right, the Company would share equally with Biotest the associated further costs of product development and commercialization in the U.S. along with the profit, if any, from product sales in the U.S. The Company would also be entitled to receive royalties, on a reduced basis, on product sales outside the U.S. Costs directly attributable to the Biotest collaborative agreement are comprised of compensation and benefits related to employees who provided research and development services on behalf of Biotest as well as costs of clinical materials sold. Indirect costs are not identified to individual collaborators. The costs related to the research and development services amounted to approximately $160,000, $309,000 and $305,000 for fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The costs related to clinical materials sold were approximately $1.8 million, $3 million and $670,000 for fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Bayer In 2008, the Company granted Bayer an exclusive development and commercialization license to the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology for use with antibodies or other proteins that target mesothelin. Bayer HealthCare is responsible for the research, development, manufacturing and marketing of any products resulting from the license. The Company received a $4 million upfront payment upon execution of the agreement, and—for each compound developed and marketed by Bayer under this collaboration—the Company is entitled to receive a total of $170.5 million in milestone payments, plus tiered royalties between 4 - 7% on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$16 million; regulatory milestones—$44.5 million; and sales milestones—$110 million. Through June 30, 2016, the Company has received and recognized an aggregate of $13 million in milestone payments under this agreement. In January 2016, Bayer initiated a Phase II clinical study designed to support registration of its ADC product candidate, anetumab ravtansine, triggering a $10 million development milestone payment to the Company which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2016. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive will be either a development milestone for commencement of a pivotal clinical trial for a second indication for anetumab ravtansine which will result in a $2 million payment being due or a regulatory milestone for filing of regulatory approval for its first indication for anetumab ravtansine which will result in a $6 million payment being due. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and supply of cytotoxic agent for this product candidate, these milestones was deemed substantive. The Company had previously deferred the $4 million upfront payment received and was recognizing this amount as revenue ratably over the estimated period of substantial involvement. The Company had previously estimated this development period would conclude at the end of non‑pivotal Phase II testing. During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, Bayer initiated Phase I clinical testing of its product candidate. In reaching this stage of clinical testing, Bayer developed its own processes for manufacturing required clinical material and produced clinical material in its own manufacturing facility. Considering that Bayer was able to accomplish this without significant reliance on the Company, and considering that the Company’s expected future involvement would be primarily supplying Bayer with small quantities of cytotoxic agents for a limited period of time, the Company believed its period of substantial involvement would end prior to the completion of non‑pivotal Phase II testing. As a result of this determination, beginning in September 2011, the Company recognized the balance of the upfront payment as revenue ratably through September 2012. Novartis Novartis took six exclusive development and commercialization licenses under a now-expired right-to-test agreement established in 2010. The Company received a $45 million upfront payment in connection with the execution of the right‑to‑test agreement in 2010, and for each development and commercialization license taken for a specific target, the Company received an exercise fee of $1 million and is entitled to receive up to a total of $199.5 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$22.5 million; regulatory milestones—$77 million; and sales milestones—$100 million. The initial three-year term of the right-to-test agreement was extended by Novartis in October 2013 for an additional one-year period by payment of a $5 million fee to the Company. The Company also is entitled to receive payments for research and development activities performed on behalf of Novartis. Novartis is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from this agreement. In March 2013, the Company and Novartis amended the right‑to‑test agreement so that Novartis could take a license to develop and commercialize products directed at two undisclosed, related targets, one target licensed on an exclusive basis and the other target initially licensed on a non‑exclusive basis. The target licensed on a non‑exclusive basis may no longer be converted to an exclusive target due to the expiration of the right-to-test agreement. The Company received a $3.5 million fee in connection with the execution of the amendment to the agreement. The Company may be required to credit this fee against future milestone payments if Novartis discontinues the development of a specified product under certain circumstances. In connection with the amendment, in March 2013, Novartis took the license referenced above under the right‑to‑test agreement, as amended, enabling it to develop and commercialize products directed at the two targets. The Company received a $1 million upfront fee with the execution of this license. Additionally, the execution of this license provides the Company the opportunity to receive milestone payments totaling $199.5 million (development milestones—$22.5 million; regulatory milestones—$77 million; and sales milestones—$100 million) or $238 million (development milestones—$22.5 million; regulatory milestones—$115.5 million; and sales milestones—$100 million), depending on the composition of any resulting products. In October 2013 and November 2013, Novartis took its second and third exclusive licenses to single targets, and in October 2014, took three remaining exclusive licenses, each triggering a $1 million payment to the Company and the opportunity to receive milestone payments totaling $199.5 million, as outlined above, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. In January 2015 and May 2015, Novartis initiated Phase I, first-in-human clinical testing of its cKit-targeting ADC product candidate, LOP628, and P-cadherin-targeting ADC product candidate, PCA062, respectively, triggering a $5 million development milestone payment to the Company with each event, both of which are included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2015. The next payment the Company could receive would be either a $7.5 million development milestone for commencement of a Phase II clinical trial under these two licenses or a $5 million development milestone for commencement of a Phase I clinical trial under any of its other four licenses. At the time of execution of these agreements, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive. Additionally, the Company is entitled to receive royalties on product sales, if any. In accordance with ACS 605‑25 (as amended by ASU No. 2009‑13), the Company identified all of the deliverables at the inception of the right‑to‑test agreement and subsequently when amended. The significant deliverables were determined to be the right‑to‑test, or research, license, the development and commercialization licenses, rights to future technological improvements, and the research services. The options to obtain development and commercialization licenses in the right‑to‑test agreement were determined not to be substantive and, as a result, the exclusive development and commercialization licenses were considered deliverables at the inception of the right‑to‑test agreement. Factors that were considered in determining the options were not substantive included (i) the overall objective of the agreement was for Novartis to obtain development and commercialization licenses, (ii) the size of the exercise fee of $1 million for each development and commercialization license obtained is not significant relative to the $45 million upfront payment that was due at the inception of the right‑to‑test agreement, (iii) the limited economic benefit that Novartis could obtain from the right‑to‑test agreement unless it exercised its options to obtain development and commercialization licenses, and (iv) the lack of economic penalties as a result of exercising the options. The Company has determined that the research license together with the development and commercialization licenses represent one unit of accounting as the research license does not have stand‑alone value from the development and commercialization licenses due to the lack of transferability of the research license and the limited economic benefit Novartis would derive if they did not obtain any development and commercialization licenses. The Company has also determined that this unit of accounting does have stand‑alone value from the rights to future technological improvements and the research services. The rights to future technological improvements and the research services are considered separate units of accounting as each of these was determined to have stand‑alone value. The rights to future technological improvements have stand‑alone value as Novartis would be able to use those items for their intended purpose without the undelivered elements. The research services have stand‑alone value as similar services are sold separately by other vendors. The estimated selling prices for the development and commercialization licenses are the Company’s best estimate of selling price and were determined based on market conditions, similar arrangements entered into by third parties, including the Company’s understanding of pricing terms offered by its competitors for single-target development and commercialization licenses that utilize ADC technology, and entity-specific factors such as the pricing terms of the Company’s previous single‑target development and commercialization licenses, recent preclinical and clinical testing results of therapeutic products that use the Company’s ADC technology, and the Company’s pricing practices and pricing objectives. The estimated selling price of the right to technological improvements is the Company’s best estimate of selling price and was determined by estimating the probability that technological improvements will be made and the probability that such technological improvements made will be used by Novartis. In estimating these probabilities, we considered factors such as the technology that is the subject of the development and commercialization licenses, our history of making technological improvements, and when such improvements, if any, were likely to occur relative to the stage of development of any product candidates pursuant to the development and commercialization licenses. The Company’s estimate of probability considered the likely period of time that any improvements would be utilized, which was estimated to be ten years following delivery of a commercialization and development license. The value of any technological improvements made available after this ten year period was considered to be de minimis due to the significant additional costs that would be incurred to incorporate such technology into any existing product candidates. The estimate of probability was multiplied by the estimated selling price of the development and commercialization licenses and the resulting cash flow was discounted at a rate of 16%, representing the Company’s estimate of its cost of capital at the time. The estimated selling price of the research services was based on third‑party evidence given the nature of the research services to be performed for Novartis and market rates for similar services. Upon payment of the extension fee in October 2013, the total arrangement consideration of $60.2 million (which comprises the $45 million upfront payment, the amendment fee of $3.5 million, the $5 million extension fee, the exercise fee for each license, and the expected fees for the research services to be provided under the remainder of the arrangement) was reallocated to the deliverables based on the relative selling price method as follows: $55 million to the delivered and undelivered development and commercialization licenses; $4.5 million to the rights to future technological improvements; and $710,000 to the research services. The Company recorded $25.7 million of the $55 million of the arrangement consideration outlined above for the three development and commercialization licenses taken in October 2014, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2015, $17.2 million for the two development and commercialization licenses taken by Novartis in October 2013 and November 2013, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2014, and $11.1 million for the development and commercialization licenses taken in March 2013. The Company also recorded a cumulative catch‑up of $1 million for the license delivered in March 2013 and the delivered portion of the license covering future technological improvements, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2014. Since execution of the first development and commercialization license taken in March 2013, the amount of the total arrangement consideration allocated to future technological improvements is being recognized as revenue ratably over the period the Company is obligated to make available any technological improvements, which is equivalent to the estimated term of the agreement. The Company estimates the term of a development and commercialization license to be approximately 25 years, which reflects management’s estimate of the time necessary to develop and commercialize products pursuant to the license plus the estimated royalty term. The Company reassesses the estimated term at the end of each reporting period. The Company will recognize research services revenue as the related services are delivered. Costs directly attributable to the Novartis collaborative agreement are comprised of compensation and benefits related to employees who provided research and development services on behalf of Novartis as well as costs of clinical materials sold. Indirect costs are not identified to individual collaborators. The costs related to the research and development services amounted to $67,000, $141,000 and $1.4 million for fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The costs related to clinical materials sold were approximately $644,000 and $1.3 million for fiscal years 2015 and 2014, respectively. There were no similar costs recorded in fiscal year 2016. Lilly Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) took three exclusive development and commercialization licenses under a now-expired right-to-test agreement established in 2011. The Company received a $20 million upfront payment in connection with the execution of the right‑to‑test agreement in 2011. Under the terms of this right-to-test agreement, the first license had no associated exercise fee, and the second and third licenses each had a $2 million exercise fee. The first development and commercialization license was taken in August 2013 and the agreement was amended in December 2013 to provide Lilly with an extension provision and retrospectively include a $2 million exercise fee for the first license in lieu of the fee due for either the second or third license. The second and third licenses were taken in December 2014, with one including the $2 million exercise fee and the other not. Under the two licenses with the $2 million exercise fee, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $199 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. Under the license taken in December 2014 without the exercise fee, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $200.5 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$29 million for the two development and commercialization licenses with the $2 million exercise fee, and $30.5 million for the one development and commercialization license with no exercise fee; regulatory milestones—$70 million in all cases; and sales milestones—$100 million in all cases. In September 2015, Lilly began Phase I evaluation of one of its licensed ADC products which triggered a $5 million milestone payment to the Company which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016. The next payment the Company could receive would be either a $9 million development milestone for commencement of a Phase II clinical trial under this license or a $5 million development milestone payment with the initiation of a Phase I clinical trial under either of its other two development and commercialization licenses taken. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s expected involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive. The Company also is entitled to receive payments for delivery of cytotoxic agents to Lilly and research and development activities performed on behalf of Lilly. Lilly is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from this collaboration. In accordance with ASC 605‑25 (as amended by ASU No. 2009‑13), the Company identified all of the deliverables at the inception of the right‑ to‑test agreement. The significant deliverables were determined to be the right‑to‑test, or research, license, the exclusive development and commercialization licenses, rights to future technological improvements, delivery of cytotoxic agents and the research services. The options to obtain development and commercialization licenses in the right‑to‑test agreement were determined not to be substantive and, as a result, the exclusive development and commercialization licenses were considered deliverables at the inception of the right‑to‑test agreement. Factors that were considered in determining the options were not substantive included (i) the overall objective of the agreement was for Lilly to obtain development and commercialization licenses, (ii) the size of the exercise fees of $2 million for each development and commercialization license taken beyond the first license is not significant relative to the $20 million upfront payment that was due at the inception of the right‑to‑test agreement, (iii) the limited economic benefit that Lilly could obtain from the right‑to‑test agreement unless it exercised its options to obtain development and commercialization licenses, and (iv) the lack of economic penalties as a result of exercising the options. The Company has determined that the research license together with the development and commercialization licenses represent one unit of accounting as the research license does not have stand‑alone value from the development and commercialization licenses due to the lack of transferability of the research license and the limited economic benefit Lilly would derive if they did not obtain any development and commercialization licenses. The Company has also determined that this unit of accounting has stand‑alone value from the rights to future technological improvements, the delivery of cytotoxic agents and the research services. The rights to future technological improvements, delivery of cytotoxic agents and the research services are considered separate units of accounting as each of these was determined to have stand‑alone value. The rights to future technological improvements have stand‑alone value as Lilly would be able to use those items for their intended purpose without the undelivered elements. The research services and cytotoxic agents have stand‑alone value as similar services and products are sold separately by other vendors. The estimated selling prices for the development and commercialization licenses are the Company’s best estimate of selling price and were determined based on market conditions, similar arrangements entered into by third parties, including pricing terms offered by our competitors for single-target development and commercialization licenses that utilize antibody-drug conjugate technology, and entity-specific factors such as the pricing terms of the Company’s previous single-target development and commercialization licenses, recent preclinical and clinical testing results of therapeutic products that use the Company’s ADC technology, and the Company’s pricing practices and pricing objectives. The estimated selling price of the rights to technological improvements is the Company’s best estimate of selling price and was determined by estimating the probability that technological improvements will be made, and the probability that technological improvements made will be used by Lilly. In estimating these probabilities, we considered factors such as the technology that is the subject of the development and commercialization licenses, our history of making technological improvements, and when such improvements, if any, were likely to occur relative to the stage of development of any product candidates pursuant to the development and commercialization licenses. The company’s estimate of probability considered the likely period of time that any improvements would be utilized, which was estimated to be ten years following delivery of a commercialization and development license. The value of any technological improvements made available after this ten year period was considered to be de minimis due to the significant additional costs that would be incurred to incorporate such technology into any existing product candidates. The estimate of probability was multiplied by the estimated selling price of the development and commercialization licenses and the resulting cash flow was discounted at a rate of 16%, representing the Company’s estimate of its cost of capital at the time. The estimated selling price of the cytotoxic agent was based on third-party evidence given market rates for the manufacture of such cytotoxic agents. The estimated selling price of the research services was based on third‑party evidence given the nature of the research services to be performed for Lilly and market rates for similar services. The total arrangement consideration of $28.2 million (which comprises the $20 million upfront payment, the exercise fee, if any, for each license, the expected fees for the research services to be provided and the cytotoxic agent to be delivered under the arrangement) was allocated to the deliverables based on the relative selling price method as follows: $23.5 million to the development and commercialization licenses; $0.6 million to the rights to future technological improvements, $0.8 million to the sale of cytotoxic agent; and $3.3 million to the research services. Upon execution of the development and commercialization license taken by Lilly in August 2013, the Company recorded $7.8 million of the $23.5 million of the arrangement consideration outlined above, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2014. With this first development and commercialization license taken, the amount of the total arrangement consideration allocated to future technological improvements will commence to be recognized as revenue ratably over the period the Company is obligated to make available any technological improvements, which is the equivalent to the estimated term of the license. The Company estimates the term of a development and commercialization license to be approximately 25 years, which reflects management’s estimate of the time necessary to develop and commercialize therapeutic products pursuant to the license plus the estimated royalty term. The Company will reassess the estimated term at each subsequent reporting period. Upon execution of two development and commercialization licenses taken by Lilly in December 2014, the Company recognized as license revenue the remaining $15.6 million of arrangement consideration allocated to the development and commercialization licenses, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2015. The Company will recognize research services revenue and revenue from the delivery of cytotoxic agents as the related services and cytotoxic agents are delivered. Costs directly attributable to the Lilly collaborative agreement are comprised of compensation and benefits related to employees who provided research and development services on behalf of Lilly as well as costs of clinical materials sold. Indirect costs are not identified to individual