ogxi-10q_20160930.htm

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

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

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

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

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

	September 30,			December 31,
	2016			2015
	(Unaudited)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents [note 4]	$	11,800		$	34,310
Short-term investments [note 4]		20,655			20,876
Interest receivable		36			111
Prepaid expenses		1,647			1,987
Other current assets		158			14
Total current assets		34,296			57,298
Restricted cash [note 4 and note 7]		272			272
Property and equipment, net		493			602
Other assets		13			37
Total assets	$	35,074		$	58,209
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	1,043		$	1,343
Accrued liabilities other		602			641
Accrued clinical liabilities		7,114			9,966
Accrued compensation		1,422			1,267
Current portion of long-term obligations [note 7]		57			52
Lease termination liability [note 7]		—			1,250
Deferred collaboration revenue [note 3]		—			5,040
Warrant liability [note 4 and note 5]		350			1,105
Total current liabilities		10,588			20,664
Long-term obligations, less current portion [note 7]		67			105
Total liabilities		10,655			20,769
Commitments and contingencies [note 7]
Stockholders' equity:
Common stock, $0.001 par value, 75,000,000 shares authorized, 30,054,287 and 29,846,991 issued at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and 30,020,294 and 29,812,998 outstanding at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively		30			29
Additional paid-in capital		212,843			211,590
Accumulated deficit		(191,097	)		(176,811	)
Accumulated other comprehensive income		2,643			2,632
Total stockholders' equity		24,419			37,440
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity		35,074			58,209
Subsequent events [note 8]

	Three Months Ended						Nine Months Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2016			2015			2016			2015
COLLABORATION REVENUE (note 3)	$	—		$	6,737		$	5,062		$	12,136
EXPENSES
Research and development		3,782			8,303			13,086			18,520
General and administrative		1,864			3,125			6,638			8,890
Restructuring costs (recovery) [note 7]		(31	)		—			392			—
Recovery of lease termination loss [note 7]		(1,250	)		—			(1,250	)		—
Litigation settlement [note 3 and note 7]		—			—			1,375			—
Total operating expenses		4,365			11,428			20,241			27,410
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
Interest income		53			24			162			91
Other		1			(14	)		(24	)		(60	)
Gain (loss) on warrants		621			131			755			166
Total other income (expense)		675			141			893			197
Net loss	$	(3,690	)	$	(4,550	)	$	(14,286	)	$	(15,077	)
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Net unrealized gain (loss) on securities		(7	)		5			11			20
Total other comprehensive income		(7	)		5			11			20
Comprehensive loss	$	(3,697	)	$	(4,545	)	$	(14,275	)	$	(15,057	)
Basic and diluted net loss per common share	$	(0.12	)	$	(0.16	)	$	(0.48	)	$	(0.60	)
Shares used in computation of basic and diluted net loss per common share		30,013,928			28,538,918			29,925,219			24,914,844

	Nine Months Ended
	September 30,
	2016			2015
Operating Activities:
Net loss	$	(14,286	)	$	(15,077	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Gain on warrants [note 4 and note 5 [f]]		(755	)		(166	)
Depreciation		148			178
Stock-based compensation [note 5 [c] and note 5 [d]]		1,253			1,940
Recovery of lease termination loss [note 7]		(1,250	)		—
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Interest receivable		75			65
Amounts receivable		(144	)		5,663
Prepaid expenses and other assets		364			1,554
Accounts payable		(300	)		1,707
Accrued liabilities other		(39	)		(2,052	)
Accrued clinical liabilities		(2,852	)		(3,494	)
Accrued compensation		155			277
Restricted cash		—			29
Excess lease liability		—			(194	)
Lease obligation		(33	)		113
Deferred collaboration revenue [note 3]		(5,040	)		11,041
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities		(22,704	)		1,584
Financing Activities:
Proceeds from purchase agreement with Lincoln Park Capital, net of issuance costs		—			17,629
Taxes paid related to net share settlement of equity awards		—			(52	)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities		—			17,577
Investing Activities:
Purchase of investments		(34,125	)		(22,942	)
Proceeds from sale of investments		—			1,003
Proceeds from maturities of investments		34,358			17,659
Purchase of property and equipment		(39	)		(301	)
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities		194			(4,581	)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash		—			—
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents		(22,510	)		14,580
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		34,310			27,897
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	11,800		$	42,477
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information:
Non cash financing activities
Issued common stock in consideration for the purchase agreement with Lincoln Park Capital	$	—		$	254

OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (referred to as “OncoGenex,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) is a biopharmaceutical company committed to the development and commercialization of new therapies that address treatment resistance in cancer patients. We were incorporated in the state of Delaware, are headquartered in Bothell, Washington and have a subsidiary in Vancouver, British Columbia.

The unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required to be presented for complete financial statements. The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring items) which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented. The accompanying consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2015 has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year then ended. The unaudited consolidated financial statements and related disclosures have been prepared with the assumption that users of the interim financial information have read or have access to the audited consolidated financial statements for the preceding fiscal year. Accordingly, these financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, on March 9, 2016.

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of OncoGenex and our wholly owned subsidiary, OncoGenex Technologies Inc., or OncoGenex Technologies. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated. Certain comparative figures have been reclassified to conform with the financial presentation adopted for the current year.

In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. ASU 2016-09 simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. Some of the areas of simplification apply only to nonpublic entities. For public business entities, the amendments in ASU 2016-09 are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. For all other entities, the amendments are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted for any entity in any interim or annual period for which financial statements haven’t been issued or made available for issuance. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments must be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period. An entity that elects early adoption must adopt all of the amendments in the same period. We are currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its financial position and results from operations.

In February 2016, the FASB issued its new leases standard, ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (ASU 2016-02). ASU 2016-02 is aimed at putting most leases on lessees’ balance sheets, but it would also change aspects of lessor accounting. ASU 2016-02 is effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018 and interim periods within that year. This standard is expected to have a significant impact on our current accounting for our lease arrangements, particularly our current operating lease arrangements, as well as, disclosures. We are currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its financial position and results from operations.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes. The standard requires that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. Entities are currently required to separate deferred income tax liabilities and assets into current and noncurrent amounts in a classified statement of financial position. The amendments, which require non-current presentation only (by jurisdiction), are effective for financial statements issued for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016 with earlier application permitted as of the beginning of an interim or annual reporting period. The guidance is to be applied either prospectively to all deferred tax liabilities and assets or retrospectively to all periods presented. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption of ASU No. 2015-17 on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures

In August 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB issued Accounting Standards Updated, or ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern (Subtopic 2015-40) (ASU 2014-15). ASU 2014-15 provides guidance to U.S. GAAP about management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is a substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. This new rule requires management to assess an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern by incorporating and expanding upon certain principles currently in the U.S. auditing standards. Specifically, ASU 2014-15 (1) defines the term substantial doubt, (2) requires an evaluation of every reporting period including interim periods, (3) provides principles for considering the mitigating effect of management’s plans, (5) requires an express statement and other disclosures when substantial doubt is not alleviated, and (6) requires an assessment for a period of one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or available to be issued). This guidance is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption of ASU No. 2014. Depending on our capital resources and forecasted expenses at the time of adoption, the impact of ASU No. 2014-15 could have an impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In May 2014, the FASB, issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which guidance in this update will supersede the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and most industry-specific guidance when it becomes effective. ASU No. 2014-09 affects any entity that enters into contracts with customers to transfer goods or services or enters into contracts for the transfer of nonfinancial assets unless those contracts are within the scope of other standards. The core principal of ASU No. 2014-09 is that a company will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In doing so, companies will need to use more judgment and make more estimates than under current guidance. These may include identifying performance obligations in the contract, estimating the amount of variable consideration to include in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to each separate performance obligation. ASU No. 2014-09 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period, which will be our fiscal year 2018 (or December 31, 2018), and entities can transition to the standard either retrospectively or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption of ASU No. 2014-09 on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In February 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-02, Consolidation (Topic 810) — Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis. ASU 2015-02 eliminates the deferral of FAS 167 and makes changes to both the variable interest model and the voting model. For public business entities, the guidance is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after 15 December 2015. For nonpublic business entities, it is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted for annual and interim periods. The adoption of this standard did not have a significant impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In January 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-01, Income Statement—Extraordinary and Unusual Items (Subtopic 225-20): Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the Concept of Extraordinary Items. ASU 2015-01 eliminates the concept of reporting extraordinary items, but retains current presentation and disclosure requirements for an event or transaction that is of an unusual nature or of a type that indicates infrequency of occurrence. Transactions that meet both criteria would now also follow such presentation and disclosure requirements. For all entities, the guidance is effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted; however, adoption must occur at the beginning of an annual period and can be applied prospectively or retrospectively. The adoption of this standard did not have a significant impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In December 2009, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, OncoGenex Technologies, entered into a collaboration agreement, or Collaboration Agreement, with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., or Teva, for the development and global commercialization of custirsen (and related compounds), a pharmaceutical compound designed to inhibit the production of clusterin, a protein we believe is associated with cancer treatment resistance, or the Licensed Product. In December 2014, we and Teva agreed to terminate the Collaboration Agreement upon entry into a termination agreement. In April 2015, OncoGenex Technologies and Teva entered into an agreement, or the Termination Agreement, pursuant to which the Collaboration Agreement was terminated and we regained rights to custirsen.

Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, Teva paid to us, as advanced reimbursement for certain continuing research and development activities related to custirsen, an amount equal to $27.0 million less approximately $3.8 million, which reduction represented a hold-back amount of $3.0 million and $0.8 million for certain third-party expenses incurred by Teva between January 1, 2015 and April 24,

2015, or Closing Date. Teva was permitted to deduct from the $3.0 million hold-back certain costs incurred after January 1, 2015 that arose after the Closing Date. Teva will be responsible for expenses related to custirsen incurred pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement through December 31, 2014. We will be responsible for certain custirsen-related expenses from and after January 1, 2015. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, we received a nominal amount from the remaining hold-back after deductions by Teva for certain costs incurred after the Closing Date. We do not expect to receive any additional amounts from Teva.

In accordance with the Termination Agreement, Teva transferred certain third-party agreements for the ENSPIRIT study and custirsen development activities to us on the Closing Date. If any additional historical third-party agreements are discovered after the Closing Date and are used to conduct the ENSPIRIT study, then Teva will use commercially reasonable effort to assign such agreements to us and will be responsible for any costs invoiced under such agreements in excess of an aggregate of $0.1 million. We will be responsible for the initial $0.1 million of costs under such agreements.

All licenses granted by us to Teva under the Collaboration Agreement were terminated as of the Closing Date. In addition, Teva assigned to us certain patent applications related to custirsen and abandoned certain other patent applications as requested by us. Furthermore, Teva granted to us and our affiliates an exclusive license (except as to Teva and its affiliates) to any know-how created under and during the term of the Collaboration Agreement to develop, manufacture and commercialize custirsen and certain other antisense inhibitors of clusterin, as set forth in more detail in the Termination Agreement. Teva additionally granted to us and our affiliates a non-exclusive license to any intellectual property owned by or licensed to Teva and its affiliates, whether as of the Closing Date or thereafter, to develop, manufacture and commercialize custirsen, subject to certain limitations. Teva also agreed not to challenge the patentability, validity or enforceability of certain of our patents, and agreed not to file any patent applications covering custirsen or any antisense inhibitor of clusterin for 18 months after the Closing Date. We are responsible for any such expenses incurred from and after January 1, 2015. We do not owe Teva any development milestone payments or royalty payments on sales of custirsen, if any.

As part of the termination, Teva assigned to us the investigational new drug application for custirsen and submitted amendments, on a country-by-country basis, transferring sponsorship of the ENSPIRIT study to us. In July 2015, we became the sole trial sponsor for the ENSPIRIT study in all countries.

