Edgar Filing: iBio, Inc.

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

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

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016

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

For the transition period from ___ to ___

Commission file number 001-35023

iBio, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware	26-2797813
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

600 Madison Avenue, Suite 1601, New York, NY	10022-1737
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (302) 355-0650

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

Title of each class		Name of exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.001 par value		NYSE MKT

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

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

Large accelerated filer	¨		Accelerated filer	¨
Non-accelerated filer	¨		Smaller reporting company	x

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $30,100,00 as of December 31, 2015, based upon the closing sale price on the NYSE MKT of $0.56 per share reported for such date.

There were 89,109,410 shares of the registrant’s common stock issued and outstanding as of October 13, 2016.

iBio, Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

Table of Contents

		Page
PART I

Item 1.	Business	4
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	16
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	28
Item 2.	Property	28
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	28
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	29

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	30
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	30
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	30
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	36
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	36
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	36
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	36
Item 9B.	Other Information	37

PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	38
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	42
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	44
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	45
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	48

PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	49

Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “iBio,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” and similar terms mean iBio, Inc.

Certain statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may constitute forward-looking statements as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) or in releases made by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), all as may be amended from time to time. These cautionary statements are being made pursuant to the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the PSLRA with the intention of obtaining the benefits of the “safe harbor” provisions of such laws. All statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, other than statements that are purely historical, are forward-looking statements. Forward looking-statements can be identified by, among other things, the use of forward-looking language, such as the words “plans,” “intends,” “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “projects,” “potential,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “seeks,” or “scheduled to,” or other similar words, or the negative of these terms or other variations of these terms or comparable language, or by discussion of strategy or intentions. Forward-looking statements are based upon management’s present expectations, objectives, anticipations, plans, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, events or developments to be materially different from those indicated in such forward-looking statements, including the risks and uncertainties set forth in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in other securities filings by the Company. These risks and uncertainties should be considered carefully, and readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. As such, no assurance can be given that the future results covered by the forward-looking statements will be achieved. All information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is as of October 13, 2016, unless otherwise indicated. The Company does not intend to update this information to reflect events after the date of this report.

We maintain a website at www.ibioinc.com to provide information to the general public and our stockholders on iBio and its management, financial results and press releases. Copies of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our Current Reports on Form 8-K and our other reports filed with the SEC can be obtained free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC on our website at www.ibioinc.com or directly from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Our website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not intended to be incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a biotechnology company focused on commercializing our proprietary technologies and product candidates and providing product development and manufacturing services to clients and collaborators. The Company’s technologies constitute a proprietary, transformative platform for development and production of biologics in hydroponically grown green plants.

Stated simply, iBio’s technologies harness the natural protein production capability that plants use to sustain their own growth, and direct it instead to produce proteins for a range of applications including for vaccines and biopharmaceuticals. The Company’s technologies can be used to produce a wide array of biologics and also to create and produce proprietary derivatives of preexisting products with improved properties. The Company has used its technologies and its collaborative relationships to demonstrate the applicability of its technologies to a diverse range of product candidates including products against fibrotic diseases, vaccines, enzyme replacements, monoclonal antibodies, and recombinant versions of marketed products that are currently derived from human blood plasma.

In addition to the broad array of biological products that can be produced with the Company’s technologies we believe our technologies offer other advantages that are not available with conventional manufacturing systems. These anticipated advantages may include reduced production time and lower operating costs. Further, we believe that the capital investment required to create facilities that will manufacture proteins using the Company’s technologies will be substantially less than the capital investment which would be required for the creation of similar capacity facilities utilizing conventional manufacturing methods dependent upon animal cells, bacterial fermenters and chicken eggs. Additionally, operating costs in a manufacturing facility using iBio’s platform are expected to be reduced significantly in comparison to conventional manufacturing processes due to the rapid nature of our production cycle and the elimination of the expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of bioreactors, fermenters, sterile liquid handling systems and other expensive equipment which is not required in connection with the use of the Company’s technologies.

Among the Company’s proprietary technologies are the patented iBioLaunch technology^™, the patented iBioModulator^™ technology, and additional newer and more advanced technologies. Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz, or Fiocruz, a unit of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, a central agency of the Ministry of Health of Brazil, is sponsoring the development an iBioLaunch-produced yellow fever vaccine to replace the vaccine it currently makes in chicken eggs for the populations of Brazil and more than 20 other nations. These advances are occurring subsequent to the demonstration of safety of iBioLaunch-produced vaccine candidates against each of the H1N1 “Swine” flu virus and the H5N1 avian flu virus in successfully completed Phase 1 clinical trials.

We developed our iBioModulator technology based on the use of a modified form of the cellulose degrading enzyme lichenase, from Clostridium thermocellum, a thermophilic and anaerobic bacterium. iBioModulator enables an adjuvant component to be fused directly to preferred recombinant antigens to create a single protein for use in vaccine applications.

The iBioModulator platform has been shown to be applicable to a range of vaccine proteins and can significantly modify the immune response to a vaccine in two important ways. Animal efficacy studies have demonstrated that it can increase the strength of the initial immune response to a vaccine antigen (as measured by antibody titer) and also extend the duration of the immune response. These results suggest the possibility that use of the iBioModulator platform may lower vaccine antigen requirements and enable fewer doses to establish prolonged protective immunity.

In addition to technology developed for iBio pursuant to agreements with Fraunhofer U.S.A., Inc., iBio’s more recently developed technologies provide the Company with higher expression yields of certain proteins and increased efficiency in adapting gene sequences to achieve specific product objectives. In addition, iBio is developing improved, proprietary manufacturing processes that the Company expects to protect as trade secrets.

Our near-term focus is to realize two key objectives: (1) the establishment of additional business arrangements pursuant to which commercial, government and not-for-profit licensees will utilize the Company’s technologies in connection with the development and manufacturing of therapeutic proteins and vaccine products; and (2) the further development of select product candidates based upon or enhanced by our technology platforms. These objectives are the core components of our strategy to commercialize the proprietary technologies we have developed and validated.

Our strategy to engage in partnering and out-licensing of our technologies seeks to preserve the opportunity for iBio to share in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates by our licensees while enhancing our own capital and financial resources for development, alone or through commercial alliances with others, of high-potential product candidates based upon our technologies. In addition to financial resources we may receive in connection with the license of our technologies, we believe that successful development by third party licensees of iBio technology-enhanced product candidates will further validate our technologies, increase awareness of the advantages that may be realized by the use of such platforms and promote broader adoption of our technologies by additional third parties.

The advancement of iBio technology-enhanced product candidates is a key element of our strategy. We believe that selecting and developing products which individually have substantial commercial value and are representative of classes of pharmaceuticals that can be successfully produced using our technology platforms will allow us to maximize the near and longer term value of our technologies while exploiting individual product opportunities. To realize this result, we are currently internally advancing through preclinical IND enabling studies a proprietary recombinant protein we call IBIO-CFB03 for treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, systemic sclerosis, and potentially other fibrotic diseases. To the extent that we anticipate the opportunity to realize additional value, we may elect to further the development of this or other product candidates through the early stages of clinical development before seeking to license the product candidate to other industry participants for late stage clinical development and if successful, commercialization.