collaborators. The costs related to the research and development services amounted to approximately $182,000, $499,000 and $1.2 million for fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014 respectively. The costs related to clinical materials sold were approximately $1.1 million, $1.1 million and $26,000 for fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. CytomX In January 2014, the Company entered into a reciprocal right-to-test agreement with CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CytomX). The agreement provides CytomX and the Company with the right to test the Company's ADC technology with CytomX masked antibodies, which it calls Probodies™, to create product candidates for a specified number of targets. Each company has defined rights to test the other company’s technology with its technology under a right-to-test, or research, license, and to subsequently take an exclusive, worldwide license to use the other company’s technology with its technology to develop and commercialize products for the specified targets on terms agreed upon at the inception of the right-to-test agreement. The Company received no upfront cash payment in connection with the execution of the right-to-test agreement. The terms of the right-to-test agreement require the Company and CytomX to each take its respective development and commercialization licenses by the end of the term of the research licenses. In addition, both the Company and CytomX are required to perform specific research activities under the right-to-test agreement on behalf of the other party for no monetary consideration. In February 2016, CytomX took its development and commercialization license for a specified target. An amendment of the agreement executed simultaneously with that license granted CytomX the right, for a specified period of time, to substitute the specified target with another as yet unspecified target. Accordingly, the revenue associated with this license is being deferred until the expiration of that substitution right. With respect to the development and commercialization license taken by CytomX, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $160 million in milestone payments plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting product. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$10 million; regulatory milestones—$50 million; and sales milestones—$100 million. Assuming no annual maintenance fee is payable as described below, the next payment the Company could receive would be a $1 million development milestone payment with commencement of a Phase I clinical trial. At the time of execution of the right‑to‑test agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether the milestone related to the Phase I clinical trial would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s expected involvement in the research and manufacturing of any product candidate, this milestone was deemed substantive. CytomX is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any PDC resulting from the development and commercialization license taken by CytomX under this collaboration. With respect to any development and commercialization license that may be taken by the Company, the Company will potentially be required to pay up to a total of $80 million in milestone payments per license, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting product. The total milestones per license are categorized as follows: development milestones—$7 million; regulatory milestones—$23 million; and sales milestones—$50 million. Assuming no annual maintenance fee is payable as described below, the next payment the Company could be required to make is a $1 million development milestone payment with commencement of a Phase I clinical trial. The Company is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any PDC resulting from any development and commercialization license taken by the Company under this collaboration. In addition, each party may be liable to pay annual maintenance fees to the other party if the licensed PDC product candidate covered under each development and commercialization license has not progressed to a specified stage of development within a specified time frame. The arrangement was accounted for based on the fair value of the items exchanged. The items to be delivered to CytomX under the arrangement are accounted for under the Company’s revenue recognition policy. The items to be received from CytomX are recorded as research and development expenses as incurred. In accordance with ASC 605‑25 (as amended by ASU No. 2009‑13), the Company identified all of the deliverables at the inception of the right‑ to‑test agreement. The significant deliverables were determined to be the right‑to‑test, or research, license, the exclusive development and commercialization license, rights to future technological improvements, and the research services. The research license in the right‑to‑test agreement was determined not to be substantive and, as a result, the exclusive development and commercialization license was considered a deliverable at the inception of the right‑to‑test agreement. Factors that were considered in determining the research license was not substantive included (i) the overall objective of the agreement is for CytomX to obtain a development and commercialization license, (ii) there are no exercise fees payable upon taking the development and commercialization license, (iii) the limited economic benefit that CytomX could obtain from the right‑to‑test agreement unless CytomX was able to take the development and commercialization license, and (iv) the lack of economic penalties as a result of taking the license. The Company has determined that the research license from the Company to CytomX together with the development and commercialization license from the Company to CytomX represent one unit of accounting as the research license does not have stand‑alone value from the development and commercialization license due to the lack of transferability of the research license and the limited economic benefit CytomX would derive if they did not obtain any development and commercialization license. The Company has also determined that this unit of accounting has stand‑alone value from the rights to future technological improvements and the research services. The rights to future technological improvements and the research services are considered separate units of accounting as each of these was determined to have stand‑alone value. The rights to future technological improvements have stand‑alone value as CytomX would be able to use those items for their intended purpose without the undelivered elements. The research services have stand‑alone value as similar services are sold separately by other vendors. The estimated selling price for the development and commercialization license is the Company’s best estimate of selling price and was determined based on market conditions, similar arrangements entered into by third parties, including pricing terms offered by the Company’s competitors for single‑target development and commercialization licenses that utilize antibody‑drug conjugate technology, and entity‑specific factors such as the pricing terms of the Company’s previous single‑target development and commercialization licenses, recent preclinical and clinical testing results of therapeutic products that use the Company’s ADC technology, and the Company’s pricing practices and pricing objectives. In order to determine the best estimate of selling price, the Company determined the overall value of a license by calculating a risk‑ adjusted net present value of a recent, comparable transaction the Company entered into with another collaborator. This overall value was then decreased by risk‑adjusting the net present value of the contingent consideration (the milestones and royalties) payable by CytomX under the development and commercialization license. This amount represents the value that a third party would be willing to pay as an upfront payment for this license to the Company’s technology. The estimated selling price of the rights to technological improvements is the Company’s best estimate of selling price and was determined by estimating the probability that technological