We and Teva released each other from all claims related to the Collaboration Agreement. In addition, we agreed to indemnify Teva and its affiliates against any third-party claims attributable to the development and commercialization of custirsen prior to the execution of the Collaboration Agreement and after the Closing Date, and any third-party claims attributable to the conduct of the AFFINITY study. Teva agreed to indemnify us and our affiliates against any third-party claims attributable to the development of custirsen during the period between the execution of the Collaboration Agreement and the Closing Date, but excluding the AFFINITY study. The parties’ indemnity obligations cover, among other things, third-party claims brought by current or former patients in the relevant studies and patient product liability claims.

Revenue for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 was zero and $5.1 million, respectively, which consists of recognition of deferred collaboration revenue representing our efforts in the development of custirsen. As of June 30, 2016, the full amount of the advanced reimbursement payment was recognized into collaboration revenue. The advanced reimbursement payment made by Teva, as part of the Termination Agreement, was deferred and recognized as collaboration revenue on a dollar for dollar basis as costs were incurred as part of the continuing research and development activities related to custirsen.

In November 2016, we provided a notice of discontinuance to Ionis, or the Notice of Discontinuance, and a letter of termination to UBC, or the Letter of Termination, notifying the parties that we have discontinued development of custirsen, resulting in termination of all licensing agreements related to custirsen. We believe that all financial obligations, other than continuing mutual indemnification obligations and our requirement to pay for out-of-pocket patent expenses incurred up to the date of termination and for abandoning the custirsen patents and patent applications, under all agreements with Ionis and UBC, including the Ionis settlement agreement, are no longer owed and no further payments are due.

Under the license agreements with Ionis and UBC, we were required to pay royalties to each of Ionis and UBC based on a percentage of net sales. We did not make any royalty payments to either Ionis or UBC in the nine months ended September 30, 2016. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the agreements with Ionis, we were required to pay to Ionis up to 20% of all non-royalty revenue (defined to mean revenue not based on net sales of products) we receive from third parties.

In May and November 2015, we received communications from Ionis requesting payment of 30% of the $23.2 million paid by Teva under the Termination Agreement, as well as 30% of any amounts paid by Teva upon release of the $3.0 million holdback amount. In January 2016, Ionis filed a lawsuit and claimed that OncoGenex Technologies was in breach of the license agreement for failing to pay Ionis a share of the advance reimbursement payment from Teva and other non-monetary consideration received from Teva in connection with the termination of the Collaboration Agreement. Ionis sought damages and a declaratory judgment that, based on OncoGenex Technologies’ alleged breach, Ionis has the right to terminate the license agreement.

In August 2016, we and Ionis settled this lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, we paid to Ionis a $1.4 million upfront payment. In addition, under the settlement agreement, we were required to pay to Ionis additional success-based payments of up to an amount that does not exceed $5.0 million based on, (i) an additional 5% royalty on net sales of custirsen and (ii) 50% of any money we receive related to the sale, license or any other commercial transaction involving custirsen, subject to certain limitations. As a result of the Notice of Discontinuance, we believe that all financial obligations under the settlement agreement are no longer owed and no further payments are due.

Assets and liabilities recorded at fair value in the balance sheets are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value. For certain of our financial instruments including amounts receivable and accounts payable the carrying values approximate fair value due to their short-term nature.

ASC 820 “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures,” specifies a hierarchy of valuation techniques based on whether the inputs to those valuation techniques are observable or unobservable. In accordance with ASC 820, these inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below:

As quoted prices in active markets are not readily available for certain financial instruments, we obtain estimates for the fair value of financial instruments through third-party pricing service providers.

In determining the appropriate levels, we performed a detailed analysis of the assets and liabilities that are subject to ASC 820.

We invest our excess cash in accordance with investment guidelines that limit the credit exposure to any one financial institution other than securities issued by the U.S. Government. These securities are not collateralized and mature within one year.

A description of the valuation techniques applied to our financial instruments measured at fair value on a recurring basis follows.

Significant amounts of cash are held on deposit with large well-established U.S. and Canadian financial institutions.

Money market securities are classified within Level I of the fair value hierarchy and are valued based on quoted prices in active markets for identical securities.

U.S. Government Securities U.S. government securities are valued using quoted market prices. Valuation adjustments are not applied. Accordingly, U.S. government securities are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

U.S. Agency Securities U.S. agency securities are comprised of two main categories consisting of callable and non-callable agency issued debt securities. Non-callable agency issued debt securities are generally valued using quoted market prices. Callable agency issued debt securities are valued by benchmarking model-derived prices to quoted market prices and trade data for identical or

comparable securities. Actively traded non-callable agency issued debt securities are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. Callable agency issued debt securities are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Corporate Bonds and Commercial Paper The fair value of corporate bonds and commercial paper is estimated using recently executed transactions, market price quotations (where observable), bond spreads or credit default swap spreads adjusted for any basis difference between cash and derivative instruments. The spread data used are for the same maturity as the bond. If the spread data does not reference the issuer, then data that reference a comparable issuer are used. When observable price quotations are not available, fair value is determined based on cash flow models with yield curves, bond or single name credit default swap spreads and recovery rates based on collateral values as significant inputs. Corporate bonds and commercial paper are generally categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy; in instances where prices, spreads or any of the other aforementioned key inputs are unobservable, they are categorized in Level 3 of the hierarchy.

As of September 30, 2016, we recorded a $0.4 million warrant liability. We reassess the fair value of the common stock warrants classified as liabilities at each reporting date utilizing a Black-Scholes pricing model. Inputs used in the pricing model include estimates of stock price volatility, expected warrant life and risk-free interest rate. The computation of expected volatility was based on the historical volatility of shares of our common stock for a period that coincides with the expected life of the warrants that are classified as liabilities. Warrants that are classified as liabilities are categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. A small change in the estimates used may have a relatively large change in the estimated valuation. Warrants that are classified as equity are not considered liabilities and therefore are not reassessed for their fair values at each reporting date.

The following table presents information about our assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, and indicates the fair value hierarchy of the valuation techniques we utilized to determine such fair value (in thousands):

September 30, 2016	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets
Cash	$	1,328	$	—	$	—	$	1,328
Money market securities		8,365		—		—		8,365
Government securities		10,007		—		—		10,007
Restricted cash (Note 7)		272		—		—		272
Corporate bonds and commercial paper		—		12,755		—		12,755
Total assets	$	19,972	$	12,755	$	—	$	32,727
Liabilities
Warrants	$	—	$	—	$	350	$	350

The following table presents the changes in fair value of our total Level 3 financial liabilities for the nine months ended September 30, 2016. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, we did not issue any common stock warrants that were classified as liabilities (in thousands):

Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments consist of the following (in thousands):

			Gross		Gross
	Amortized		Unrealized		Unrealized			Estimated
September 30, 2016	Cost		Gains		Losses			Fair Value
Cash	$	1,328	$	—	$	—		$	1,328
Money market securities		8,365		—		—			8,365
Government securities		10,003		4		—			10,007
Total cash and cash equivalents	$	19,696	$	4	$	—		$	19,700
Money market securities (restricted cash)		272		—		—			272
Total restricted cash	$	272	$	—	$	—		$	272
Corporate bonds and commercial paper		12,757		—		(2	)		12,755
Total short-term investments	$	12,757	$	—	$	(2	)	$	12,755

Our gross realized gains and losses on sales of available-for-sale securities were not material for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015.

All securities included in cash and cash equivalents had maturities of 90 days or less at the time of purchase. All securities included in short-term investments have maturities of within one year of the balance sheet date. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method.

We only invest in A (or equivalent) rated securities. We do not believe that there are any other than temporary impairments related to our investment in short-term investments at September 30, 2016, given the quality of the investment portfolio and subsequent proceeds collected on sale of securities that reached maturity.

75,000,000 authorized common shares, par value of $0.001, and 5,000,000 preferred shares, par value of $0.001.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, we issued no shares of common stock to satisfy stock option exercises and 207,296 shares of common stock to satisfy restricted stock unit settlements, compared with the issuance of no shares of common stock to satisfy stock option exercises and 260,676 shares of common stock to satisfy restricted stock unit settlements, respectively, during the nine months ended September 30, 2015.

As of September 30, 2016, we had reserved, pursuant to various plans, 3,648,991 common shares for issuance upon exercise of stock options and settlement of restricted stock units by employees, directors, officers and consultants of ours, of which 2,973,955 were reserved for options currently outstanding, 341,085 were reserved for restricted stock units currently outstanding and 333,951 were available for future equity grants.

We grant stock options that vest over time in accordance with terms as determined by our Board of Directors, or the Board, which terms are typically four years for employee and consultant grants and one to three years for Board option grants. We also grant stock option awards that vest in conjunction with certain performance conditions to executive officers, employees and consultants. At each reporting date, we are required to evaluate whether achievement of the performance conditions is probable. Compensation expense is recorded over the appropriate service period based upon our assessment of accomplishing each performance condition. The expiry date for each option is set by the Board, which is typically seven to ten years. The exercise price of the options is determined by the Board, but will be at least equal to the fair value of the share at the grant date.

Stock option transactions and the number of stock options outstanding are summarized below:

	Number of			Weighted
	Optioned			Average
	Common			Exercise
	Shares			Price
Balance, December 31, 2015		1,479,221		$	8.78
Granted		1,635,250			0.86
Expired		(16,520	)		7.25
Exercised		—			—
Forfeited		(123,996	)		5.35
Balance, September 30, 2016		2,973,955		$	4.58

The fair value of each stock award for employees and directors is estimated on the grant date and for consultants at each reporting period, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model based on the weighted-average assumptions noted in the following table:

The expected life was calculated based on the simplified method as permitted by the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 110, Share-Based Payment. We consider the use of the simplified method appropriate because we believe our historical stock option exercise activity may not be indicative of future stock option exercise activity based upon strategic alternatives we are exploring and the structural changes to our business that may result and the potential impact on future stock option exercise activity. The expected volatility of options granted was calculated based on the historical volatility of the shares of our common stock. The risk-free interest rate is based on a U.S. Treasury instrument whose term is consistent with the expected life of the stock options. In addition to the assumptions above, as required under ASC 718, management made an estimate of expected forfeitures and is recognizing compensation costs only for those equity awards expected to vest. Forfeiture rates are estimated using historical actual forfeiture rates. These rates are adjusted on a quarterly basis and any change in compensation expense is recognized in the period of the change. We have never paid or declared cash dividends on our common stock and do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

The results for the periods set forth below included share-based compensation expense for stock options and restricted stock units in the following expense categories of the consolidated statements of loss (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended					Nine Months Ended
	September 30,					September 30,
	2016			2015		2016		2015
Research and development	$	(70	)	$	351	$	614	$	920
General and administrative	$	(64	)		361		639		1,020
Total stock-based compensation	$	(134	)	$	712	$	1,253	$	1,940

As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the total unrecognized compensation expense related to stock options granted was $1.8 million and $1.8 million respectively, which is expected to be recognized as expense over a period of approximately 1.5 years from September 30, 2016.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, a total of 7.0 million shares, consisting of 3.7 million warrants, 3.0 million options and 0.3 million restricted stock units, have not been included in the loss per share computation, as their effect on diluted per share amounts would have been anti-dilutive. For the same periods in 2015, a total of 7.6 million shares underlying options, restricted stock units and warrants have not been included in the loss per share computation.

We grant restricted stock unit awards that generally vest and are expensed over a four year period. We also grant restricted stock unit awards that vest in conjunction with certain performance conditions to certain executive officers, key employees and consultants. At each reporting date, we are required to evaluate whether achievement of the performance conditions is probable. Compensation expense is recorded over the appropriate service period based upon our assessment of accomplishing each performance condition. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 we recorded a compensation recovery of $0.1 million and a compensation expense of $0.5 million, respectively, related to these awards, compared to $0.4 million and $1.0 million of compensation expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively.