On December 16, 2015, we formed iBio CMO LLC (“iBio CMO”), a Delaware limited liability corporation, to develop and manufacture plant-made pharmaceuticals. As of December 31, 2015, we owned 100% of iBio CMO. On January 13, 2016, we entered into a contract manufacturing joint venture with an affiliate of Eastern Capital Limited (“Eastern”), a stockholder of the Company (the “Eastern Affiliate”). The Eastern Affiliate contributed $15 million in cash for a 30% interest in iBio CMO. We retained a 70% interest in iBio CMO and contributed a royalty bearing license which grants iBio CMO a non-exclusive license to use our proprietary technologies for research purposes and an exclusive U.S. license for manufacturing purposes. We retained the exclusive right to grant product licenses to those who wish to sell or distribute products made using our technology.

iBio CMO’s operations take place in Bryan, Texas in a facility controlled by another affiliate of Eastern (the “Second Eastern Affiliate”) as sublandlord. The facility is a Class A life sciences building on the campus of Texas A&M University, designed and equipped for plant-made manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. The Second Affiliate granted iBio CMO a 34-year sublease for the facility. Commercial operations commenced in January 2016. iBio CMO expects to operate on the basis of three parallel lines of business: (1) Development and manufacturing of third party products; (2) Development and production of iBio’s proprietary product(s) for treatment of fibrotic diseases; and (3) Commercial technology transfer services.

Proprietary iBio technologies have been used to advance development of certain products that have been commercially infeasible to develop with conventional technologies such as Chinese hamster ovary cell systems and microbial fermentation methods. They can be used to create and operate manufacturing facilities at substantially lower capital and operating costs. These include development and manufacture of both vaccine and therapeutic product candidates. iBio CMO is promoting commercial collaborations with third parties on the basis of these technology advantages and plans to work with customers to achieve laboratory scale technical milestones that can form the basis of longer-term manufacturing business arrangements. iBio itself is a client of iBio CMO for further IND advancement of its proprietary products beginning with IBIO-CFB03 for the treatment of a range of fibrotic diseases. iBio will work with iBio CMO on the production of IBIO-CFB03 for clinical trials and, with clinical success, for commercial launch.

Due to the lower capital and operating cost requirements for pharmaceutical production via iBio technology versus legacy methods, certain corporations and governments that have not already established manufacturing capacity for biologic products are client prospects for both development and for commercial technology transfer services to enable autonomous manufacturing in the market being served. For example, in Brazil, iBio has been collaborating with the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) to develop a recombinant yellow fever vaccine based on iBio technology. iBio’s contract with Fiocruz provides for commercial technology transfer services as the product candidates enters human clinical trials. Over time, iBio expects to work closely with iBio CMO to provide such technology transfer services for a variety of both commercial and government clients.

Our Business

Our Technology Platforms – iBioLaunch, iBioModulator, and iBio Advanced Technologies

iBioLaunch

iBioLaunch is the name iBio uses to describe iBio’s proprietary, transformative platform comprising multiple technologies for the development and production of therapeutic proteins and vaccines using transient gene expression in green plants. Based upon the results of successful Phase 1 clinical trials demonstrating the safety of vaccine candidates against H1N1 influenza and H5N1 influenza, immunogenicity data from in vivo preclinical studies in well-established highly predictive animal models and results from feasibility studies and other discovery and development work we have performed, we believe that the iBioLaunch platform can produce therapeutic proteins and vaccines more efficiently, as measured by time, cost and yield, than current conventional biologics manufacturing methods. As awareness of these advantages increases, we expect broader adoption of the iBioLaunch platform by biologics market participants.

An additional advantage of the iBioLaunch platform includes successful production of proteins that are difficult or impossible to produce on a commercially practical basis with conventional systems. This unique capability has been demonstrated by production of antigens for vaccine candidates for both hookworm and malaria, each of which requires production and purification of proteins that could not be feasibly made with other systems. For companies developing proprietary product opportunities, challenges often include overcoming obstacles to efficient production of complex or multiple proteins with simultaneous control of enzymes that modify the properties of the desired end product. iBioLaunch technology offers the flexibility and sophistication necessary to enable practical development of such complex products.

With iBioLaunch, it is possible to manufacture product candidates in less than a month from identifying the protein of interest. This rapid production cycle makes iBioLaunch particularly well-suited for producing treatments and vaccines for pandemic diseases and for bioterror response. The rapid production cycle is also advantageous to researchers and others seeking to develop new products as a greater number of experiments can be conducted in any time period at a cost less than that associated with conventional expression systems.

Utilizing expression technology which is transient, occurring over a period of four to seven days after introducing a foreign gene, iBioLaunch eliminates the initial steps upon which other conventional expression technologies are dependent – namely the need to isolate a high producing cell clone from millions of non-productive cells and then grow the clonal cells in a sterile fermenter to start the manufacturing process. This saves the year of process development time commonly associated with mammalian cell systems and eliminates the need for expensive fermenters and a sterile liquid-handling system to prevent bacterial, fungal, or viral contamination of the protein drug. In the iBioLaunch system, no animal- or human-derived materials are used, eliminating the risk of contamination by human infectious agents. In place of such materials, normal green plants, grown under clean and controlled conditions, provide the biomass for pharmaceutical protein manufacturing. Because this entire process uses commonly available materials, we are not dependent on unique sources of raw material, nor are we limited to purchasing from single suppliers.

The iBioLaunch process begins with robotic seeding into an inert matrix for hydroponic growth, followed by automated infiltration of the young seedlings for gene expression and protein production. The innovation of the iBioLaunch technology is typified by its proprietary vector technology. The iBioLaunch vectors are designed to bring foreign DNA to the nucleus of cells in the leaves of plants by allowing a vector and bacterial host to be introduced into the plant by “infiltrating” the bacterial vector host under a slight vacuum. The bacterial vector “launches” the foreign DNA into the plant nucleus, where it is coded into instructions that direct the plant’s own protein manufacturing apparatus to make foreign proteins. A clever arrangement of genes for plant viral enzymes causes these protein production instructions to be copied hundreds of thousands of times in each plant cell. Our proprietary gene transfer vectors combine the desirable features of the DNA mobilization plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens with gene control elements taken from single-stranded RNA plant viruses.

Subsequent to the incorporation of the iBioLaunch vector in the plant tissues, the following steps lead to target protein synthesis:

The vector is transported to the nucleus of each cell, where RNA polymerase II transcribes viral-related sequences and the gene(s) of interest into messenger RNA.

The viral-related messenger RNA moves to the plant cell cytoplasm, and is translated on ribosomes to make proteins representing the viral replicase gene, movement protein, and our protein of interest.

The viral replicase protein causes the production of hundreds of additional messenger RNA molecules encoding the production of our protein of interest, and these messengers dominate the plant protein production machinery.

Large amounts of the protein of interest accumulate and await purification.

The net effect of applying the iBioLaunch system is that the natural plant protein production capability becomes devoted to the expression of the desired gene, and the target protein rapidly accumulates to extremely high levels suitable for commercial use.

iBioModulator

In addition to iBioLaunch, we have developed iBioModulator, a technology platform that is designed to improve the potency and duration of effect of both prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines produced with any recombinant expression technology including iBioLaunch. We developed our iBioModulator technology based on the use of a modified form of the cellulose degrading enzyme lichenase from Clostridium thermocellum, a thermophilic and anaerobic bacterium.

iBioModulator technology enables an adjuvant component to be fused directly to preferred recombinant antigens to create a single protein for use in vaccine applications.

The iBioModulator platform has been shown to be applicable to a range of vaccine proteins, and can significantly modify the immune response to a vaccine in two important ways. Animal efficacy studies have demonstrated that it can increase the strength of the initial immune response to a vaccine antigen (as measured by antibody titer) and also extend the duration of the immune response. These results suggest the possibility that use of the iBioModulator platform may lower vaccine antigen requirements and enable fewer doses to establish prolonged protective immunity. We believe that the ability to provide better immune response and longer-term protection with fewer or zero booster inoculations would add significant value to a vaccine by reducing the overall costs and logistical difficulties of its use.

iBio Advanced Technologies

iBio has developed and acquired rights to additional proprietary technologies that are superior to our earlier technologies for certain applications and that in some cases are associated with individual products such as our IBIO-CFB03 product candidate for fibrotic diseases. iBio Advanced Technologies include rights to certain patented and unpatented technologies developed by Novici Biotech LLC, patents and unpatented inventions licensed from the University of Pittsburgh, and novel manufacturing methods and processes developed by iBio CMO LLC.