improvements will be made, and the probability that technological improvements made will be used by CytomX. In estimating these probabilities, the Company considered factors such as the technology that is the subject of the development and commercialization license, the Company’s history of making technological improvements, and when such improvements, if any, were likely to occur relative to the stage of development of the product candidate pursuant to the development and commercialization license. The Company’s estimate of probability considered the likely period of time that any improvements would be utilized, which was estimated to be ten years following delivery of the commercialization and development license. The value of any technological improvements made available after this ten year period was considered to be de minimis due to the significant additional costs that would be incurred to incorporate such technology into any existing product candidate. The estimate of probability was multiplied by the estimated selling price of the development and commercialization license and the resulting cash flow was discounted at a rate of 13%, representing the Company’s estimate of its cost of capital at the time. The estimated selling price of the research services was based on third‑party evidence given the nature of the research services to be performed for CytomX and market rates for similar services. The total allocable consideration of $13.1 million (which comprises the $13.0 million that a third party would be willing to pay as an upfront payment for this license to the Company’s technology plus $140,000 for the fair value of fees for the research services to be provided) was allocated to the deliverables based on the relative selling price method as follows: $12.7 million to the development and commercialization license; $350,000 to the rights to future technological improvements and $140,000 to the research services. The Company will recognize as license revenue the amount of the total allocable consideration allocated to the development and commercialization license when the substitution right under the license expires, as discussed previously above. At that time, the amount of the total allocable consideration allocated to future technological improvements will commence to be recognized as revenue ratably over the period the Company is obligated to make available any technological improvements, which is the equivalent to the estimated term of the license. The Company estimates the term of a development and commercialization license to be approximately 25 years, which reflects management’s estimate of the time necessary to develop and commercialize therapeutic products pursuant to the license plus the estimated royalty term. The Company will be required to reassess the estimated term at each subsequent reporting period. No license fee revenue has been recognized related to this agreement through June 30, 2016 as the research license was not considered to be substantive and a non-substitutable development and commercialization license had not been delivered at this time. The period for CytomX to exercise its substitution right expires in January 2017. Accordingly, the $12.7 million allocated to the development and commercialization license is included in short-term deferred revenue as of June 30, 2016. The Company will recognize research services revenue as the related services are delivered. The $13.1 million of total allocable consideration to be accounted for as revenue described above is also the amount that was used to account for the expense of the licenses and research services the Company received or will receive from CytomX. Based on an estimate of the research services that CytomX will be providing to the Company for no monetary consideration, $310,000 was allocated to such services and will be expensed over the period the services are provided. The balance of $12.8 million pertains to technology rights received and these amounts have been charged to research and development expense during the year ended June 30, 2014 upon execution of the research agreement. Costs directly attributable to the CytomX collaborative agreement are comprised of compensation and benefits related to employees who provided research and development services on behalf of CytomX. Indirect costs are not identified to individual collaborators. The costs related to the research and development services amounted to approximately $868,000 and $130,000 for fiscal years 2016 and 2015, respectively. There were no similar costs recorded in fiscal year 2014. Takeda In March 2015, the Company entered into a right-to-test agreement with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Takeda) through its wholly owned subsidiary, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The agreement provides Takeda with the right to (a) take exclusive options, with certain restrictions, to individual targets selected by Takeda for specified option periods, (b) test the Company’s ADC technology with Takeda’s antibodies directed to the targets optioned under a right-to-test, or research, license, and (c) take exclusive licenses to use the Company’s ADC technology to develop and commercialize products to targets optioned for up to two individual targets on terms specified in the right-to-test agreement. Takeda must exercise its options for the development and commercialization licenses by the end of the three-year term of the right-to-test agreement, after which any then outstanding options will lapse. Takeda has the right to extend the three-year right-to-test period for one additional year by payment to the Company of $4 million. Alternatively, Takeda has the right to expand the scope of the right-to-test agreement by payment to the Company of $8 million. If Takeda opts to expand the scope of the right-to-test agreement, it will be entitled to take additional exclusive options, one of which may be exercised for an additional development and commercialization license, and the right-to test period will be extended until the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the right-to-test agreement. Takeda is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from this collaboration. The Company received a $20 million upfront payment in connection with the execution of the right-to-test agreement and, for each development and commercialization license taken, is entitled to receive up to a total of $210 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$30 million; regulatory milestones—$85 million; and sales milestones—$95 million. The first potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive will be a $5 million development milestone payment with the initiation of a Phase I clinical trial under the first development and commercialization license taken. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether the milestone related to initiation of a Phase I clinical trial under the first development and commercialization license would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s expected involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, this milestone was deemed substantive. The Company also is entitled to receive payments for delivery of cytotoxic agents to Takeda and research and development activities performed on behalf of Takeda. In accordance with ASC 605-25 (as amended by ASU No. 2009-13), the Company identified all of the deliverables at the inception of the right-to-test agreement. The significant deliverables were determined to be the right-to-test, or research, license, the two exclusive development and commercialization licenses, rights to future technological improvements, the development and commercialization license contained in the option to expand the agreement and the research services. The options to obtain two development and commercialization licenses in the right-to-test agreement were determined not to be substantive and, as a result, the exclusive development and commercialization licenses were considered deliverables at the inception of the right-to-test agreement. Factors that were considered in determining the options were not substantive included (i) the overall objective of the agreement was for Takeda to obtain development and