The following table summarizes our restricted stock unit award activity during the nine months ended September 30, 2016:

As of September 30, 2016, we had approximately $1.2 million in total unrecognized compensation expense related to our restricted stock unit awards that is to be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately 1.6 years.

We recognize non-employee stock-based compensation expense over the period of expected service by the non-employee. As the service is performed, we are required to update our valuation assumptions, re-measure unvested options and restricted stock units and record the stock-based compensation using the valuation as of the vesting date. This differs from the accounting for employee awards where the fair value is determined at the grant date and is not subsequently adjusted. This re-measurement may result in higher or lower stock-based compensation expense in the Consolidated Statements of Loss and Comprehensive Loss. As such, changes in the market price of our stock could materially change the value of an option or restricted stock unit and the resulting stock-based compensation expense.

The following is a summary of outstanding warrants to purchase common stock at September 30, 2016:

No warrants were exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 or 2015. The Series A-1 Warrants issued in the April 2015 financing are classified as equity. The Series A and Series B warrants issued in the July 2014 financing are classified as liabilities. The estimated fair value of warrants issued and classified as liabilities is reassessed at each reporting date using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.

In January 2016, Scott Cormack, our Chief Executive Officer, married Michelle Griffin, a consultant to us. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we paid Ms. Griffin approximately $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively, for consulting services pursuant to a consulting agreement entered into in 2013 and amended thereafter. We also granted Ms. Griffin options to purchase 135,000 shares of common stock in 2016. In addition, pursuant to the consulting agreement with Ms. Griffin, as at September 30, 2016, we had an accrued termination liability of approximately $0.4 million.

In December 2009, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, OncoGenex Technologies, entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Teva for the development and global commercialization of custirsen (and related compounds). In December 2014, we and Teva agreed to terminate the Collaboration Agreement upon entry into a Termination Agreement. In April 2015, OncoGenex Technologies and Teva entered into the Termination Agreement, pursuant to which the Collaboration Agreement was terminated and we regained rights to custirsen. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, Teva paid to us, as advanced reimbursement for certain continuing research and development activities related to custirsen, an amount equal to $27.0 million less approximately $3.8 million, which reduction represented a hold-back amount of $3.0 million and $0.8 million for certain third-party custirsen-related development expenses incurred by Teva between January 1, 2015 and the Closing Date. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, we received a

nominal amount from the remaining hold-back after deductions by Teva for certain costs incurred after the Closing Date. We do not expect to receive any additional amounts from Teva.

All licenses granted by us to Teva under the Collaboration Agreement were terminated as of the Closing Date.

Prior to the termination of the Collaboration Agreement, Teva made upfront payments in the aggregate amount of $50.0 million. Teva also acquired $10.0 million of our common stock at a premium under a separate Stock Purchase Agreement. We were required to contribute $30.0 million in direct and indirect costs towards the clinical development plan. We fulfilled our obligation to contribute $30.0 million towards the development of custirsen. Teva was required to and did fund all additional expenses under the clinical development plan through December 31, 2014, after which date we took over responsibility for future costs following termination of our Collaboration Agreement. We do not owe, to Teva, any development milestone payments or royalty payments on sales of custirsen, if any.

In November 2016, we provided the Notice of Discontinuance to Ionis and the Letter of Termination to UBC, notifying the parties that we have discontinued development of custirsen, resulting in termination of all licensing agreements related to custirsen. We believe that all financial obligations, other than continuing mutual indemnification obligations and our requirement to pay for out-of-pocket patent expenses incurred up to the date of termination and for abandoning the custirsen patents and patent applications, under all agreements with Ionis and UBC, including the Ionis settlement agreement, are no longer owed and no further payments are due.

We are obligated to pay milestone payments of up to CAD $1.6 million and $7.75 million pursuant to license agreements with UBC and Ionis, respectively, upon the achievement of specified product development milestones related to apatorsen and OGX-225 and low to mid-single digit royalties on future product sales.

Unless otherwise terminated, the Ionis agreements for apatorsen will continue until the later of 10 years after the date of the first commercial product sale, or the expiration of the last to expire of any patents required to be licensed in order to use or sell the product, unless OncoGenex Technologies discontinues apatorsen and Ionis does not elect to unilaterally continue development. The Ionis agreement for OGX-225 will continue into perpetuity unless OncoGenex Technologies discontinues development of the product and Ionis does not elect to unilaterally continue development.

We have an operating lease agreement for office space being used in Vancouver, Canada, which expires in September 2017. Pursuant to the operating lease agreement, we have the option to terminate the lease early without penalty at any time after January 1, 2017 so long as we provide three months prior written notice to the landlord. As of September 30, 2016, the remaining future minimum lease payments under the Vancouver lease are an aggregate of $0.1 million.

In February 2015, we entered into an office lease with Grosvenor International (Atlantic Freeholds) Limited, or Landlord, pursuant to which we leased approximately 11,526 square feet located at 19820 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, Washington, 98011, commencing on February 15, 2015. The initial term of this lease will expire on April 30, 2018, with an option to extend the term for one approximately three-year period. Our monthly base rent for the premises started at approximately $18,000 commencing on May 1, 2015 and will increase on an annual basis up to approximately $20,000. We received a construction allowance, for leasehold improvements that we made, of approximately $0.1 million. We will be responsible for 17% of taxes levied upon the building during each calendar year of the term. We delivered to the Landlord a letter of credit in the amount of $0.2 million, in accordance with the terms if the lease, which the Landlord may draw upon for base rent or other damages in the event of our default under this lease. In August 2015 we exercised our expansion option for an additional 2,245 square feet of office space, which commenced on August 1, 2015.

The remaining future minimum annual lease payments under the Bothell lease are as follows (in thousands):

Consolidated rent and operating expense relating to both the Vancouver, Canada and Bothell, Washington offices for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 was $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively. Consolidated rent expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 was $0.1 million and $0.8 million, respectively.

In February 2015, we entered into a Lease Termination Agreement with BMR pursuant to which we and BMR agreed to terminate our lease, dated November 21, 2006, as amended, for the premises located at 1522 217th Place S.E. in Bothell, Washington, or Terminated Lease, effective March 1, 2015. Under the Lease Termination Agreement, we paid BMR a $2.0 million termination fee. BMR drew approximately $0.1 million on our letter of credit with respect to its payment of deferred state sales tax and terminated the remaining balance of $0.2 million. BMR returned to us the security deposit under the Terminated Lease, less amounts deducted in accordance with the terms of the Terminated Lease, of $0.5 million.

Pursuant to the Lease Termination Agreement, an additional termination fee of $1.3 million would have been payable to BMR if we had (i) met the primary endpoint for our phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of second line metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer, or CRPC, with custirsen, or the AFFINITY Trial, and if we had (ii) closed a transaction or transactions pursuant to which we received funding in an aggregate amount of at least $20.0 million. As at December 31, 2014 and subsequent annual and interim reporting periods up to June 30, 2016, we had assessed that the likelihood of meeting both contingent events was probable and as a result, recognized the $1.3 million in lease termination liability on our balance sheet as at the end of those reporting periods. In August 2016, final survival results of our AFFINITY trial did not meet the primary endpoint of a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in men with metastatic CRPC. As at September 30, 2016, we have re-assessed that the likelihood of meeting both contingent events is no longer possible due to not achieving the primary endpoint on our AFFINITY trial. As a result, we have reversed the $1.3 million in lease termination liability on our balance sheet as at September 30, 2016 and recognized a recovery on our statement of loss.

We indemnify our officers, directors and certain consultants for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at our request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is equal to the officer’s, consultant’s or director’s lifetime.

The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, we have obtained director and officer insurance that limits our exposure and may enable us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. We believe that the fair value of these indemnification obligations is minimal. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liabilities relating to these obligations as of September 30, 2016.

We have agreements with certain organizations with which we do business that contain indemnification provisions pursuant to which we typically agree to indemnify the party against certain types of third-party claims. We accrue for known indemnification issues when a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. There were no accruals for or expenses related to indemnification issues for any period presented.

In February 2016, we committed to a plan to reduce operating expenses, which included a workforce reduction of 11 employees, representing approximately 27% of our employees prior to the reduction. We incurred approximately $0.4 million in expenses as a result of the workforce reduction, substantially all of which were severance costs.

In October 2016, we committed to a restructuring of a portion of our workforce in order to preserve our resources as we determine future strategic plans. As part of this restructuring, we will eliminate 16 positions, representing approximately 55% of our workforce. We expect the restructuring to be substantially complete in the first quarter of 2017. We currently anticipate incurring total restructuring costs of approximately $1.4 million, which includes severance, benefits and related costs of approximately $1.2 million and potential fixed asset impairments of approximately $0.2 million.

This document contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. We caution readers that any forward-looking statement is not a guarantee of future performance and that actual results could differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statement. These statements are based on current expectations of future events. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements about future financial and operating results, plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, costs and expenses, interest rates, outcome of contingencies, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, business strategies, cost savings, objectives of management and other statements that are not historical facts. You can find many of these statements by looking for words like “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “may,” “should,” “will,” “could,” “plan,” “intend” or similar expressions in this document or in documents incorporated by reference into this document. We intend that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Examples of these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:

These forward-looking statements are based on the current beliefs and expectations of our management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results may differ materially from current expectations and projections. Factors that might cause such a difference include those discussed in Item 1A “Risk Factors,” as well as those discussed elsewhere in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this document or, in the case of documents referred to or incorporated by reference, the date of those documents.

All subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable U.S. securities law. If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements.

Our mission is to accelerate transformative therapies to improve the lives of people living with cancer and other serious diseases. Our product candidates are designed to block the production of specific proteins that promote treatment resistance in cancer. We believe our therapies have the potential to improve treatment outcomes in a variety of cancers. Each of our product candidates, apatorsen and OGX-225, have a distinct mechanism of action and represents a unique opportunity for cancer drug development.

Our product candidates focus on mechanisms of treatment resistance in cancer patients and are designed to block the production of specific proteins that we believe promote treatment resistance and survival of tumor cells and are over-produced in response to a variety of cancer treatments. Our aim in targeting these particular proteins is to disable the tumor cell’s adaptive defenses, thereby rendering the tumor cells more susceptible to attack with a variety of cancer therapies. We believe this approach may increase survival time and improve the quality of life for cancer patients.

We believe that our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our currently planned operations for at least the next 12 months.

In August 2016, we engaged MTS Health Partners LP as our advisor to assist with the exploration of strategic alternatives. MTS Health Partners is providing a range of advisory services aimed to enhance stockholder value. We expect to devote substantial time and resources to exploring strategic alternatives; however, there can be no assurance that such activities will result in any agreements

or transactions that will enhance stockholder value. Further, any strategic transaction that is completed ultimately may not deliver the anticipated benefits or enhance stockholder value.

As a result of custirsen not meeting the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in three completed phase 3 trials, we have discontinued further development of custirsen and have begun to wind down all clinical trials and other activities related to this product candidate. In November 2016, we provided a notice of discontinuance to Ionis, or the Notice of Discontinuance, and a letter of termination to UBC, or the Letter of Termination, notifying those parties that we have discontinued development of custirsen, resulting in termination of all licensing agreements related to custirsen.

Apatorsen is our product candidate that is designed to inhibit production of Hsp27, a cell-survival protein expressed in many types of cancers including bladder, prostate, breast, pancreatic and non-small cell lung cancer. Hsp27 expression is stress-induced, including by many anti-cancer therapies. Overexpression of Hsp27 is thought to be an important factor leading to the development of treatment resistance and is associated with metastasis and negative clinical outcomes in patients with various tumor types.