Application of iBio Technologies - Target Markets and Product Candidates

Target Markets and Commercialization Activities

Based on the scientific data that have been derived from the successful Phase 1 clinical trials of the iBioLaunch-derived influenza vaccine candidates and the results of the feasibility and preclinical studies conducted to date evaluating iBioLaunch-produced and iBioModulator-enhanced product candidates, we believe that we have demonstrated the suitability and applicability of these platform technologies to a broad range of therapeutic protein classes and both prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines.

Currently, we are engaged in efforts to commercialize our technology platforms. Our strategy is to enter important markets through license agreements, commercial collaborations, and manufacturing contracts. Our current marketing efforts focus on those decision makers whom we expect will be attracted to the cost and efficiency advantages that may be obtained through use of our platforms. We believe that the advantages of our platforms will enable us to compete effectively against the providers of other manufacturing systems that may be slower, more capital intensive and more costly to operate. We anticipate realizing revenues in connection with licenses we may grant and technology transfer services we may provide.

In all geographic regions, including the U.S. and Western Europe, the robust ability of our technology platforms to favorably produce a wide range of protein types, including our ability to produce product candidates that are otherwise not feasible to commercially manufacture, offers us the opportunity to obtain value through exclusive, individual product licenses which can be worldwide or geographically limited. In other geographic regions, such as Brazil, India and China where the economies and middle classes are growing rapidly and decision-makers are building domestic biologics infrastructures, we anticipate entering into and deriving revenues from licenses that may include multiple product categories to which our technology applies.

Additionally, we believe that governments and state corporations seeking to establish and maintain autonomous biodefense capabilities will also be attracted to the advantages realizable with our platforms. The market for biodefense countermeasures reflects continued awareness of the threat of global terror and biowarfare activity as well as the need to have capacities to quickly manufacture both vaccines and therapeutics to a numerous and ever evolving list of biological agents that could be used to harm populations.

To enhance our success in the commercialization of our multiple technologies, we are engaging in efforts to advance select iBio sponsored product candidates. Our current internal efforts focus on the further development of a proprietary recombinant protein product candidate, IBIO-CFB03, for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, systemic sclerosis, and other fibrotic diseases. We have selected this product candidate for further advancement on the basis of its individual commercial value and its value as representative of a class of products in an attractive market that may be successfully derived from the iBio platform. We believe that demonstration of successful utilization of technologies by each of us and our license partners will enhance market awareness of the broad applicability and potential advantages realizable with the platforms and generate increased opportunities for us to realize value from these assets.

Product Candidates

The table below summarizes key information regarding examples of the categories and product classes and the status of product candidates generated from our platforms:

Market	Class	Product	Status /Other

Therapeutic Protein	Anti-fibrosis Protein Plasma-Derived Proteins	IBIO-CFB03 C1 Esterase Inhibitor	Preclinical Orphan Designation Feasibility Demonstrated
	Enzyme Replacement	Alpha-Galactosidase	Feasibility Demonstrated
	Monoclonal Antibodies	Palivizumab	Feasibility Demonstrated

Vaccines	Viral Disease Vaccines	H1N1 Influenza	Phase I – Completed
		H5N1 Influenza	Phase I – Completed
		Yellow Fever	Preclinical
	Parasitic Pathogen Vaccine	Malaria	Phase I
		Hookworm	Phase I
	Therapeutic Vaccine	Human Papillomavirus (HPV)	Feasibility Demonstrated

Biodefense	Bacterial Disease Vaccine	Anthrax	Phase I
	Bacterial Disease Vaccine	Anthrax/Plague	Feasibility Demonstrated
	Monoclonal Antibody	Anthrax	Feasibility Demonstrated

Therapeutic Protein Product Candidates

Using our proprietary technologies, we have expressed and demonstrated the feasibility of production of many classes of therapeutic proteins. The proteins that we have successfully produced range from large and complex monoclonal antibodies to smaller proteins such as interferons, growth factors, and enzymes.

IBIO-CFB03, a Proprietary Product for Treatment of Fibrosis

iBio has exclusively licensed and is developing, on its iBioLaunch™ platform and with its more advanced technology, an innovative new product we have designated “IBIO-CFB03” for treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and systemic sclerosis (SSc), both fatal and incurable diseases. The total number of people affected by systemic sclerosis and IPF, while large in comparison to many biotechnology target markets, is small enough for iBio’s drug to qualify for the regulatory and financial benefits available under U.S. and European Orphan Drug incentives.

iBio’s candidate product has demonstrated efficacy in both animal disease models and through the reversal of fibrosis in human skin organ culture. Preclinical studies have established a strong safety profile for IBIO-CFB03 with no toxicity seen at concentrations well above the predicted effective doses. The drug is readily diffusible into organs and tissues and can reach its target site via several modes of administration. Systemic administration is effective at reducing skin and lung fibrosis. The anti-fibrotic effects of IBIO-CFB03 are observed even after the onset of fibrosis, suggesting that it is capable of reversing fibrosis—an effect not observed with any of the potential anti-fibrotic therapies that are currently in clinical use. Patients with existing fibrosis enter the clinic long after the onset of their disease, and thus do not benefit significantly from a drug used to prevent fibrosis rather than treat existing fibrosis.

Experimental drugs demonstrating efficacy against life-threatening diseases in early clinical trials are given higher priority review for marketing approval by regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Europe. In addition, both the U.S. and Europe offer financial and regulatory incentives for the development of new drugs for the treatment of smaller patient populations (Orphan Drugs), and such drugs can be approved for marketing faster and with less total investment than drugs that are intended to treat major diseases. iBio has obtained Orphan Drug designation for its drug candidate for systemic sclerosis.

Recombinant forms of Plasma Derived Products

Using iBioLaunch, we have successfully produced human C1 esterase inhibitor and human alpha 1-antitrypsin, each of which is an important therapeutic product that has been traditionally derived from human blood plasma. The production via the iBioLaunch system of plasma-sparing recombinant forms of these products offers an alternative process that may lessen reliance on human blood supplies and eliminate the safety concerns that may be associated with use of animal and human cells or other tissue components.

Other Therapeutic Proteins

In addition to the recombinant form of plasma derived products, using iBioLaunch, we have been able to express and demonstrate the feasibility of production of substantially all other classes of therapeutic proteins. The therapeutic proteins that we have successfully produced range from large and complex monoclonal antibodies to smaller proteins such as interferons, growth factors, and enzymes. All the candidate therapeutic proteins manufactured using iBioLaunch have assembled correctly assembled and demonstrated full activity in relevant bioassays. We are currently evaluating several potential proprietary iBioLaunch produced therapeutic protein candidates for further development internally at iBio or together with collaborators.

Vaccine Candidates

We have used iBioLaunch to successfully express and demonstrate the feasibility of production of a broad array of vaccine candidates, including vaccine candidates that have to date been impossible to produce on a commercially practical basis using conventional manufacturing systems. Additionally, we have used iBioModulator to improve the performance of therapeutic vaccine candidates.

The ability of the iBioLaunch platform to manufacture proteins that are difficult or impossible to produce on a commercially practical basis with conventional manufacturing systems has been demonstrated by the production of antigens for vaccine candidates for both hookworm and malaria. These iBioLaunch-produced vaccine candidates are being developed by the Sabin Institute and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, respectively, and each is being advanced to Phase 1 clinical trials that are expected to commence in the next 12 months, subject availability of funding at each respective organization and satisfaction of other conditions.