commercialization licenses, (ii) no additional consideration required for each development and commercialization license taken beyond the $20 million upfront payment that was due at the inception of the right-to-test agreement, (iii) the limited economic benefit that Takeda could obtain from the right-to-test agreement unless it exercised its options to obtain development and commercialization licenses, and (iv) the lack of economic penalties as a result of exercising the options. The option to expand the scope of the right-to-test agreement and obtain, among other deliverables, a third development and commercialization license was not determined to be substantive and, as a result, the third development and commercialization license was considered a deliverable at the inception of the right-to-test agreement. Factors that were considered in determining this option was not substantive included (i) the overall objective of the agreement was for Takeda to obtain development and commercialization licenses and (ii) the relative size of the $8 million option payment in exchange for this third development and commercialization license and two year extension of the right-to-test period when compared to the $20 million upfront payment in exchange for, among other deliverables, two development and commercialization licenses and the separate ability to extend the right-to-test period for one year in exchange for a $4 million payment. The Company has determined that the research license together with the development and commercialization licenses represent one unit of accounting as the research license does not have stand-alone value from the development and commercialization licenses due to the lack of transferability of the research license and the limited economic benefit Takeda would derive if they did not obtain any development and commercialization licenses. The Company has also determined that this unit of accounting has stand-alone value from the rights to future technological improvements, the license contained in the option to expand the agreement and the research services. The license contained in the option to expand the agreement has stand-alone value as it would result in an additional license with which Takeda would derive economic benefit. The rights to future technological improvements have stand-alone value as Takeda would be able to use those items for their intended purpose without the undelivered elements. The research services have stand-alone value as similar services are sold separately by other vendors. The estimated selling prices for the development and commercialization licenses are the Company’s best estimate of selling price and were determined based on market conditions, similar arrangements entered into by third parties, including pricing terms offered by our competitors for single-target development and commercialization licenses that utilize antibody-drug conjugate technology, and entity-specific factors such as the pricing terms of the Company’s previous single-target development and commercialization licenses, recent preclinical and clinical testing results of therapeutic products that use the Company’s ADC technology, and the Company’s pricing practices and pricing objectives. The estimated selling price of the rights to technological improvements is the Company’s best estimate of selling price and was determined by estimating the probability that technological improvements will be made, and the probability that technological improvements made will be used by Takeda. In estimating these probabilities, the Company considered factors such as the technology that is the subject of the development and commercialization licenses, our history of making technological improvements, and when such improvements, if any, were likely to occur relative to the stage of development of any product candidates pursuant to the development and commercialization licenses. The Company’s estimate of probability considered the likely period of time that any improvements would be utilized, which was estimated to be ten years following delivery of a commercialization and development license. The value of any technological improvements made available after this ten year period was considered to be de minimis due to the significant additional costs that would be incurred to incorporate such technology into any existing product candidates. The estimate of probability was multiplied by the estimated selling price of the development and commercialization licenses and the resulting cash flow was discounted at a rate of 13%, representing the Company’s estimate of its cost of capital at the time. The estimated selling price of the research services was based on third-party evidence given the nature of the research services to be performed for Takeda and market rates for similar services. The total arrangement consideration of $31.4 million (which comprises the $20 million upfront payment, the $8 million payment to expand the agreement and the expected fees for the research services to be provided) was allocated to the deliverables based on the relative selling price method as follows: $25.9 million to the three development and commercialization licenses; $2.1 million to the rights to future technological improvements; and $3.4 million to the research services. The first license was taken by Takeda in December 2015, and as a result, the Company recognized $8.6 million of the $25.9 million of arrangement consideration allocated to the development and commercialization licenses, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the year ended June 30, 2016. With this first development and commercialization license taken, the amount of the total arrangement consideration allocated to future technological improvements will commence to be recognized as revenue ratably over the period the Company is obligated to make available any technological improvements, which is the equivalent to the estimated term of the license. The Company estimates the term of a development and commercialization license to be approximately 25 years, which reflects management’s estimate of the time necessary to develop and commercialize therapeutic products pursuant to the license plus the estimated royalty term. The Company will reassess the estimated term at each subsequent reporting period. The Company will recognize as license revenue an equal amount of the total remaining $17.3 million of arrangement consideration allocated to the development and commercialization licenses as each individual license is delivered to Takeda upon Takeda’s exercise of its remaining options to such licenses. The Company does not control when Takeda will exercise its options for development and commercialization licenses. As a result, the Company cannot predict when it will recognize the related license revenue except that it will be within the term of the research license. The Company will recognize research services revenue as the related services are delivered. Costs directly attributable to the Takeda collaborative agreement are comprised of compensation and benefits related to employees who provided research and development services on behalf of Takeda. Indirect costs are not identified to individual collaborators. The costs related to the research and development services amounted to approximately $469,000 and $113,000 for fiscal years 2016 and 2015, respectively. There were no similar costs recorded in fiscal year 2014. Other Collaborative Agreements In December 2004, the Company entered into a development and license agreement with a predecessor to Janssen Biotech (formerly known as Centocor), a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Under the terms of this agreement, Janssen was granted exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize anticancer therapeutics that consist of the Company’s maytansinoid cell‑ killing agent attached to an αv integrin‑targeting antibody that was developed by Janssen. Per notice to the Company, effective July 2014, Janssen relinquished its rights to the target. Accordingly, the Company recognized the remaining $241,000 of the $1 million upfront fee received from Janssen upon execution of the 2004 license agreement and is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.