A number of preclinical studies have shown that reducing Hsp27 production induces tumor cell death in prostate, non-small cell lung, bladder and pancreatic cancer cells. The studies also suggest that reducing Hsp27 production sensitizes prostate tumor cells to hormone ablation therapy. These preclinical studies have also shown that inhibiting the production of Hsp27 in human prostate, bladder, lung, breast, ovarian and pancreatic tumor cells sensitizes the cells to chemotherapy.

Hsp27 has been reported by others to function as an immunomodulatory protein by a number of mechanisms that include altering important membrane expressed proteins on monocytes and immature dendritic cells; this alteration results in tumor-associated immune cells that are not functional in identifying and killing cancer cells. The induction of anti-inflammatory cytokines by Hsp27 may also play a role in down-regulating lymphocyte activation leading to additional unresponsive immune cells.

In 2013, we initiated the ORCA (Ongoing Studies Evaluating Treatment Resistance in CAncer) program which encompasses clinical studies designed to evaluate whether inhibition of Hsp27 can lead to improved prognosis and treatment outcomes for cancer patients. Our goal is to advance cancer treatment by conducting clinical trials for apatorsen across multiple cancer indications including bladder, lung, pancreatic and prostate cancers. We are conducting parallel clinical trials to evaluate apatorsen in several cancer indications and treatment combinations to accelerate the development of apatorsen. As part of this strategy, we are supporting specific investigator-sponsored trials to allow assessment of a broader range of clinical indications for future OncoGenex-sponsored trials and possible market approval. The ORCA trials, with exception of the Pacific™ trial, are designed to provide information that will be useful for designing future phase 3 trials and may be used as supportive studies for registration, if applicable. Due to small sample sizes, data from these trials are not likely to result in statistically significant differences in either progression free survival, or PFS, or overall survival, or OS.

Six phase 2 apatorsen clinical trials have been initiated or completed under the ORCA program.

In addition to the Borealis-1 and Borealis-2 clinical trials in metastatic bladder cancer in the ORCA program, we are evaluating apatorsen for a potential pivotal study in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, or NMIBC. We have completed a pre-IND meeting with FDA in preparation for a separate IND application to evaluate apatorsen for intravesical administration in combination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, or BCG, treatment in patients with NMIBC. FDA had no objection to the study population or classification of subpopulations in a preliminary study design and deemed the proposed definitions of primary and secondary endpoints acceptable. We do not currently intend to fund further development of apatorsen in bladder cancer without collaboration partner or additional funding.

As a result of custirsen not meeting the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in three completed phase 3 trials, we have discontinued further development of custirsen and have begun to wind down all clinical trials and other activities related to this product candidate. In November 2016, we provided the Notice of Discontinuance to Ionis and the Letter of Termination to UBC, notifying those parties that we have discontinued development of custirsen, resulting in termination of all licensing agreements related to custirsen.

OGX-225 is our product candidate designed to inhibit the production of Insulin Growth Factor Binding Proteins -2 and -5 (IGFBP-2, IGFBP-5), two proteins that when overexpressed affect the growth of cancer cells. Increased IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-5 production are observed in many human cancers, including prostate, breast, colorectal, non-small cell lung, glioblastoma, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, neuroblastoma, and melanoma. The increased production of these proteins is linked to faster rates of cancer progression, treatment resistance, and shorter survival duration in humans.

Preclinical studies with human prostate and breast cancer cells have shown that reducing IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-5 production with OGX-225 sensitized these tumor types to hormone ablation therapy or chemotherapy and induced tumor cell death. We have completed IND enabling toxicology studies for OGX-225. We currently have no plans to further develop OGX-225 without a collaboration partner or additional funding.

Revenue recognized to date was attributable to the upfront payment we received in the fourth quarter of 2009 pursuant to a Collaboration Agreement with Teva, as well as cash reimbursements from Teva for certain costs incurred by us under the clinical development plan. Our policy is to account for these reimbursements as collaboration revenue.

In April 2015, we and Teva entered into an agreement to terminate the Collaboration Agreement, or the Termination Agreement. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, Teva paid to us, as advanced reimbursement for certain continuing research and development activities related to custirsen and certain other antisense inhibitors of clusterin, an amount equal to $27.0 million less approximately $3.8 million, which reduction represents a hold-back amount of $3.0 million and $0.8 million for certain third-party expenses incurred by Teva between January 1, 2015 and April 24, 2015, or Closing Date. Teva was permitted to deduct from the $3.0 million hold-back certain costs incurred after January 1, 2015 that arose after the Closing Date. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, we received a nominal amount from the remaining hold-back after deductions by Teva for certain costs incurred after the Closing Date. We do not expect to receive any additional amounts from Teva. Teva is responsible for expenses related to custirsen incurred pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement through December 31, 2014. We will be responsible for certain custirsen-related expenses from and after January 1, 2015.

As a result of the termination of the Collaboration Agreement with Teva, we do not expect to earn any additional collaboration revenue beyond the amounts provided as advanced reimbursement for custirsen -related development expenses as set forth in the Termination Agreement. The advanced reimbursement payment made by Teva, as part of the Termination Agreement, was deferred and was recognized as collaboration revenue on a dollar for dollar basis as costs were incurred as part the of continuing research and development activities related to custirsen and certain other antisense inhibitors of clusterin. We have fully utilized the $23.2 million in advance reimbursement for custirsen-related development costs between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016.

Research and development, or R&D, expenses consist primarily of costs for clinical trials, contract manufacturing, personnel costs, milestone payments to third parties, facilities, regulatory activities, preclinical studies and allocations of other R&D-related costs.

External expenses for clinical trials include fees paid to clinical research organizations, clinical trial site costs and patient treatment costs.

Currently, we manage our clinical trials through contract research organizations and independent medical investigators at their sites and at hospitals and expect this practice to continue. Through our clinical development programs, we are developing each of our product candidates in parallel for multiple disease indications. Due to the number of ongoing projects and our ability to utilize resources across several projects, we do not record or maintain information regarding the indirect operating costs incurred for our research and development programs on a program-specific basis. In addition, we believe that allocating costs on the basis of time incurred by our employees does not accurately reflect the actual costs of a project.

Several of our clinical trials have been supported by grant funding that was received directly by the hospitals and/or clinical investigators conducting the clinical trials as investigator-sponsored trials, thereby allowing us to complete these clinical trials at a lower cost to us.

In accordance with the Termination Agreement, Teva was required to and did fund all additional expenses under the clinical development plan through December 31, 2014, after which date we took over responsibility for future custirsen-related costs following termination of our Collaboration Agreement. We do not owe Teva any development milestone payments or royalty payments on sales of custirsen, if any.

We cannot estimate completion dates for development activities or when we might receive material net cash inflows from our R&D projects, if ever.

Our projects or intended R&D activities may be subject to change from time to time as we evaluate results from completed studies, our R&D priorities and available resources.

General and administrative, or G&A, expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs for our personnel in executive, finance and accounting, corporate communications, human resources and other administrative functions, as well as consulting costs, including market research, business consulting and intellectual property. Other costs include professional fees for legal and auditing services, insurance and facility costs.

The following is a summary of outstanding warrants to purchase common stock that are classified as liabilities at September 30, 2016:

No warrants were exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 or 2015.

We reassess the fair value of the common stock warrants classified as liabilities at each reporting date utilizing a Black-Scholes pricing model. Inputs used in the pricing model include estimates of stock price volatility, expected warrant life and risk-free interest rate. The computation of expected volatility was based on the historical volatility of shares of our common stock for a period that coincides with the expected life of the warrants.

Revenue for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 decreased to zero and $5.1 million, respectively, from $6.7 million and $12.1 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively. The advanced reimbursement payment made by Teva, as part of the Termination Agreement, was deferred and recognized as collaboration revenue on a dollar for dollar basis as costs were incurred as part of the continuing research and development activities related to custirsen. The decrease in collaboration revenue in 2016 as compared to 2015 was due to the full recognition of the remaining amounts of deferred revenue in 2016.

Our research and development expenses for our clinical development programs for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 are as follows (in thousands):

	Three months ended				Nine Months Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2016		2015		2016		2015
Clinical development programs:
Custirsen	$	2,992	$	6,916	$	7,648	$	11,441
Apatorsen	$	431	$	399	$	1,335	$	2,014
Other research and development	$	359	$	988	$	4,103	$	5,065
Total research and development expenses	$	3,782	$	8,303	$	13,086	$	18,520

Research and development expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 decreased to $3.8 million and $13.1 million, respectively, from $8.3 million and $18.5 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively. The decrease in 2016 as compared to 2015 was due to lower clinical trial costs for the AFFINITY trial and our investigator sponsored apatorsen trials, lower consulting and professional fees as a result of the restructuring in the first quarter of 2016 and a decrease in facilities costs. This was partially offset by higher ENSPIRIT trial costs, which we became responsible for after the termination of our Collaboration Agreement with Teva. We expect our research and development costs to decrease with the completion of our phase 3 custirsen clinical trials and as our phase 2 apatorsen clinical trials wind down, as well as the result of the restructuring announced in October 2016.

General and administrative expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 decreased to $1.9 million and $6.6 million, respectively, from $3.1 million and $8.9 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively. The decrease in 2016 as compared to 2015 was due to lower professional fees and headcount and consulting expenses as a result of the restructuring in the first quarter of 2016. We expect our general and administrative costs to decrease further as result of the restructuring announced in October 2016.

We recorded a gain of $0.6 million and $0.8 million on the revaluation of our outstanding warrants for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively. We recorded a gain of $0.1 million and $0.2 million on revaluation of the warrants for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively. We revalue the warrants at each balance sheet date to fair value.

We recorded a restructuring recovery of $31,000 and a restructuring expense of $0.4 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively. In February 2016, we committed to a plan to reduce operating expenses, which included a workforce reduction of 11 employees, representing approximately 27% of our employees prior to the reduction. We incurred approximately $0.4 million in expenses as a result of the workforce reduction and recognized this as a restructuring expense in the first quarter of 2016. In the three months ended September 30, 2016, we revised our estimates of the restructuring expense and recognized a recovery of $31,000. No restructuring gain or expense was recognized in three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 as there were no restructuring activities. We expect to incur additional expenses as a result of the restructuring announced in the fourth quarter of 2016

We recorded a recovery of lease termination loss of $1.3 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016. In February 2015, we entered into a Lease Termination Agreement with BMR pursuant to which we and BMR agreed to terminate our prior lease, effective March 1, 2015. Under the Lease Termination Agreement, we paid BMR a $2.0 million termination fee and would have been required to pay an additional $1.3 million termination fee if we had (i) met the primary endpoint for our AFFINITY Trial and if we had (ii) closed a transaction or transactions pursuant to which we received funding in an aggregate amount of at least $20.0 million. As of December 31, 2014 and subsequent annual and interim reporting periods up to June 30, 2016, we had assessed that the likelihood of meeting both contingent events was probable and as a result, recognized the $1.3 million in lease termination liability on our balance sheet as at the end of those reporting periods. In August 2016, final survival results of our AFFINITY trial did not meet the primary endpoint of a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in men with metastatic CRPC. As at September 30, 2016, we re-assessed that the likelihood of meeting both contingent events is no longer possible due to not achieving the primary

endpoint on our AFFINITY trial. As a result, we have reversed the $1.3 million in lease termination liability on our balance sheet as at September 30, 2016 and recognized a recovery on our statement of loss.

In August 2016, we and Ionis settled our lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, we paid to pay Ionis a $1.4 million upfront payment and were required to pay additional success-based payments up to an amount not exceeding $5.0 million. In accordance with the upfront payment, we recorded litigation settlement expense of $1.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016. In November 2016, we provided the Notice of Discontinuance to Ionis and we believe that all financial obligations, other than continuing mutual indemnification obligations, under all agreements with Ionis, including the settlement agreement, are no longer owed and no further payments are due.