The safety of an iBioLaunch-produced H1N1 influenza vaccine candidate and an iBioLaunch H5N1 influenza vaccine has been demonstrated in successfully completed Phase 1 human clinical trials and the efficacy of these iBioLaunch derived vaccine candidates has been demonstrated in well established, highly predictive animal models. We have also demonstrated the efficiencies of our iBioLaunch technology at the laboratory level by producing candidate influenza vaccines in weeks versus the months required for commercially used chicken egg methods. The rapid production of an iBioLaunch derived vaccine candidate for the recently emerged new strain of influenza, H7N9, demonstrates the flexibility and responsiveness of the platform. This speed of production is an advantage that we believe may be particularly attractive to public health authorities seeking to protect citizens in the case of a pandemic outbreak.

Our collaborator, Fiocruz, is advancing the development of an iBioLaunch-produced yellow fever vaccine candidate. In addition to furthering preclinical IND enabling studies of this vaccine candidate, in April 2013, Fiocruz committed to the design of a new plant-based multipurpose manufacturing facility in Brazil and anticipates construction of such facility in the next few years. This multipurpose facility is being designed in manner that will enable the incorporation and utilization of our iBioLaunch platform.

Biodefense Countermeasures

Our technology platforms have advantages that we believe are particularly well suited for the biodefense market. Speed of production and capability to produce both vaccines and therapeutic proteins using the iBioLaunch platform and the potential to improve performance of vaccines through the application of the iBioModulator platform are each key features of biologics manufacturing systems that may be sought by governments and state corporations seeking to establish autonomous capabilities to protect their populations from bioterrorism threats. In addition to our demonstration of the feasibility of iBioLaunch produced monoclonal antibody candidates for the treatment of anthrax, next generation anthrax vaccine candidates derived from the iBioLaunch platform have been evaluated by our collaborator, Fraunhofer, pursuant to a funding award granted to Fraunhofer in December 2012 by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. With Fraunhofer, we are evaluating opportunities and seeking funding from additional sources to further demonstrate the applicability and advantages of our platforms in connection with the development of biodefense countermeasures.

Strategic Alliances and Collaborations

A significant component of our business plan is to enter into strategic alliances and collaborations with other for-profit entities, governments, foundations, and others as appropriate to gain access to funding, capabilities, technical resources and intellectual property to further our development efforts, commercialize our technology and to generate revenues.

Collaboration with Fraunhofer Center for Molecular Biology (“Fraunhofer”)

In 2003, we engaged Fraunhofer to perform research and development activities to develop the iBioLaunch platform and to create our first product candidate. Pursuant to the Technology Transfer Agreement (“TTA”) between our company and Fraunhofer, effective in January 2004, we paid $3.6 million to Fraunhofer to acquire the exclusive rights to intellectual property owned by Fraunhofer which, as subsequently enhanced and improved, constitutes the iBioLaunch platform.

Following this initial engagement, we expanded our relationship with Fraunhofer to include additional and continuing research and development activities and we benefited from the establishment of numerous non-commercial arrangements among the Company, certain government entities, a non-governmental organization (which we refer to as a “NGO”) and Fraunhofer which allowed us to further advance the development of our technology platforms and select product candidates through indirect access to non-dilutive funding.

To evidence these expanded activities, at various times, we entered into additional agreements with Fraunhofer and periodically amended the TTA, including most recently a settlement agreement we entered into with Fraunhofer in September 2013 (the “Settlement Agreement”). The amendments to the TTA include a commitment by Fraunhofer to further develop exclusively for and transfer to us rights to proprietary technology and intellectual property rights in the fields defined in the agreements comprising principally plant-based human vaccines, human antibodies, and human therapeutic proteins and veterinary applications of plant-based influenza vaccines. Additionally the TTA provides that Fraunhofer will pay to us a royalty payment equal to 9% of all receipts, if any, realized by Fraunhofer from sales, licensing or commercialization of the intellectual property licensed from us.

Prior to the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, we were obligated to make non-refundable payments to Fraunhofer aggregating $10,000,000, in installments of $2,000,000 per year over a five year period commencing in November 2009 and expiring in November 2014, and Fraunhofer was required to expend an amount at least equal to the amounts payable by us for the purpose of engaging in services to further the development of our technology. In addition to the annual research service payments, we were required to make royalty payments to Fraunhofer equal to 1% of all receipts derived by us from sales of products utilizing our proprietary technology and 15% of all receipts derived by us from licensing our propriety technology to third parties for a period of fifteen years. Additionally, beginning in 2010 and continuing until 2024, the TTA provided that we remit minimum annual royalty payments to Fraunhofer in the amount of $200,000 (the “Minimum Annual Payment”).

The Settlement Agreement, which was intended to better align the mutual interests of iBio and Fraunhofer, has the following effects:

Our liabilities to Fraunhofer in the amount of approximately $2.9 million as of June 30, 2013 were released and terminated;

Our obligation under the TTA, prior to the Settlement Agreement, to make three $1 million payments to Fraunhofer in April 2013, November 2013, and April 2014 (“Guaranteed Annual Payments”) was terminated and replaced with an undertaking to engage Fraunhofer for at least $3 million in work requested and directed by iBio before December 31, 2015. We believed that our right to select and direct specific projects would improve the efficiency of our product development activities and that the extension of the period over which this commitment must be fulfilled would enhance our ability to manage our cash outflow;

We terminated and released Fraunhofer from the obligation to make further financial contributions toward the enhancement, improvement and expansion of our technology in an amount at least equal to the Guaranteed Annual Payments, because we believed our technology development phase was completed and prospectively would be focusing on product development. In addition, we terminated and released Fraunhofer from the obligation to further reimburse us for certain past and future patent-related expenses;

Our obligation to remit to Fraunhofer minimum annual royalty payments in the amount of $200,000 was terminated. Instead we will be obligated to remit royalties to Fraunhofer only on technology license revenues that we actually receive and on revenues from actual sales by us of products derived from our technology until the later of November 2023 or until such time as the aggregate royalty payments total at least $4 million;

The rate at which we will be obligated to pay royalties to Fraunhofer on iBioLaunch and iBioModulator license revenues we receive was reduced from 15% to 10%; and

Any and all other claims of each party to any other amounts due at June 30, 2013 were mutually released.

Additionally, we and Fraunhofer entered into research and development service agreements with respect to two projects, specifically the further development of the recombinant form of C1 esterase inhibitor and additional development services in connection with the transfer of our technology related to facility design to Fiocruz. The technology transfer for facility design was completed for $97,767. The C-1 program was suspended after payment of $544,687.

Alliance with GE Healthcare

In July 2012, we formed a global alliance with GE Healthcare (“GEHC”) to commercialize our plant-based technologies for the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals and vaccines. The alliance builds on the development and marketing agreement which we entered into with GEHC in 2010 and seeks to combine the iBioLaunch platform with GEHC’s capabilities in start-to-finish technologies for biopharmaceutical manufacturing. Under the terms of global alliance agreement, iBio will be the preferred provider of vaccine or therapeutic product manufacturing technology incorporating a plant based protein expression system, while GEHC will be the preferred provider of engineering services and bioprocess solutions, to any customers that may be interested in a bio-manufacturing facility incorporating a plant-based expression system. The global alliance agreement further specifies allocation of responsibilities for product development, process scale-up, facilities design and development, and technology transfer among iBio, Fraunhofer, and GEHC. Additionally, the global alliance agreement also sets forth the terms of a non-exclusive commercial license to iBio’s technology that we have agreed to offer to any customer referred to it by GEHC as a part of the global alliance.

In April 2013, together with GEHC, we announced that Fiocruz had committed to build and had recently contracted with GEHC for the design of new plant-based manufacturing facility that would use our iBioLaunch technology.

Although the Fiocruz project is proceeding, and was the subject of a recent visit of the Fiocruz team to the iBio CMO facility and discussions with senior iBio management, political and economic conditions in Brazil have affected the original schedule and may continue to affect the prospective schedule for development and completion.