Property and Equipment

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Property and Equipment

Property and Equipment

D. Property and Equipment

Property and equipment consisted of the following at June 30, 2016 and 2015 (in thousands):


	June 30,
	2016		2015
Leasehold improvements	$	34,743	$	32,355
Machinery and equipment		24,324		18,398
Computer hardware and software		8,277		6,897
Furniture and fixtures		3,636		3,290
Assets under construction		2,327		2,361
	$	73,307	$	63,301
Less accumulated depreciation		(50,603)		(47,047)
Property and equipment, net	$	22,704	$	16,254

Depreciation expense was approximately $5.3 million, $5.5 million and $4.6 million for each of the years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Included in the table above, the Company’s investment in equipment under capital leases was $876,000, net of accumulated amortization of $414,000, at June 30, 2016 and $724,000, net of accumulated amortization of $190,000, at June 30, 2015.

Convertible 4.5% Senior Notes	12 Months Ended
Convertible 4.5% Senior Notes	Jun. 30, 2016
Convertible 4.5% Senior Notes
Convertible 4.5% Senior Notes	E. Convertible 4.5% Senior Notes In June 2016, the Company issued Convertible 4.5% Senior Notes with an aggregate principal amount of $100 million. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $96.6 million from the sale of the Convertible Notes, after deducting fees and expenses of approximately $3.4 million. The Convertible Notes are governed by the terms of an indenture between the Company, as issuer, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as the trustee. The Convertible Notes are senior unsecured obligations and bear interest at a rate of 4.5% per year, payable semi-annually in arrears on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing on January 1, 2017. The Company recorded approximately $138,000 of interest expense for the year ended June 30, 2016 which is included in other (expense) income, net in the consolidated statements of operations. The Convertible Notes will mature on July 1, 2021, unless earlier repurchased or converted. Holders may convert their notes at their option at any time prior to the close of business on the business day immediately preceding the stated maturity date. Upon conversion, the Company will deliver for each $1,000 principal amount of converted notes a number of shares equally to the conversion rate, which will initially be 238.7775 shares of common stock, equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $4.19. The conversion rate will be subject to adjustment in some circumstances, but will not be adjusted for any accrued and unpaid interest. In addition, if a “make-whole fundamental change” (as defined in the offering memorandum) occurs prior to the stated maturity date, the Company will increase the conversion rate for a holder who elects to convert its notes in connection with such make-whole fundamental change in certain circumstances. If the Company undergoes a fundamental change, subject to certain conditions, holders may require the Company to repurchase for cash all or part of their notes at a purchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change purchase date. In addition, upon an event of default, the holders may require the Company to repurchase for cash all of their notes at a purchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest. Upon bankruptcy, this becomes an automatic repurchase obligation. Also, if the Company fails to comply with certain reporting requirements as described in the indenture it will constitute an event of default, however the Company may elect to pay additional interest at an annual rate equal to 0.5% of the principal amount for the 90 days following such event as a remedy for the default. Subsequent to the 90 days, if still in default, the principal amount of the notes and accrued interest may become immediately due and payable. If a “restricted event” occurs as described in the indenture that causes the notes not to become freely tradable by holders other than our affiliates after the first anniversary of the original issuance date of the notes, the Company would also become obligated to pay additional interest at an annual rate equal to 0.5% of the principal amount. The combined additional interest rate under these two circumstances, however, cannot exceed 0.5%. The Company analyzed the terms of the Convertible Notes and determined that under current accounting guidance the notes would be entirely accounted for as debt and none of the terms of the notes require separate accounting. As part of the issuance of the Convertible Notes, the Company incurred $3.4 million of transaction costs, which are capitalized in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as deferred financing costs and will be amortized to interest expense ratably over the term of the Convertible Notes.