We have incurred an accumulated deficit of $191.1 million through September 30, 2016, and we expect to incur substantial additional losses in the future as we continue or expand our R&D activities and other operations, as more fully described below. We have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we may not generate product sales revenue in the near future, if ever.

Our operations to date have been primarily funded through the sale of our equity securities and payments received from Teva. As of September 30, 2016, our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments decreased to $32.5 million from $55.2 million as of December 31, 2015.

In April 2015, we and Teva terminated our Collaboration Agreement. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, Teva paid to us, as advanced reimbursement for certain continuing research and development activities related to custirsen, an amount equal to $27.0 million less approximately $3.8 million. We do not expect to receive any additional amounts from Teva.

Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, Teva remains responsible for expenses related to custirsen incurred pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement through December 31, 2014. We will be responsible for all custirsen-related expenses incurred from and after January 1, 2015. We do not owe Teva any development milestone payments or royalty payments on sales of custirsen, if any. As a result of the termination of the Collaboration Agreement, other than the advanced reimbursement for certain continuing research and development activities related to custirsen already received by us, and any amounts paid to us from the hold-back by Teva, if any, we will not receive any future cash reimbursements from Teva for certain costs incurred by us in connection with the clinical development of custirsen. We have fully utilized the $23.2 million in advance reimbursement for custirsen-related development costs between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016.

In April 2015, we and Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC, or LPC, entered into a Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which we had the right to sell to LPC up to $18.0 million in shares of our common stock, par value $0.001 per share, subject to certain limitations and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement. LPC initially purchased 956,938 Series A-1 Units at a purchase price of $2.09 per unit, for aggregate gross proceeds of $2.0 million. Each Series A-1 Unit consisted of (i) one share of common stock and (ii) one warrant to purchase one-quarter of a share of common stock at an exercise price of $2.40 per share.

From April 30, 2015 through August 13, 2015, we offered and sold 6,814,980 shares of our common stock pursuant to our Purchase Agreement with LPC. These sales resulted in gross proceeds to us of approximately $18.0 million and offering expenses of $0.4 million. As of August 13, 2015, no further amounts remained available for sale under this offering program.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2016, net cash used in operating activities was $22.7 million compared to net cash provided by operations of $1.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. The increase in cash used in operations in 2016 as compared to cash provided by operations in 2015 was primarily attributable to the advanced reimbursement payment made by Teva, as part of the Termination Agreement, which was received in the second quarter of 2015.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2016, net cash used in financing activities was zero compared to net cash provided by financing activities of $17.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. There were no financing activities in the nine months ended September 30, 2016. Net cash provided by financing activities in the nine months ended September 30, 2015 relates to proceeds received from the financing through our purchase agreement with LPC.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2016, net cash provided by investing activities was $0.2 million compared to net cash used in investing activities of $4.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. Net cash used in investing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and net cash provided by investing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was due to transactions involving short-term investments in the normal course of business.

Based on our current expectations, we believe that our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our currently planned operations for at least the next 12 months.

We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, or we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. We may require additional funding to support our operations if we were to spend capital on activities related to the outcome of our current evaluation of potential business alternatives, conduct development activities with respect to our product candidates beyond those development activities described above, including activities with respect to apatorsen or OGX-225, or if the clinical trials cost more than we anticipate. If we need to extend our cash availability or to conduct any such currently unplanned development activities, we would seek such necessary funding through the licensing or sale of certain of our product candidates, by executing a partnership or collaboration agreement, or executing a strategic transaction, or through private or public offerings of our equity or debt. However, we can provide no assurance that such funding would be available to us on favorable terms, or at all.

We did not have any off-balance sheet financing arrangements at September 30, 2016.

We previously disclosed certain contractual obligations and contingencies and commitments relevant to us within the financial statements and Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our Annual Report on Form

10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the SEC on March 9, 2016. There have been no material changes to our “Contractual Obligations” table in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of our 2015 Form 10-K. For more information regarding our current contingencies and commitments, see note 7 to the financial statements included above.

The decrease in assets at September 30, 2016 compared to December 31, 2015 was primarily due to a decrease in cash and cash equivalents as these assets have been used to fund operations. The decrease in liabilities at September 30, 2016 compared to December 31, 2015 were due to a decrease in deferred revenue as these amounts were recognized into collaboration revenue on a dollar for dollar basis as costs were incurred as part of the continuing research and development activities related to custirsen, lower clinical trial accruals associated with patient treatment costs in the AFFINITY trial and our investigator sponsored trials evaluating apatorsen and the reversal of the lease termination liability.

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts and related disclosures. We have discussed those estimates that we believe are critical and require the use of complex judgment in their application in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, filed with the SEC on March 9, 2016. Since December 31, 2015, there have been no material changes to our critical accounting policies or the methodologies or assumptions we apply under them.

See Note 2, “Accounting Policies,” of the consolidated financial statements for information related to the adoption of new accounting standards in 2016, none of which had a material impact on our financial statements, and the future adoption of recently issued accounting standards, which we do not expect to have a material impact on our financial statements.

Interest rate risk is the risk that the fair values and future cash flows of financial instruments will fluctuate because of the changes in market interest rates. We invest our cash in a variety of financial instruments, primarily in short-term bank deposits, money market funds, and domestic and foreign commercial paper and government securities. These investments are denominated in U.S. dollars, and we monitor our exposure to interest rate changes. We have very limited interest rate risk due to having only a few assets or liabilities subject to fluctuations in interest rates. Our investment portfolio includes only marketable securities with active secondary or resale markets to help ensure portfolio liquidity. Due to the nature of our highly liquid marketable securities, a change in interest rates would not materially change the fair market value. We have estimated the effect on our portfolio of a hypothetical increase in interest rates by 1% to be a reduction of approximately $0.3 million in the fair value of our investments as of September 30, 2016.

We are exposed to risks associated with foreign currency transactions on certain contracts and payroll expenses related to our Canadian subsidiary, OncoGenex Technologies, denominated in Canadian dollars, and we have not hedged these amounts. As our unhedged foreign currency transactions fluctuate, our earnings might be negatively affected. Accordingly, changes in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the Canadian dollar might have an adverse effect on our reported results of operations and financial condition, and fluctuations in exchange rates might harm our reported results and accounts from period to period. We have estimated the effect on our reported results of operations of a hypothetical increase of 10% in the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. dollar to be approximately $0.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2016.

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that material information required to be disclosed in our periodic reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Our disclosure controls and procedures are also designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act are accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2016, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act. Based upon that evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of the end of the period covered by this report.

We have not made any changes to our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the quarter ended September 30, 2016 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Our management does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been detected.

On January 5, 2016, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly known as Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) filed a lawsuit against our subsidiary OncoGenex Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Ionis claimed that OncoGenex Technologies was in breach of an Amended and Restated License Agreement between Ionis and OncoGenex Technologies dated July 2, 2008, as amended, or License Agreement. Under the License Agreement, Ionis is entitled to a share of certain forms of non-royalty revenue received by OncoGenex Technologies, but is not entitled to a share of revenue received by OncoGenex Technologies for the reimbursement of research and development activities. In April 2015, we terminated a collaboration agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. In connection with that termination, Teva paid us $23.2 million as an advance reimbursement for certain continuing research and development activities related to custirsen and certain other antisense inhibitors of clusterin. In the lawsuit, Ionis claimed that OncoGenex Technologies was in breach of the License Agreement for failing to pay Ionis a share of the advance reimbursement payment from Teva and other non-monetary consideration received from Teva. Ionis sought damages and a declaratory judgment that, based on OncoGenex Technologies’ alleged breach, Ionis has the right to terminate the License Agreement. On March 4, 2016, OncoGenex Technologies filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

In August 2016, we and Ionis settled our lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, we paid to pay Ionis a $1.4 million upfront payment and were required to pay additional success-based payments up to an amount not exceeding $5.0 million. In November 2016, we provided a notice of discontinuance of custirsen to Ionis, the Notice of Discontinuance, and we believe that all financial obligations, other than continuing mutual indemnification obligations, under all agreements with Ionis, including the settlement agreement, are no longer owed and no further payments are due.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and in the other periodic and current reports and other documents we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, before deciding to invest in our common stock. If any of the following risks materialize, our business, financial condition, results of operation and future prospects will likely be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment.

In August 2016, we engaged MTS Health Partners LP as our advisor to assist with the exploration of strategic alternatives. MTS Health Partners is providing a range of advisory services aimed to enhance stockholder value. The alternatives to be considered may include, but are not limited to, the potential for an acquisition, merger, strategic partnership or other strategic transactions. We have and expect to continue to devote substantial time and resources to exploring strategic alternatives; however, there can be no assurance that such activities will result in any agreements or transactions that will enhance stockholder value. Further, any strategic transaction that is completed ultimately may not deliver the anticipated benefits or enhance stockholder value. There also can be no assurance that we will conduct drug development activities in the future.

Furthermore, we may acquire additional businesses, products or product candidates that complement or augment our existing business. Integrating any newly acquired business, product or product candidate could be expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to integrate any acquired business, product or product candidate successfully or operate any acquired business profitably. Our future financial performance will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively and our ability to integrate any acquired businesses.

If no transactions with respect to potential business alternatives are identified and completed, our board of directors may decide to pursue a dissolution and liquidation of our company. If our board of directors were to approve and recommend, and our stockholders were to approve, a dissolution and liquidation of our company, we would be required under Delaware corporate law to pay our outstanding obligations, as well as to make reasonable provision for contingent and unknown obligations, prior to making any distributions in liquidation to our stockholders. As a result of this requirement, a portion of our assets may need to be reserved pending the resolution of such obligations. In addition, we may be subject to litigation or other claims related to a dissolution and liquidation of our company. If a dissolution and liquidation were pursued, our board of directors, in consultation with its advisors, would need to evaluate these matters and make a determination about a reasonable amount to reserve. Accordingly, holders of our common stock may lose their entire investment in the event of a bankruptcy, liquidation, dissolution or winding up of our company.

We have incurred losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. We have never had any products available for commercial sale and we may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, are not profitable, have incurred losses in each year since our inception and do not expect to become profitable in the foreseeable future. We have never had any products available for commercial sale, and we have not generated any revenue from product sales nor do we anticipate that we will generate revenue from product sales in the near future. Our revenue to date has been collaboration revenue under the Collaboration Agreement with Teva, which was terminated in April 2015. In addition, our most advance clinical stage product candidate, custirsen, failed in its phase 3 clinical trials and its development has been discontinued. Our other product candidates, apatorsen and OGX-225, are earlier in development and will require additional capital and time to move forward in development. We have not yet submitted any products for approval by regulatory authorities, and we continue to incur research and development and general and administrative expenses related to our operations. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to evaluate strategic alternatives, continue our research activities and conduct development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, and prepare for and begin to commercialize any approved products. If we fail to successfully complete a strategic transaction or our product candidates fail in clinical trials or do not gain regulatory approval, or if our product candidates do not achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods.

Clinical trials may not demonstrate a clinical benefit of our product candidates.

Positive results from preclinical studies and clinical trials, including any exploratory results from the apatorsen clinical trials conducted to date should not be relied on as evidence that on-going, amended, or later-stage or large-scale clinical trials will succeed.

We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials will be successful because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies, despite having progressed through initial clinical trials. Further, preliminary results from our clinical trials may not be confirmed in final data, or may change materially. For example, all our phase 3 clinical trials for custirsen failed to meet their clinical endpoints, even after positive results in earlier trials.

Even after the completion of Phase 3 clinical trials, regulatory agencies may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data, and may require us to conduct additional clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of our product candidates.

We may choose to make amendments to ongoing studies for any reason including to analyze final top line data earlier than planned. Any future amendments may compromise the integrity of the clinical trial results and may not be acceptable to regulators.

We cannot give any assurance that apatorsen, or our other product candidate, will receive regulatory approval or will be successfully commercialized.