Fiocruz Collaboration and License

In January 2011, we entered into collaboration and granted a commercial, royalty-bearing license to Fiocruz for the use of our proprietary technology in connection with the development, manufacture and commercialization by Fiocruz of certain vaccine products. Fiocruz, a unit of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, a central agency of the Ministry of Health of Brazil, is a leader in the production, development and commercialization in Latin America of vaccines, reagents and biopharmaceuticals. Additionally, Fiocruz, a certified World Health Organization provider to United Nations agencies, is a global leader in the manufacture of yellow fever vaccine. Fiocruz manufactures and exports yellow fever vaccine to over 60 countries. The World Health Organization has estimated that 200,000 unvaccinated people contract yellow fever each year, and approximately 30,000 die from the disease.

Pursuant to the terms of the collaboration and license agreement among iBio, Fraunhofer and Fiocruz, Fiocruz has the right to develop and commercialize yellow fever vaccine derived from the use of our iBioLaunch technology in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. Fiocruz will fund development of this vaccine product and if successfully developed and commercialized, iBio will receive royalty payments from the sales of the product in those territories. iBio has retained the right, which is sublicenseable, to commercialize the product in all other territories subject to payment of a royalty back to Fiocruz. Additionally, Fiocruz has engaged iBio to perform certain research and development activities associated with the yellow fever vaccine project. Based upon the expertise possessed by Fraunhofer, we engaged Fraunhofer as a subcontractor to perform these research and development services.

In April 2013, Fiocruz committed to the design of a new plant-based multipurpose manufacturing facility in Brazil and anticipates construction of such facility in the next few years. This multipurpose facility is being designed in manner that will enable the incorporation and utilization of our iBioLaunch platform.

On June 12, 2014, Fiocruz, Fraunhofer and iBio executed an amendment to the Agreement (the “Amended Agreement”) which provides for revised research and development, work plans, reporting, objectives, estimated budget, and project billing process. The effect of the amendment resulted in a charge of approximately $1.007 million to general and administrative expenses for the noncollectibility of an accounts receivable from Fiocruz for revenues recorded for the year ended June 30, 2013 and a credit of approximately $1.007 million to research and development expenses and a corresponding adjustment to accounts payable relating to expenses accrued at June 30, 2013 owed to Fraunhofer.

For the year ended June 30, 2014, under the Amended Agreement, the Company recognized revenue of $205,000 for work performed for Fiocruz pursuant to the Amended Agreement by the Company’s subcontractor, Fraunhofer, and recognized research and development expenses of the same amount — $205,000 – due Fraunhofer for that work.

For the year ended June 30, 2015, under the Amended Agreement, the Company recognized revenue of $1,851,000 for work performed for Fiocruz pursuant to the Amended Agreement by the Company’s subcontractor, Fraunhofer, and recognized research and development expenses of the same amount — $1,851,000 - due Fraunhofer for that work.

For the year ended June 30, 2016, under the Amended Agreement, the Company recognized revenue of $758,000 for work performed for Fiocruz pursuant to the Amended Agreement by the Company’s subcontractor, Fraunhofer, and recognized research and development expenses of the same amount — $758,000 – due Fraunhofer for that work.

License and Collaboration with Caliber Biotherapeutics LLC

In February 2013, we entered into a license with Caliber Biotherapeutics LLC, a for-profit biotechnology company that is focused on the development and commercialization of therapeutic proteins. This license to Caliber is for use of the iBioLaunch platform in connection with the development of an undisclosed monoclonal antibody-based therapeutic protein for an oncology indication. Caliber will conduct and fund the development of the product candidate and if successfully developed and commercialized, iBio will receive royalties on the sale of such product and other revenues. Although the license is still valid, product development and other activities by Caliber have been suspended without a disclosed plan for resumption.

Research and Development

Our research and development activities are directed and led by our President and by our Chief Scientific Officer. Excepting such direction and management, we outsource all our research and development activities. Outsourcing our research and development work allows us to develop our product candidates, and thereby promote the value of such product candidates and our technology platforms for licensing and product development purposes, without bearing the full risk and expense of establishing and maintaining our own research and development staff and facilities.

Fraunhofer was our principal research and development contractor and provided research and development services to us and our predecessor company from 2003 through 2014. As a part of our collaboration with Fraunhofer, we established a business structure that allowed us to enlarge and broaden the scope of applications of our platform technology and enhance the value of our retained commercial rights by leveraging certain funding received by Fraunhofer from governmental entities, NGOs and other similar organizations.

We achieved this result by granting licenses (a) to the government and NGO entities for not-for-profit applications of the intellectual property for which they have provided funding, and (b) to Fraunhofer for research purposes and applications in fields other than those retained by iBio or granted to the governmental entity or NGO. iBio retained ownership of the intellectual property and exclusive worldwide commercial rights in the fields of human health and veterinary influenza applications of the intellectual property. At this time, we are not pursuing development of such intellectual property in the field of veterinary influenza.

Through June 30, 2016, Fraunhofer has been awarded a total of approximately $33 million in grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for development of product candidates based on the iBioLaunch platform and for research and development of vaccines against influenza, including H5N1 avian influenza, malaria and African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis). To facilitate the grant and continuing support by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation of the activities undertaken by Fraunhofer, we agreed to make our iBioLaunch platform available to various programs to complete development and provide “Global Access” to vaccines against influenza, rabies virus, malaria and trypanosomiasis, provided that if the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Fraunhofer do not pursue such programs to completion, the subject rights revert to us. The term “Global Access” means access for people most in need within the developing world in low income and lower-middle-income countries, as identified by the World Bank. Because we have exclusive commercial rights to the technology and these products for human health applications, this grant and any further similar grants benefit us by enabling the enhancement of Fraunhofer to enhance our platform technology and expansion of the information about the technical performance of product candidates derived from our technology. We may decide to commercially license such technology to collaborators for advancement into human clinical evaluation and eventual commercial development.

DoD has also provided funding to Fraunhofer for advanced development of our technology platform and for preclinical and clinical studies of an anthrax-plague combination vaccine and for an H1N1 influenza vaccine project. Through June 30, 2015, Fraunhofer received funding and funding commitments for these projects totaling approximately $34 million. This funding is similarly beneficial to us because we have retained the commercial rights to any technology improvements resulting from those projects.

In December 2012, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a part of the National Institutes of Health, awarded a contract to Fraunhofer, for the development of a new generation anthrax vaccine. Fraunhofer is developing this new generation vaccine using the iBioLaunch platform and the funding it receives pursuant to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. We expect funded work to advance our technology.

In summary, the advancement of our technology has indirectly benefited from the funding and funding commitments of research and development activities at Fraunhofer in recent years by U.S. government and non-governmental organizations in aggregate amounts exceeding $67 million.

Manufacturing

In addition to the platform and product development engagements, in 2006, we engaged Fraunhofer to create a prototype production module for products made through the use of the iBioLaunch platform. The purpose of this engagement was to attract grants for the improvement of the prototype to become a pilot plant and to demonstrate the ease and economy with which iBioLaunch-derived products could be manufactured in order to attract potential licensees and increase the value of our share of business arrangements entered into with entities. The prototype design, which encompassed the entire production process from seeding, pre-infiltration plant growth, infiltration of plants with agrobacteria, harvesting of plant tissue and purification of target proteins, was completed in May 2008. A pilot plant based upon this prototype funded substantially by DARPA was subsequently constructed by Fraunhofer at its facility in Newark, Delaware. The physical assets consisting of the pilot plant, and the equipment in it, are owned by Fraunhofer and have been validated for current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) production, but all the proprietary intellectual property pertaining to those physical assets is property of iBio. We are not limited to the use of this facility and have also contracted with Caliber Biotherapeutics LLC for certain manufacturing services. We also expect to contract with other third party providers for development, manufacturing, fill and finish services.