Liability Related to Sale of Future Royalties

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

F. Liability Related to Sale of Future Royalties

In April 2015, IRH purchased the right to receive 100% of the royalty payments on commercial sales of Kadcyla arising under the Company’s development and commercialization license with Genentech, until IRH has received aggregate royalties equal to $235 million or $260 million, depending on when the aggregate royalties received by IRH reach a specified milestone. Once the applicable threshold is met, if ever, the Company will thereafter receive 85% and IRH will receive 15% of the Kadcyla royalties for the remaining royalty term. At consummation of the transaction in April 2015, the Company received cash proceeds of $200 million. As part of this sale, the Company incurred $5.9 million of transaction costs, which are capitalized in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as deferred financing costs and will be amortized to interest expense over the estimated life of the royalty purchase agreement. Although the Company sold its rights to receive royalties from the sales of Kadcyla, as a result of its ongoing involvement in the cash flows related to these royalties, the Company will continue to account for these royalties as revenue and recorded the $200 million in proceeds from this transaction as a liability related to sale of future royalties (Royalty Obligation) that will be amortized using the interest method over the estimated life of the royalty purchase agreement.

The following table shows the activity within the liability account during the year ended June 30, 2016 (in thousands):


		Year	Period from
		ended	inception to
		June 30,	June 30,
		2016	2016
Liability related to sale of future royalties — beginning balance	$	199,662	$	—
Proceeds from sale of future royalties		—		200,000
Non-cash Kadcyla royalty revenue		(25,299)		(30,783)
Non-cash interest expense recognized		19,009		24,155
Liability related to sale of future royalties — ending balance	$	193,372	$	193,372

As royalties are remitted to IRH, the balance of the Royalty Obligation will be effectively repaid over the life of the agreement. In order to determine the amortization of the Royalty Obligation, the Company is required to estimate the total amount of future royalty payments to be received and remitted to IRH as noted above over the life of the agreement. The sum of these amounts less the $200 million proceeds the Company received will be recorded as interest expense over the life of the Royalty Obligation. Since inception, the Company’s estimate of this total interest expense resulted in an effective annual interest rate of approximately 9.6%. The Company periodically assesses the estimated royalty payments to IRH and to the extent such payments are greater or less than its initial estimates, or the timing of such payments is materially different than its original estimates, the Company will prospectively adjust the amortization of the Royalty Obligation. There are a number of factors that could materially affect the amount and timing of royalty payments from Genentech, most of which are not within the Company’s control. Such factors include, but are not limited to, changing standards of care, the introduction of competing products, manufacturing or other delays, biosimilar competition, patent protection, adverse events that result in governmental health authority imposed restrictions on the use of the drug products, significant changes in foreign exchange rates as the royalties remitted to IRH are made in U.S. dollars (USD) while significant portions of the underlying sales of Kadcyla are made in currencies other than USD, and other events or circumstances that could result in reduced royalty payments from Kadcyla, all of which would result in a reduction of non-cash royalty revenues and the non-cash interest expense over the life of the Royalty Obligation. Conversely, if sales of Kadcyla are more than expected, the non-cash royalty revenues and the non-cash interest expense recorded by the Company would be greater over the term of the Royalty Obligation.

In addition, the royalty purchase agreement grants IRH the right to receive certain reports and other information relating to the royalties and contains other representations and warranties, covenants and indemnification obligations that are customary for a transaction of this nature.

Income Taxes

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Income Taxes

Income Taxes

G. Income Taxes

The difference between the Company’s expected tax benefit, as computed by applying the U.S. federal corporate tax rate of 34% to loss before the benefit for income taxes, and actual tax is reconciled in the following chart (in thousands):


	Year Ended June 30,
	2016		2015		2014
Loss before income tax expense	$	(144,817)	$	(60,739)	$	(71,364)
Expected tax benefit at 34%	$	(49,238)	$	(20,651)	$	(24,264)
Permanent differences		345		818		215
Incentive stock options		2,501		1,948		1,738
State tax benefit net of federal benefit		(7,954)		(3,252)		(4,062)
Increase in valuation allowance, net		62,505		27,940		26,011
Federal research credit		(4,109)		(1,407)		(1,002)
Federal orphan drug credit		(4,241)		(5,471)		—
Expired loss and credit carryforwards		184		75		1,364
Other		7		—		—
Benefit for income taxes	$	—	$	—	$	—

At June 30, 2016, the Company has net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards of approximately $377.9 million available to reduce federal taxable income, if any, that expire in 2028 through 2036 and $214.0 million available to reduce state taxable income, if any, that expire in fiscal 2033 through fiscal 2036. Included in the federal and state carryforwards is $27.0 million and $20.5 million, respectively, related to deductions from the exercise of stock options and the related tax benefit which will result in an increase in additional paid‑in capital if and when realized through a reduction of taxes paid in cash. The Company also has federal and state credit carryforwards of approximately $40.4 million available to offset federal and state income taxes, which expire beginning in 2017. Due to the degree of uncertainty related to the ultimate use of the loss carryforwards and tax credits, the Company has established a valuation allowance to fully reserve these tax benefits.

Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects 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 and liabilities as of June 30, 2016 and 2015 are as follows (in thousands):