We conducted seven randomized phase 2 clinical trials evaluating apatorsen in several cancer indications. All but one of the phase 2 clinical trials for apatorsen failed to meet their pre-defined clinical endpoints. Completing additional clinical trials will be required for apatorsen to establish the safety and efficacy of this product candidate. We currently do not have sufficient capital to conduct additional clinical trials for apatorsen without a strategic partner, raising additional funds or completing a strategic transaction committed to the development of apatorsen. The failure of apatorsen to be shown safe or effective in one or more indications could negatively impact the development of apatorsen in other indications and could result in the suspension or termination of our apatorsen development and commercialization plans.

OGX-225 has not been tested in humans. Our preclinical testing of this product candidate may not be favorable and we may not be able to clinically evaluate OGX-225.

Our clinical development programs for our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval either if such product candidates fail to demonstrate that they are safe and effective in clinical trials and consequently fail to obtain necessary approvals from the regulatory agencies, or if we have inadequate financial or other resources to advance these product candidates through the clinical trial process. If competitive products developed by third parties show significant benefit in the cancer indications in which we are developing our product candidates, any planned supportive or primary registration trials may be delayed, altered or not initiated and apatorsen and our other product candidates may never receive regulatory approval. Any failure to obtain regulatory approval of apatorsen or our other product candidates could have a material and adverse effect on our business.

Because we depend on financing from third parties for our operations, our business may fail if such financing becomes unavailable or is not available on commercially reasonable terms.

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of our equity securities and from payments we received pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement with Teva. In April 2015, our Collaboration Agreement with Teva was terminated, and we will not receive any future payments from Teva. We believe that our existing capital resources and interest on such resources will be sufficient to meet our current operating requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, if the timeline to complete a strategic transaction takes longer than anticipated, we change our development plans or elect to further develop apatorsen or OGX-225, cannot find third-party collaborators for our other product candidates, our trials proceed slower or take longer than expected to complete, we acquire rights to new product candidates, do not successfully defend litigation or engage in commercialization and product launch activities, we will need additional capital sooner than we expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including, without limitation:

If we are unable to raise funds on acceptable terms when it becomes necessary to do so, we may not be able to continue developing our product candidates, acquire or develop additional product candidates or respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated requirements. For these reasons, any inability to raise additional funds when we require it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may fail to achieve the expected financial and operating benefits of our plan to reduce operating expenses and the plan may harm our business and financial results.

In February 2016, we announced a plan to reduce operating expenses, which included a workforce reduction of 11 employees, representing approximately 27% of our employees prior to the reduction. In October 2016, we committed to an additional restructuring of a portion of our workforce in order to preserve our resources as we determine future strategic plans. As part of this restructuring, we will eliminate 16 positions, representing approximately 55% of our employees prior to the reduction. We face significant risks associated with this plan that may impair our ability to achieve anticipated savings and operational efficiencies or that may otherwise harm our business. These risks include loss of workforce capabilities, decreases in employee focus and morale, attrition of necessary or key employees, higher than anticipated separation expenses, litigation, and the failure to meet financial and operational targets. In addition, potential strategic transaction targets may be interested in our human resources and may rely on those resources to execute their plan and we cannot be assured that we can retain such individuals. In addition, the calculation of the anticipated cost savings and other benefits resulting from our plan to reduce operating expenses are subject to many estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions are subject to significant business, economic, competitive and other uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control. If these estimates and assumptions are incorrect or if we experience delays or unforeseen events, our business and financial results could be adversely affected.

We may seek to partner with third-party collaborators with respect to the development and commercialization of our product candidates, and we cannot control whether we will be able to do so on favorable terms, if at all.

Our business strategy relies in part on potentially partnering successful product candidates with larger companies to complement our internal development and commercialization efforts. We will be competing with many other companies as we seek partners for our product candidates and may not be able to compete successfully against those companies. If we are not able to enter into collaboration arrangements for our product candidates, we would be required to undertake and fund further development, clinical trials, manufacturing and commercialization activities solely at our own expense and risk. If we are unable to finance and/or successfully execute those expensive activities, or we delay such activities due to capital availability, our business could be materially and adversely affected, and potential future product launch could be materially delayed, be less successful, or we may be forced to discontinue clinical development of these product candidates.

We rely on third parties to manufacture and supply our product candidates and other agents used in our clinical trials and potential future commercial use. A decrease in the availability or quality of any of these products or agents could increase clinical trial costs, delay or halt clinical development or regulatory approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our future product candidates, resulting in additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities, and we depend on third-party contract manufacturers for production of all of our product candidates and rely on other companies and their manufacturers for other agents used in all of our clinical trials. We lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates ourselves. To date, our product candidates have been manufactured in limited quantities for preclinical studies and clinical trials. All active pharmaceutical ingredients, or API, and drug

product for apatorsen have been manufactured for us by third parties pursuant to a purchase order or short-term contract that has been fulfilled.

If, in the future, one of our product candidates is approved for commercial sale, we, or a pharmaceutical partner that has licensed such product candidate, may need to manufacture that product candidate in commercial quantities. We cannot provide assurance that the third-party manufacturers with which we have contracted in the past will have sufficient capacity to satisfy our future manufacturing needs, that we will be able to negotiate additional purchases of API or drug product from these or alternative manufacturers on terms favorable to us, if at all, or that a pharmaceutical partner that has licensed such product candidate will have sufficient capacity or expertise to satisfy future needs.

Third-party manufacturers may fail to perform under their contractual obligations, or may fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of bulk API or finished drug product on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices. We have experienced manufacturing quality issues resulting in an unusable lot of product candidate in the past. Any performance failure on the part of our contract manufacturers could delay clinical development or regulatory approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our future product candidates, depriving us of potential product revenue and resulting in additional losses. If we are required to identify and qualify an alternate manufacturer, we may be forced to delay or suspend our clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our product candidates, which may cause us to incur higher costs and could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates successfully. If we are unable to find one or more replacement manufacturers capable of production at a reasonably favorable cost, in adequate volumes, of adequate quality and on a timely basis, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our product candidates and our clinical trials could be delayed or we could lose potential revenue. Our ability to replace an existing API manufacturer may be difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited to approximately five manufacturers, and regulatory agencies must inspect any replacement manufacturer and review information related to product produced at the manufacturer before they can begin manufacturing our product candidates. It may be difficult or impossible for us to identify and engage a replacement manufacturer on acceptable terms in a timely manner, if at all. We expect to continue to depend on third-party contract manufacturers for the foreseeable future.

Our product candidates require precise, high-quality manufacturing. Any of our contract manufacturers will be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by regulatory agencies to ensure strict compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, and other applicable government regulations and corresponding standards. If our contract manufacturers fail to achieve and maintain high manufacturing standards in compliance with cGMP regulations, we may experience manufacturing errors resulting in patient injury or death, product recalls or withdrawals, delays or interruptions of production or failures in product testing or delivery, delay or prevention of filing or approval of marketing applications for our product candidates, cost overruns or other problems that could seriously affect our business.

Significant manufacturing scale-up may require additional validation studies, which the regulatory agencies must review and approve. Additionally, any third-party manufacturers we retain to manufacture our product candidates on a commercial scale must pass regulatory agencies’ pre-approval inspection for conformance to cGMP regulations before we can obtain approval of our product candidates. If we are unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for a product candidate in conformance with cGMP regulations, the regulatory approval or commercial launch of any related products may be delayed or there may be a shortage in supply.

We also rely on third-parties for the provision of other agents used in our clinical trials, and in some circumstances these agents are provided to us at no cost. We have no assurance that these third-parties will continue to provide their products to us at no cost.

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

The life sciences industry is highly competitive, and we face significant competition from many pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are researching and marketing products designed to address cancer indications for which we are currently developing products or for which we may develop products in the future. We are aware of several other companies that are developing therapeutics that seek to promote tumor cell death. Several therapies have been recently approved by the FDA, and we expect more to be approved in the future.

Some of our product candidates’ development plans include pursuing prostate and lung cancer indications. Substantial advancements in the treatment of prostate and lung cancer have occurred in the past two years and new products from our competitors have been approved for marketing on the basis of showing a survival advantage. Any products we may develop in the future are also likely to face competition from other drugs and therapies. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing and drug development resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing and in obtaining regulatory approvals for drugs. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are, or may become, active

in cancer research, and develop products that may directly compete with ours. If our competitors market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than our future product candidates, if any, or that reach the market sooner than our future product candidates, if any, we may not achieve commercial success.

If new therapies become broadly used, we may need to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates in combination with these new therapies to demonstrate safety and efficacy of the combination. Additional trials will delay the development of our product candidates and increase our costs. The failure of certain of our product candidates to work in combination with these new therapies would have an adverse effect on our business.

Our intention is to combine certain of our product candidates with therapies that are broadly used by clinicians and considered highly effective. As new therapies are developed, we will need to assess these therapies to determine whether to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates in combination with them to demonstrate safety and efficacy of the combination. If we determine that it is appropriate to conduct additional clinical trials of our product candidates in combination with these new therapies, the development of our product candidates will be delayed and our costs will be increased. If these clinical trials generate safety concerns or lack of efficacy, our business would be adversely affected.

We rely, in part, on third parties to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates and plan to rely on third parties to conduct future clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our current and future product candidates.

To implement our product development strategies, we rely on third parties, such as collaborators, contract research organizations, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories, to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates. Although we rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with our development plan and protocol. Moreover, regulatory agencies require us to comply with regulations and standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the clinical trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. Our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. If the third parties conducting our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, do not meet expected deadlines or need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to GCPs or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties and our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated. In addition, a failure by such third parties to perform their obligations in compliance with GCPs may cause our clinical trials to fail to meet regulatory requirements, which may require us to repeat our clinical trials.

Our clinical trials may be suspended or terminated at any time, including by regulatory agencies, a Data Safety Monitoring Board overseeing the clinical trial at issue, by a clinical trial site or investigator, or by us. Any failure or significant delay in completing clinical trials for our product candidates could materially harm our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

We do not know whether any of our currently planned or on-going clinical trials for apatorsen will proceed or be completed on schedule, if at all, or, with respect to our product candidate, whether we will be able to initiate any future preclinical studies or clinical trials, as applicable, beyond those currently planned. The completion of our clinical trials currently in progress could also be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

The completion or commencement of future preclinical studies or clinical trials could be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

Our product candidates may cause undesirable and potentially serious side effects during clinical trials that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization.

Since patients in our clinical trials have advanced stages of cancer, we expect that additional adverse events, including serious adverse events, will occur.

Undesirable side effects caused by any of our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to amend, interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by regulatory agencies for any or all targeted indications or decrease the competitive opportunity of the product candidate which may decrease sales potential. This, in turn, could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates and generating revenue from their sale. In addition, if our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the product:

Any one or a combination of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from

generating significant revenue from the sale of the product. Historic events have raised questions about the safety of other companies’ marketed drugs and may result in increased cautiousness by regulatory agencies in reviewing new drugs based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, additional clinical trials being required, or more stringent product labeling requirements. Any delay in obtaining, or the inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

If we were to be successfully sued related to our products or operations, we could face substantial liabilities that may exceed our resources.

We may be held liable if any of our products or operations cause injury or death or are found otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. These risks are inherent in the development of pharmaceutical products. We currently maintain commercial general and umbrella liability policies with combined limits of $10.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate, in addition to a $10.0 million per claim and annual aggregate product liability insurance policy related to our clinical trials consistent with industry standards. When necessary for our products, we intend to obtain additional product liability insurance. Insurance coverage may be prohibitively expensive, may not fully cover potential liabilities or may not be available in the future. Inability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or otherwise to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of our products. If we were to be sued for any injury caused by or associated with our products or operations, the litigation could consume substantial time and attention of our management, and the resulting liability could exceed our total assets.