In January 2016, we entered into a contract manufacturing joint venture operated through our subsidiary iBio CMO, which is owned 70% by iBio and 30% by an affiliate of Eastern Capital Limited (“Eastern”), a stockholder of the Company. iBio CMO expects to operate on the basis of three parallel lines of business: (1) Development and manufacturing of third party products; (2) Development and production of iBio’s proprietary product(s) for treatment of fibrotic diseases; and (3) Commercial technology transfer services. We contributed to iBio CMO a royalty bearing license which grants iBio CMO a non-exclusive license to use our proprietary technologies for research purposes and an exclusive U.S. license for manufacturing purposes.

iBio CMO’s operations take place in Bryan, Texas in a facility controlled by another affiliate of Eastern, as sublandlord. The facility is a Class A life sciences building on the campus of Texas A&M University, designed and equipped for plant-made manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. iBio CMO has been granted a 34-year sublease for the facility. Commercial operations commenced in January 2016.

Proprietary iBio technologies have been used to advance development of certain products that have been commercially infeasible to develop with conventional technologies such as Chinese hamster ovary cell systems and microbial fermentation methods. They can be used to create and operate manufacturing facilities at substantially lower capital and operating costs. These include development and manufacture of both vaccine and therapeutic product candidates. iBio CMO plans to promote commercial collaborations with third parties on the basis of these technology advantages and to work with customers to achieve laboratory scale technical milestones that can form the basis of longer-term manufacturing business arrangements. iBio itself will be a client of iBio CMO for further IND advancement of its proprietary products beginning with IBIO-CFB03 for the treatment of a range of fibrotic diseases. iBio will work with iBio CMO on the production of IBIO-CFB03 for clinical trials and, with clinical success, for commercial launch.

Intellectual Property

We exclusively control intellectual property developed at Fraunhofer for human health applications. We also exclusively control the veterinary field for plant-made influenza vaccines. In addition, we have an exclusive worldwide license agreement with the University of Pittsburgh covering U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications and related intellectual property owned by the University of Pittsburgh pertinent to the use of endostatin peptides for the treatment of fibrosis. Our success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technologies and products and to preserve our trade secrets. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary rights, by among other methods, filing patent applications in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions to cover certain aspects of our technology.

We currently own 20 U.S. patents and 47 international patents. We have an exclusive license to three U.S. patents and one application. Additionally, we have one U.S. and one international patent application allowed, as well as four U.S. and 15 international applications pending. International patents and applications include numerous foreign countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Korea, and several countries in Europe. We continue to prepare patent applications relating to our expanding technology in the U.S. and abroad.

The technology and products covered by our issued and pending patent applications is summarized below:

Technology and Product Patents (U.S.)

Virus-induced gene silencing in plants

Transient expression of foreign genes in plants

Production of foreign nucleic acids and polypeptides in sprout systems

Production of pharmaceutically active proteins in sprouted seedlings

Systems and method for clonal expression in plants

Recombinant carrier molecule for expression, delivery and purification of target polypeptides

Influenza antigens, vaccine compositions, and related methods

Plague antigens, vaccine compositions, and related methods

Influenza therapeutic antibodies

Trypanosomiasis vaccine

Anthrax antigens, vaccine compositions, and related methods

Use of endostatin peptides for the treatment of fibrosis

Pending Technology Patent Applications (U.S. and International)

Virus-induced gene silencing in plants

Activation of transgenes in plants by viral vectors

Protein production in seedlings

Agroinfiltration of plants with launch vector

Transient expression of proteins in plants

Thermostable carrier molecule

Protein expression in clonal root cultures

Production of proteins in plants with launch vector

In vivo deglycosylation of recombinant proteins in plants

Pending Product Patent Applications (U.S. and International)

Antibodies

Influenza vaccines

Influenza therapeutic antibodies

Anthrax vaccines

Plague vaccines

HPV vaccines

Trypanosomiasis vaccine

Malaria vaccines

Endostatin fragments and variants for use in treating fibrosis

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects or are less expensive than any products that we or our collaborators may develop based on the use of our platform technology.

While we believe that the potential advantages of our technologies will enable us to compete effectively against other providers of technology for biologic product manufacturing, many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, clinical trials, regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through arrangements with large and established companies, and this may reduce the value of our platform technologies for the purposes of establishing license agreements. In addition, these third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies and technology licenses complementary to our programs or advantageous to our business.

We expect to rely upon licensees, collaborators or customers for support in advancing certain of our drug candidates and intend to rely on additional work with our collaborators during our efforts to commercialize our product candidates. Our licensees, collaborators or customers may be conducting multiple product development efforts within the same disease areas that are the subjects of their agreements with us. Agreements with collaborators may not preclude them from pursuing development efforts using a different approach from that which is the subject of our agreement with them. Any of our drug candidates, therefore, may be subject to competition with a drug candidate under development by a customer.

There are currently approved vaccines and therapies for many of the diseases and conditions addressed by the product candidates in our pipeline. There are also a number of companies working to develop new drugs and other therapies for diseases of commercial interest to us that are undergoing various stages of testing including clinical trials. The key competitive factors affecting the success of our platforms for commercial product candidates are likely to be efficacy, safety profile, price, and convenience.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Regulation by governmental authorities in the U.S. and other countries is a significant factor in the development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. All of the vaccine and therapeutic products developed from our platform technologies will require regulatory approval by governmental agencies prior to commercialization. In particular, pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are subject to rigorous preclinical testing and clinical trials and other pre-marketing approval requirements by the FDA and regulatory authorities in other countries. In the U.S., various federal, and, in some cases, state statutes and regulations, also govern or impact the manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, record-keeping and marketing of vaccines and pharmaceutical products. The lengthy process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial resources. Regulatory approval, if and when obtained for any of our product candidates, may be limited in scope, which may significantly limit the indicated uses for which our product candidates may be marketed. Further, approved vaccines and drugs are subject to ongoing review and discovery of previously unknown problems that may result in restrictions on their manufacture, sale or use or in their withdrawal from the market.

Before any product candidates with potential immunization or therapeutic value may be tested in human subjects, we must satisfy stringent government requirements for preclinical studies. Preclinical testing includes both in vitro and in vivo laboratory evaluation and characterization of the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. “In vitro” refers to tests conducted with cells in culture and “in vivo” refers to tests conducted in animals. Preclinical testing results obtained from studies in several animal species, as well as data from in vitro studies, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND and are reviewed by the FDA prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. These preclinical data must provide an adequate basis for evaluating both the safety and the scientific rationale for the initial clinical trials. In the case of vaccine candidates, animal immunogenicity and immune protection tests must establish a sound scientific basis to believe that the product candidate may be beneficial when administered to humans.

An IND becomes effective automatically 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concern or questions about the conduct of the clinical trials as outlined in the IND prior to that time. In such an event, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can proceed. For additional information on the most recent FDA regulations and guidance on vaccine and therapeutic product testing and approval, visit its website at http://www.fda.gov.

Any products we or a licensee manufactures or distributes under FDA approval are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including record-keeping requirements and reporting of adverse experiences with the products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register with the FDA and, where appropriate, state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and state agencies for compliance with current cGMPs, which are the standards the FDA requires be met during the manufacturing of drugs and biologic products, and which impose procedural and documentation requirements upon us and any third party manufacturers we utilize.

To the extent we conduct vaccine or therapeutic product development activities outside the United States, we will also be subject to a wide variety of foreign regulations governing the development, manufacture and marketing of our product candidates. Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries must still be obtained prior to manufacturing or marketing the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time needed to secure approval may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. We cannot assure you that clinical trials conducted in one country will be accepted by other countries or that approval in one country will result in approval in any other country. The product testing and clinical trial requirements that must be met before a product candidate can be marketed are substantial, time-consuming, and require investments of millions of dollars per product candidate.