Even if we receive regulatory approval to market our product candidates, the market may not be receptive to our products.

Even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and/or the medical community. We believe that the degree of market acceptance will depend on a number of factors, including:

If our future product candidates fail to achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to generate significant revenue or achieve or sustain profitability.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate coverage and reimbursement levels and pricing policies.

Successful sales of any future products will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for our products will be available from government and health administration authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors. To manage healthcare costs, many governments and third-party payors increasingly scrutinize the pricing of new products and require greater levels of evidence of favorable clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness before extending coverage. In light of such challenges to prices, we cannot be sure that we will achieve coverage for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, their marketability will be negatively and materially impacted.

Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. In addition, obtaining and maintaining adequate coverage and reimbursement status is time-consuming and costly. Third party payors may deny coverage and reimbursement status altogether of a given drug product, or cover the product but may also establish prices at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Because the rules and regulations regarding coverage and reimbursement change frequently, in some cases at short notice, even when there is favorable coverage and reimbursement, future changes may occur that adversely impact the favorable status.

The unavailability or inadequacy of third-party coverage and reimbursement could have a material adverse effect on the market acceptance of any of our future products and the future revenues we may expect to receive from those products. In addition, we are unable to predict what additional legislation or regulation relating to the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted in the future, or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business.

If we fail to acquire and develop products or product candidates at all or on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to grow our business.

We currently do not have internal discovery capabilities and depend on pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and other researchers to sell or license products or product candidates to us. To date, three of our product candidates have been derived from technologies discovered by the Vancouver Prostate Centre and licensed to us by UBC. We intend to continue to rely on research institutions and other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies as sources of product candidates. We cannot guarantee that the Vancouver Prostate Centre or UBC will continue to develop new product candidate opportunities, that we will continue to have access to such opportunities or that we will be able to purchase or license these product candidates on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If we are unable to purchase or license new product candidates from the Vancouver Prostate Centre or UBC, we will be required to identify alternative sources of product candidates.

The success of our product pipeline strategy depends on our ability to identify, select and acquire pharmaceutical product candidates. Proposing, negotiating and implementing an economically viable product acquisition or license is a lengthy and complex process. We compete for partnering arrangements and license agreements with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and academic research institutions. Our competitors may have stronger relationships with third parties with whom we are interested in collaborating and/or may have more established histories of developing and commercializing products. As a result, our competitors may have a competitive advantage in entering into partnering arrangements with such third parties. In addition, even if we find promising product candidates, and generate interest in a partnering or strategic arrangement to acquire such product candidates, we may not be able to acquire rights to additional product candidates or approved products on terms that we find acceptable, if at all. If we fail to acquire and develop product candidates from others, we may be unable to grow our business.

We expect that any product candidate that we acquire rights to will require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive clinical evaluation and approval by regulatory agencies. All product candidates are subject to the risks of failure inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. Even if the product candidates are approved, we can make no assurance that we would be capable of economically producing the product or that the product would be commercially successful.

We may be adversely affected if our controls over financial reporting fail or are circumvented.

We regularly review and update our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies. In addition, we are required under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 to report annually on our internal control over financial reporting. If it were to be determined that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective, such shortcoming could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results and the price of our common stock could be negatively affected. This reporting requirement could also make it more difficult or more costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. Any system of internal controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of the controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulation concerning control and procedures could have a material effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition. Any of these events could result in an adverse reaction in the financial marketplace due to a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which ultimately could negatively affect the market price of our shares, increase the volatility of our stock price and adversely affect our ability to raise additional funding. The effect of these events could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board and our Board committees and as executive officers.

Our proprietary rights may not adequately protect our technologies and product candidates.

Our commercial success will depend on our ability to obtain patents and/or regulatory exclusivity and maintain adequate protection for our technologies and product candidates in the United States and other countries. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary technologies and future product candidates are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets.

We and our collaborators intend to apply for additional patents covering both our technologies and product candidates, as we deem appropriate. We or our collaborators may, however, fail to apply for patents on important technologies or product candidates in a timely fashion, if at all. Our existing patents and any future patents we or our collaborators obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from developing competing products and technologies. In addition, we do not always control the patent prosecution of subject matter that we license from others. Accordingly, we are sometimes unable to exercise a significant degree of control over such intellectual property as we would over our own.

Moreover, the patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. As a result, the validity and enforceability of our patents cannot be predicted with certainty. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has revised certain tests regarding granting patents and assessing the validity of patents to make it more difficult to obtain patents. As a consequence, issued patents may be found to contain invalid claims according to the revised standards. Some of our patents or those of our collaborators may be subject to challenge and subsequent invalidation or significant narrowing of claim scope in a re-examination proceeding, or during litigation, under the revised criteria. We cannot guarantee that:

The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country to country and depends on many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patents. Our ability or the ability of our collaborators to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our product candidates will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. Our issued patents and those that may issue in the future, or those licensed to us or our collaborators, may be challenged, invalidated, unenforceable or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar products. Due to the extensive amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent.

We also rely on trade secrets to protect some of our technology, especially where it is believed that patent protection is not appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to maintain. While we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our or our collaboration partners’ employees, consultants, contractors or scientific and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our proprietary information to competitors. For example, under our Termination Agreement with Teva, Teva is not permitted to use our confidential information which would include our trade secrets. We may not be able to adequately determine whether Teva uses any of our trade secrets and if they do, we may not be able to sufficiently enforce their non-use. Enforcement of claims that a third party has illegally obtained and is using trade secrets is expensive, time consuming and uncertain. In addition, non-U.S. courts are sometimes less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. If our competitors independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, we would not be able to assert our trade secrets against them and our business could be harmed.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on all of our product candidates and products, when and if we have any, in every jurisdiction would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we or our licensors have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products. These products may compete with our products, when and if we have any, and may not be covered by any of our or our licensors’ patent claims or other intellectual property rights.

The laws of some non-U.S. countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual

property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and/or pharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

We may become involved in disputes with past or potential future collaborators over intellectual property ownership, and publications by our research collaborators and scientific advisors could impair our ability to obtain patent protection or protect our proprietary information, which, in either case, could have a significant effect on our business.

Inventions discovered under research, material transfer or other such collaborative agreements may become jointly owned by us and the other party to such agreements in some cases and the exclusive property of either party in other cases. Under some circumstances, it may be difficult to determine who owns a particular invention, or whether it is jointly owned, and disputes could arise regarding ownership of those inventions. These disputes could be costly and time consuming and an unfavorable outcome could have a significant adverse effect on our business if we were not able to protect or license rights to these inventions. In addition, our research collaborators and scientific advisors generally have contractual rights to publish our data and other proprietary information, subject to our prior review. Publications by our research collaborators and scientific advisors containing such information, either with our permission or in contravention of the terms of their agreements with us, may impair our ability to obtain patent protection or protect our proprietary information, which could significantly harm our business.

The intellectual property protection for our product candidates depends on third parties.

With respect to apatorsen and OGX-225, we have exclusively licensed from UBC certain issued patents and pending patent applications covering the respective antisense sequences underlying these product candidates and their commercialization and use, and we have licensed from Ionis certain issued patents and pending patent applications directed to product compositions and chemical modifications used in product candidates for commercialization, use and the manufacturing thereof, as well as some alternative antisense sequences. We have also received a sublicense from Ionis under certain third-party patent portfolios directed to such modifications.

The patents and pending patent applications underlying our licenses do not cover all potential product candidates, modifications and uses. In the case of patents and patent applications licensed from Ionis, we do not have and have not had any control over the filing, prosecution or enforcement of these patents or patent applications. We cannot be certain that such prosecution efforts have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents. We also cannot be assured that our licensors or their respective licensing partners will agree to enforce any such patent rights at our request or devote sufficient efforts to attain a desirable result. Any failure by our licensors or any of their respective licensing partners to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operation.

If we breach any of the agreements under which we license rights to our product candidates or technology from third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business. Certain of our license agreements may not provide an adequate remedy for a breach by the licensor.

We license the development and commercialization rights for most of our product candidates, including apatorsen and OGX-225. Under such licenses, we are subject to various obligations such as sublicensing, royalty and milestone payments, annual maintenance fees, limits on sublicensing, insurance obligations and the obligation to use commercially reasonable best efforts to develop and exploit the licensed technology. If we fail to comply with any of these obligations or otherwise breach these agreements, our licensors may have the right to terminate the license in whole or in part or to terminate the exclusive nature of the license. We may also become involved in disputes with current or former licensors regarding the meaning of certain terms in the license agreements, including terms related to royalty and milestone payments and termination, which may result in costly and time consuming litigation. Loss of any of these licenses or the exclusivity rights provided by the licenses, or disputes with current or former licensors, could harm our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, certain of our license agreements with UBC eliminate our ability to obtain money damages in respect of certain claims against UBC.

The patent protection for our product candidates or products may expire before we are able to maximize their commercial value, which may subject us to increased competition and reduce or eliminate our opportunity to generate product revenue.

The patents for our product candidates have varying expiration dates and, when these patents expire, we may be subject to increased competition and we may not be able to recover our development costs. For example, certain of the U.S. patents directed to apatorsen and its use that have been licensed from UBC are scheduled to expire in 2023. In some of the larger economic territories, such as the United States and Europe, patent term extension/restoration may be available to compensate for time taken during aspects of the product candidate’s regulatory review. We cannot, however, be certain that an extension will be granted or, if granted, what the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded during any extended period will be. In addition, even though some

regulatory agencies may provide some other exclusivity for a product candidate under its own laws and regulations, we may not be able to qualify the product candidate or obtain the exclusive time period.

If we are unable to obtain patent term extension/restoration or some other exclusivity, we could be subject to increased competition and our opportunity to establish or maintain product revenue could be substantially reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, we may not have sufficient time to recover our development costs prior to the expiration of our U.S. and non-U.S. patents.

We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property rights and we may be unable to protect our rights to, or use of, our technology.

If we choose to go to court to stop someone else from using the inventions claimed in our patents or our licensed patents, that individual or company has the right to ask the court to rule that these patents are invalid and/or should not be enforced against that third party. These lawsuits are expensive and would consume time and other resources even if we were successful in stopping the infringement of these patents. In addition, there is a risk that the court will decide that these patents are invalid or unenforceable and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the inventions. The U.S. Supreme Court has revised certain tests regarding granting patents and assessing the validity of patents to make it more difficult to obtain patents. Some of our issued patents may be subject to challenge and subsequent invalidation under the revised criteria. There is also the risk that, even if the validity or unenforceability of these patents is upheld, the court will narrow the scope of our claim or will refuse to stop the other party on the grounds that such other party’s activities do not infringe our rights.

If we wish to use the technology or compound claimed in issued and unexpired patents owned by others, we will need to obtain a license from the owner, enter into litigation to challenge the validity or enforceability of the patents or incur the risk of litigation in the event that the owner asserts that we infringed its patents. The failure to obtain a license to technology or the failure to challenge an issued patent that we may require to discover, develop or commercialize our product candidates may have a material adverse effect on us.

If a third party asserts that we infringed its patents or other proprietary rights, we could face a number of risks that could seriously harm our results of operations, financial condition and competitive position, including:

The biotechnology industry has produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates or methods of use either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent, and/or that the patent claims are invalid, and/or that the patent is unenforceable and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity, in particular, is difficult since it requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents.

U.S. patent laws as well as the laws of some foreign jurisdictions provide for provisional rights in published patent applications beginning on the date of publication, including the right to obtain reasonable royalties, if a patent subsequently issues and certain other conditions are met.

Because some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing and because publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our licensors’ issued patents or our pending applications or our licensors’ pending applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to invent the technology.

Patent applications filed by third parties that cover technology similar to ours may have priority over our or our licensors’ patent applications and could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party files a U.S.

patent application on an invention similar to ours, we may elect to participate in or be drawn into an interference proceeding declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position with respect to such inventions. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations. We cannot predict whether third parties will assert these claims against us or against the licensors of technology licensed to us, or whether those claims will harm our business. If we are forced to defend against these claims, whether they are with or without any merit and whether they are resolved in favor of or against us or our licensors, we may face costly litigation and diversion of management’s attention and resources. As a result of these disputes, we may have to develop costly non-infringing technology, or enter into licensing agreements. These agreements, if necessary, may be unavailable on terms acceptable to us, if at all, which could seriously harm our business or financial condition.

We may be subject to damages resulting from claims that we, or our employees or consultants, have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of third parties.

Many of our employees were previously employed, and certain of our consultants are currently employed, at universities or biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we have not received any claim to date, we may be subject to claims that these employees or consultants or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of these current or former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. We may be subject to claims that employees of our partners or licensors of technology licensed by us have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. We may become involved in litigation to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.

The market prices for our common stock and that of emerging life science companies generally have historically been highly volatile. For example, after the announcement of data from recent custirsen and apatorsen clinical trials, we experienced a significant decreases in our stock price. Future announcements concerning us, the results of our clinical trials or our competitors may also have a significant effect on the market price of our common stock. The stock markets also experience significant price and volume fluctuation unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may also adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

An increase in the market price of our common stock, which is uncertain and unpredictable, may be the sole source of gain from an investment in our common stock. An investment in our common stock may not be appropriate for investors who require dividend income. We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be the sole source of gain for stockholders for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, an investment in our common stock may not be appropriate for investors who require dividend income or investors who are not prepared to bear a significant risk of losses from such an investment.

The price of our common stock does not meet the requirements for continued listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market. If we fail to regain compliance with the minimum listing requirements, our common stock will be subject to delisting. Our ability to publicly or privately sell equity securities and the liquidity of our common stock could be adversely affected if our common stock is delisted.

The continued listing standards of The NASDAQ Capital Market require, among other things, that the minimum bid price of a listed company’s stock be at or above $1.00. If the minimum bid price is below $1.00 for a period of more than 30 consecutive trading days, the listed company will fail to be in compliance with The NASDAQ Capital Market’s listing rules and, if it does not regain compliance within the grace period, will be subject to delisting. As previously reported, on August 22, 2016, we received a notice from the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Department notifying us that for 30 consecutive trading days, the bid price of our common stock had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share requirement. In accordance with The NASDAQ Capital Market’s listing rules, we were afforded 180 calendar days, or until February 21, 2017, to regain compliance with the bid price requirement. In order to regain compliance, the bid price of our common stock must close at a price of at least $1.00 per share for a minimum of 10 consecutive trading days. If we fail to regain compliance, our common stock will be subject to delisting. Delisting from The NASDAQ Capital Market could adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing through the public or private sale of equity securities, would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our securities and would negatively affect the value and liquidity

of our common stock. Delisting could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by employees, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities, including in circumstances where such declines occur in close proximity to the announcement of clinical trial results. This risk is especially relevant for us because our stock price and those of other biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

If we raise additional capital, the terms of the financing transactions may cause dilution to existing stockholders or contain terms that are not favorable to us.

To date, our sources of cash have been limited primarily to proceeds from the private or public placement of our securities and reimbursement for custirsen-related development expenses from our prior strategic collaboration with Teva, which terminated in April 2015. In the future, we may seek to raise additional financing through private placements or public offerings of our equity or debt securities. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. To the extent that we raise additional financing by issuing equity securities, we may do so at a price per share that represents a discount to the then-current per share trading price of our common stock and our stockholders may experience significant dilution. Any debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional indebtedness, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business.

We may engage in future acquisitions that increase our capital requirements, dilute our stockholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities and subject us to other risks.

We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis, including licensing or acquiring complementary products, technologies or businesses. In August 2016, we engaged MTS Health Partners LP as our advisor to assist with the exploration of strategic alternatives. MTS Health Partners is providing a range of advisory services aimed to enhance stockholder value. The alternatives to be considered may include, but are not limited to, the potential for an acquisition, merger, strategic partnership or other strategic transactions. Any potential acquisitions may entail numerous risks, including increased operating expenses and cash requirements, assimilation of operations and products, retention of key employees, diversion of our management’s attention and uncertainties in our ability to maintain key business relationships of the acquired entities. In addition, if we undertake acquisitions, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense and write-offs. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition opportunities and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or products that may be important to the development of our business.

There is a high risk that our drug development activities will not result in commercial products.

Our product candidates are in various stages of development and are prone to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We will need to complete significant additional clinical trials before we can demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies. Clinical trials are expensive and uncertain processes that take years to complete. Failure can occur at any stage of the process, and successful early clinical trials do not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to show desired efficacy and safety traits despite having progressed through initial clinical trials. For example, all of our phase 3 clinical trials for custirsen and all but one of our phase 2 trials for apatorsen failed to meet their clinical endpoints, even after positive results in earlier trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after obtaining promising results in earlier clinical trials. In addition, a clinical trial may prove successful with respect to a secondary objective, but fail to demonstrate clinically significant benefits with respect to a primary objective. Failure to satisfy a primary objective in a phase 3 clinical trial (registration trial) would generally mean that a product candidate would not receive regulatory approval.

The regulatory approval process is expensive, time consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by regulatory agencies, which regulations differ from country to country. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States until we receive approval of an application for market approval from regulatory agencies. We have not

submitted an application for or received marketing approval for any of our product candidates. Obtaining approval of an application for market approval can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. In addition, failure to comply with regulatory agencies’ requirements may, either before or after product approval, if any, subject us to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

Regulatory approval of an application for market approval or application for market approval supplement is not guaranteed, and the approval process is expensive and may take several years. Regulatory agencies also has substantial discretion in the drug approval process. Despite the time and expense exerted, failure can occur at any stage, and we could encounter problems that could cause us to abandon clinical trials or to repeat or perform additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. The number of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for regulatory agencies’ approval varies depending on the drug candidate, the disease or condition that the drug candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular drug candidate. Regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of a drug candidate for many reasons, including:

Even if we obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our product candidates may limit how we manufacture and market our product candidates, which could materially affect our ability to generate revenue.

If any of our product candidates are approved, the approved product and its manufacturer will be subject to continual review. Any regulatory approval that we receive for a product candidate is likely to be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the end product may be marketed, or include requirements for potentially costly post-approval follow-up clinical trials. In addition, if regulatory agencies approve any of our product candidates, the labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising and promotion for the end product will be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. We and the manufacturers of our products, when and if we have any, will also be required to comply with cGMP regulations, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance, as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. Further, regulatory agencies must approve these manufacturing facilities before they can be used to manufacture our products, when and if we have any, and these facilities are subject to ongoing regulatory inspection. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of regulatory agencies, or if previously unknown problems with our products, when and if we have any, manufacturers or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

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

If government and third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement rates for our product candidates, our revenue and potential for profitability will be reduced.

In the United States and elsewhere, our product revenue will depend principally on the reimbursement rates established by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed-care providers, public health insurers, private health insurers and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, and examining the cost-effectiveness, of medical products and services. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status, if any, of newly approved drugs, pharmaceutical products or product indications. We may need to conduct post-marketing clinical trials in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products, if any. Such clinical trials may require us to commit a significant amount of management time and financial and other resources. If reimbursement of such product is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our revenue could be reduced.

In some countries other than the United States, particularly the countries of the European Union and Canada, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, obtaining pricing approval from governmental authorities can take six to 12 months or longer after the receipt of regulatory marketing approval of a product for an indication. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of one of our product candidates to other available therapies. If reimbursement of such product candidate is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our revenue could be reduced.

Domestic and foreign governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare, including drugs. In the United States, there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, federal and state proposals to implement similar governmental control. In addition, increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States will continue to put pressure on the pricing of pharmaceutical products. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively, PPACA, became law in the United States. PPACA substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and significantly affects the pharmaceutical industry.

We anticipate that the PPACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and downward pressure on the price for any approved product, and could seriously harm our prospects. In addition, the Medicare and Medicaid program and state healthcare laws and regulations may also be modified to change the scope of covered products and/or reimbursement methodology. Cost control initiatives could decrease the established reimbursement rates that we receive for any products in the future, which would limit our revenue and profitability. Legislation and regulations affecting the pricing of pharmaceutical products, including apatorsen may change at any time, which could further limit or eliminate reimbursement rates for apatorsen or other product candidates.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval outside of the United States and Canada would prevent us from marketing our product candidates abroad.

We intend to market certain of our existing and future product candidates outside of the United States and Canada. In order to market our existing and future product candidates in the European Union and many other non-North American markets, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. We have had limited interactions with non-North American regulatory authorities. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more non-North American regulatory authorities does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. The non-North American regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not obtain non-North American regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for non-North American regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our existing and future product candidates in any market.

Exhibit Number		Description

10.1		Employment Agreement by and between OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and John Bencich, dated September 22, 2016

31.1		Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

31.2		Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.1*		Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.2*		Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document

101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Exhibit Number		Description

10.1		Employment Agreement by and between OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and John Bencich, dated September 22, 2016

31.1		Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

31.2		Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.1*		Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.2*		Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document

101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

Delaware		95-4343413
(State or Other Jurisdiction of		(I.R.S. Employer
Incorporation or Organization)		Identification Number)

Large accelerated filer	☐		Accelerated filer	☐

Non-accelerated filer	☐	(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company	☒

		Page Number

Part I. Financial Information		3

Item 1	Financial Statements (unaudited)	3

	Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2016 (unaudited) and December 31, 2015	3

	Consolidated Statements of Loss and Comprehensive Loss (unaudited) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015	4

	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (unaudited) for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015	5

	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)	6

Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	17

Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	25

Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	26

Part II. Other Information		27

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	27

Item 1A.	Risk Factors	28

Item 6.	Exhibits	43

Items 2, 3 and 4 are not applicable and therefore have been omitted.

Signatures		44

Exhibit Index		45

	Nine Months Ended
	September 30,
	2016			2015
Risk-free interest rates		1.51	%		1.74	%
Expected dividend yield		0	%		0	%
Expected life	5.3 years			5.8 years
Expected volatility		71.88	%		62.31	%

				Weighted
	Number			Average
	of			Grant Date
	Shares			Fair Value
Balance, December 31, 2015		640,759		$	4.92
Settled		(207,296	)		5.21
Forfeited or expired		(92,378	)		6.39
Balance, September 30, 2016		341,085		$	4.35

Class		Outstanding at November 10, 2016
Common Stock, $0.001 par value		30,020,294

	Liability at				Unrealized			Liability at
	December 31,		Issuance of		Gain on			September 30,
	2015		Warrants		warrants			2016
Warrant liability	$	1,105	$	—	$	(755	)	$	350

	Total
	Outstanding		Exercise
	and		price per
	Exercisable		Share		Expiration Date
(1) Series A Warrants issued in July 2014 financing		2,779,933		4.00	July 2019
(2) Series B Warrants issued in July 2014 financing		670,269		4.00	July 2019
(3) Series A-1 Warrants issued in April 2015 financing		239,234		2.40	October 2020

	As of
	September 30,
Series A and Series B Warrant Valuation Assumptions	2016			2015
Risk-free interest rates		0.85	%		1.09	%
Expected dividend yield		0	%		0	%
Expected life	2.75 years			3.75 years
Expected volatility		100.97	%		70.15	%

	September 30,		December 31,
(in thousands)	2016		2015
Total Assets	$	35,074	$	58,209
Total Liabilities		10,655		20,769
Total Equity		24,419		37,440

	ONCOGENEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Date: November 10, 2016	By:	/s/ Scott Cormack
		Scott Cormack
		President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 10, 2016	By:	/s/ John Bencich
		John Bencich
		Chief Financial Officer