Employees

As of October 13, 2016, we had eight employees in iBio and eighteen employees in iBio CMO. Our employees are not represented by any union and are not the subject of a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. Since our business strategy is based on outsourcing some of our development and clinical trial work to third parties, we believe this staffing level will be sufficient to meet our needs.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business faces many risks. Past experience may not be indicative of future performance, and as noted elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have included forward-looking statements about our business, plans and prospects that are subject to change. Forward-looking statements are particularly located in, but not limited to, the sections “Business” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” In addition to the other risks or uncertainties contained in this report, the risks described below may affect our operating results, financial condition and cash flows. If any of these risks occur, either alone or in combination with other factors, our business, financial condition or operating results could be adversely affected and the trading price of common stock may decline. Moreover, readers should note this is not an exhaustive list of the risks we face; some risks are unknown or not quantifiable, and other risks that we currently perceive as immaterial may ultimately prove more significant than expected. Statements about plans, predictions or expectations should not be construed to be assurances of performance or promises to take a given course of action.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses during our next fiscal year and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since our 2008 spinoff from Integrated BioPharma, Inc., we have incurred operating losses and negative cash flows from operations. Our net loss was approximately $10.7 million for the year ended June 30, 2016 and approximately $6.6 million for the year ended June 30, 2015. As of June 30, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $57.6 million.

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of common stock and warrants. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development, including the development and validation of our technology platforms and the development of a proprietary therapeutic product against fibrosis based upon our platform. We have not completed development of or commercialized any vaccine or therapeutic product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for at least the next year. We anticipate that our expenses and losses will increase substantially if we:

initiate clinical trials of our product candidates;

continue the research and development of our product candidates;

seek to discover additional product candidates; and

add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our product development efforts.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in commercializing our technology platforms or we, alone or with our licensees, must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us, alone or with our licensees and collaborators, to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which regulatory approval is obtained or establishing collaborations with parties willing and able to provide necessary capital or other value. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would diminish the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We will need substantial additional funding to execute our business plan, which funding may not be available on commercially acceptable terms or at all. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

We have limited financial resources and will need substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. To the extent that we initiate or continue clinical development without securing collaborator or licensee funding, our research and development expenses could increase substantially. Additionally, to the extent that our efforts to outlicense our technology platforms and product candidates are unsuccessful or we find that it is necessary to advance the development of product candidates further than contemplated by our current business plans to secure favorable licensing terms, we would require substantial additional capital.

On May 15, 2015, we entered into a common stock purchase agreement with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (“Aspire Capital”), pursuant to which we have the option to require Aspire Capital to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of our common stock upon and subject to the terms of the agreement over the 36-month term of the agreement. The agreement with Aspire Capital is more fully described under Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources. The extent to which we utilize the purchase agreement with Aspire Capital as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors, including the prevailing market price of our common stock, the volume of trading in our common stock and the extent to which we are able to secure funds from other sources. The number of shares that we may sell to Aspire Capital under the purchase agreement on any given day and during the term of the agreement is limited. Additionally, we and Aspire Capital may not effect any sales of shares of our common stock under the purchase agreement during the continuance of an event of default under the purchase agreement. Even if we are able to access the full $15.0 million under the purchase agreement, we may still need additional capital to fully implement our business, operating and development plans.

When we elect to raise additional funds or additional funds are required, we may raise such funds from time to time through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements or other financing alternatives, as well as through sales of common stock to Aspire Capital under the purchase agreement. Additional equity or debt financing or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to raise capital in sufficient amounts when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or commercialization efforts and our ability to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability will be substantially harmed.

We expect that our existing cash on hand as of June 30, 2016 in the amount of $23 million, together with funds we expect to develop from future sales pursuant to the Aspire agreement, will be sufficient to meet our projected operating requirements through fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. We have based this projection on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, in which case we may deplete our cash resources sooner than we currently anticipate. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

our ability to attract additional licensees or other third parties willing to fund development, and if successful, commercialization of product candidates;

the success and expansion of our existing collaboration with Fiocruz and any new license agreements we may enter into;

the costs, timing and regulatory review of our product candidates;

the costs of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications and maintaining, enforcing and defending intellectual property-related claims; and

the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products and technologies.

Conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the data necessary to attract additional licensees and we and our current licensees may never generate the data required for product candidates to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for product sales. Even if approved, product candidates may not achieve commercial success. Currently, we expect our commercial revenues, if any, to be product development fees, development milestone payments, and other license proceeds, including royalties derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for several years, if at all. Accordingly, to achieve our business objectives we will need to continue to rely on additional financing which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

If we are unsuccessful in raising additional capital or other alternative financing, we might have to defer or abandon our efforts to commercialize our intellectual property and decrease or even cease operations.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time as we can generate substantial license or product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing and other arrangements. Sources of funds may not be available or, if available, may not be available on terms satisfactory to us.

If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will experience dilution. Debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms, such as liquidation and other preferences, which are not favorable to us or our stockholders. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects could be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue our operations.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through a public or private offering and sale of equity securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects could be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue our operations.

We have a limited operating history, which may limit the ability of investors to make an informed investment decision.

We commenced independent operations in 2008, and our operations to date have included organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and developing our proprietary technology platforms, identifying potential product candidates and undertaking, through third parties, preclinical trials and clinical trials of product candidates derived from our technologies. Certain iBioLaunch-derived vaccine candidates have been evaluated in completed or ongoing Phase 1 clinical trials; however, all our other vaccine and therapeutic protein product candidates are still in preclinical development. Neither we nor our collaborators have completed any other clinical trials for any vaccine or therapeutic protein product candidate produced using iBio technology. As a result, we have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any Phase 2 or pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any conclusion you reach about our future success or viability may not be as predictive as it might be if we had a longer operating history.

Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of Our Platform Technologies and Product Candidates

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular technology or product candidate and fail to capitalize on technologies or product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on specific product candidates derived from or enhanced by our technologies. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other technology platforms or product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending may not yield any commercially viable products.

We have based our research and development efforts on our technology platforms and product candidates derived from such platforms. Notwithstanding our large investment to date and anticipated future expenditures in these platforms, we have not yet developed, and may never successfully develop, any marketed products using these technologies. As a result of our exclusive use of our own platforms, we may fail to address or develop product candidates based on other scientific approaches that may offer greater commercial potential or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

We also may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates using our technology platforms. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. These research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development.

If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements on terms less favorable to us than possible.

We are very early in our development efforts. If we or our collaborators are unable to successfully develop and commercialize product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Excepting a limited number of vaccine candidates that have been evaluated in completed Phase 1 clinical trials, all our other vaccine and therapeutic protein product candidates are still in preclinical development. Our ability to generate product sales revenues for our own products, which we do not expect will occur for many years, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

•

completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials with positive results;

•

receipt of marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;

•

obtaining and maintaining patent and trade secret protection and regulatory exclusivity for our product candidates;

•

making arrangements with third-party manufacturers for commercial manufacturing capabilities;

•

launching commercial sales of our products, if and when approved, whether alone or in collaboration with others;

•

successfully maintaining existing collaborations and entering into new ones throughout the development process as appropriate, from preclinical studies through to commercialization;

•

acceptance of the products, if and when approved, by patients, the medical community and third-party payors;

•

effectively competing with other products;

•

obtaining and maintaining coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government payors, for any products we successfully develop;

•

protecting our rights in our intellectual property portfolio; and

•

maintaining a continued acceptable safety profile of the products following approval.

If we or our collaborators do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use iBioLaunch and iBioModulator to build a pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable products.

While we believe that data we and our collaborators have obtained from preclinical studies and Phase 1 clinical trials of iBioLaunch-derived and iBioModulator-enhanced product candidates has validated these technology platforms, our platforms have not yet, and may never lead to, approvable or marketable products. Even if we are successful in further validating our platforms and continuing to build our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development for many possible reasons, including harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that such product candidates are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we and our collaborators do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates based upon our technological approach, we will not obtain product or collaboration revenues in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

Neither we nor our licensees will be able to commercialize product candidates based on our platform technologies if preclinical studies do not produce successful results or clinical trials do not demonstrate safety and efficacy in humans.

Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and has an uncertain outcome. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. We and our licensees may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, preclinical testing and the clinical trial process that could delay or prevent the commercialization of product candidates based on our iBioLaunch and iBioModulator technologies, including the following:

Preclinical or clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, which may require additional preclinical testing, additional clinical trials or the abandonment of projects that we expect to be promising. For example, promising animal data may be obtained about the anticipated efficacy of a therapeutic protein product candidate and then human tests may not result in such an effect. In addition, unexpected safety concerns may be encountered that would require further testing even if the therapeutic protein product candidate produced an otherwise favorable response in human subjects.

Initial clinical results may not be supported by further or more extensive clinical trials. For example, a licensee may obtain data that suggest a desirable immune response from a vaccine candidate in a small human study, but when tests are conducted on larger numbers of people, the same extent of immune response may not occur. If the immune response generated by a vaccine is too low or occurs in too few treated individuals, then the vaccine will have no commercial value.

Enrollment in our or our licensee’s clinical trials may be slower than projected, resulting in significant delays. The cost of conducting a clinical trial increases as the time required to enroll adequate numbers of human subjects to obtain meaningful results increases. Enrollment in a clinical trial can be a slower-than-anticipated process because of competition from other clinical trials, because the study is not of interest to qualified subjects, or because the stringency of requirements for enrollment limits the number of people who are eligible to participate in the clinical trial.

We or our licensees might have to suspend or terminate clinical trials if the participating subjects are being exposed to unacceptable health risks. Animal tests do not always adequately predict potential safety risks to human subjects. The risk of any candidate product is unknown until it is tested in human subjects, and if subjects experience adverse events during the clinical trial, the trial may have to be suspended and modified or terminated entirely.

Regulators or institutional review boards may suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including safety concerns or noncompliance with regulatory requirements.

Any regulatory approval ultimately obtained may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the product not commercially viable.

The effects of iBioLaunch-derived or iBioModulator-enhanced product candidates may not be the desired effects or may include undesirable side effects.

Significant clinical trial delays could allow our competitors to bring products to market before we or our licensees do and impair our ability to commercialize our technology platform and product candidates based on our technology platform. Poor clinical trial results or delays may make it impossible to license a product candidate or so reduce its attractiveness to prospective licensees that we will be unable to successfully develop and commercialize such a product candidate.

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates or will not be able to do so as soon as anticipated, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and by similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third parties to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use in such a restrictive manner that it is not possible to obtain commercial viability for such product.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and may take many years. If additional clinical trials are required for certain jurisdictions, these trials can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, and may ultimately be unsuccessful. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review process for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the review and approval of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept a marketing application as deficient or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Although the FDA and other regulatory authorities have approved plant-based therapeutics in the past, consistent with the oversight of all products, the FDA is monitoring whether these plant-based therapeutics pose any health and human safety risks. While they have not issued any regulations to date adverse to plant-based vaccines or therapeutics, it is possible that the FDA and other regulatory authorities could issue regulations in the future that could adversely affect our product candidates.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Alternative technologies may supersede our technologies or make them noncompetitive, which would harm our ability to generate future revenue.

The manufacture of biologics and the methods of such manufacture are intensely competitive fields. Each of these fields is characterized by extensive research efforts, which result in rapid technological progress that can render existing technologies obsolete or economically noncompetitive. If our competitors succeed in developing more effective technologies or render our technologies obsolete or noncompetitive, our business will suffer. Many universities, public agencies and established pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other life sciences companies with substantially greater resources than we have are developing and using technologies and are actively engaging in the development of products similar to or competitive with our technologies and products. To remain competitive, we must continue to invest in new technologies and improve existing technologies. To make such renewing investment we will need to obtain additional financing. If we are unable to secure such financing, we will not have sufficient resources to continue such investment.

Our competitors may devise methods and processes for protein expression that are faster, more efficient or less costly than that which can be achieved using iBioLaunch. There has been and continues to be substantial academic and commercial research effort devoted to the development of such methods and processes. If successful competitive methods are developed, it would undermine the commercial basis for iBioLaunch and iBioModulator.

We have no experience in the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products.

If we fail to establish commercial licenses for our iBioLaunch and iBioModulator platforms or fail to enter into arrangements with partners with respect to the sales and marketing of any of our future potential product candidates, we might need to develop a sales and marketing organization with supporting distribution capability in order to directly market product candidates we successfully develop. Significant additional expenditures would be required for us to develop such an in-house sales and marketing organization.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face the risk of product liability exposure in connection with the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

•

decreased demand for any product candidates or products that we may develop;

•

injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;

•

withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

•

significant costs to defend the related litigation;

•

substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;

•

loss of revenue;

•

reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy; and

•

the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop.

Prior to commencing human clinical trials, we will seek to obtain product liability insurance coverage. Such insurance coverage is expensive and may not be available in coverage amounts we seek or at all. If we obtain such coverage, we may in the future be unable to maintain such coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties

Establishing and maintaining collaborations is a key component of our business strategy. If we are unable to establish new collaborations and maintain both new and existing collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

Our current business plan contemplates that we will in the future derive significant revenues from collaborators and licensees that successfully utilize iBioLaunch and iBioModulator in connection with the production, development and commercialization of vaccines and therapeutic protein product candidates. Our realization of these revenues and dependence on existing collaborations, and any future collaborations we enter into, is subject to a number of risks, including the following:

•

Collaborators may have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations;

•

collaborators may not perform their obligations as expected;

•

collaborators may not pursue development and, if successful, commercialization of product candidates or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as an acquisition, that divert resources or create competing priorities;

•

collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;

•

collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products or product candidates if the collaborators believe that competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of our product candidates;

•

collaborators with marketing and distribution rights to one or more of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product or products; or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive;

•

collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation;

•

collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability;

•

collaborations may be terminated for the convenience of the collaborator and, if terminated, we would potentially lose the right to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates;

•

collaborators may learn about our technology and use this knowledge to compete with us in the future;

•

results of collaborators’ preclinical or clinical studies could produce results that harm or impair other products using our technology;

•

there may be conflicts between different collaborators that could negatively affect those collaborations and potentially others; and

•

the number and type of our collaborations could adversely affect our attractiveness to future collaborators or acquirers.

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one or more of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research and development funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our continued development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop additional product candidates. There can be no assurance that our collaborations will produce positive results or successful products on a timely basis or at all.

We seek to establish and collaborate with additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for development and potential commercialization of iBioLaunch-produced and iBioModulator-enhanced product candidates. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration depends, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. If we fail to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development or the development of one or more of our other product candidates, or increase our expenditures and undertake additional development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our product platform and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

If third parties on whom we or our licensees will rely for the conduct of preclinical studies and clinical trials do not perform as contractually required or as we expect, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business may suffer.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct the preclinical studies and clinical trials required to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. We have not yet contracted with any third parties to conduct clinical trials of product candidates we develop independently of collaborators. We will depend on licensees or on independent clinical investigators, contract research organizations and other third party service providers to conduct the clinical trials of our product candidates. We will rely heavily on these parties for successful execution of our clinical trials but will not control many aspects of their activities. For example, the investigators participating in our clinical trials will not be our employees. However, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Third parties may not complete activities on schedule, or may not conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols. The failure of these third parties to carry out their obligations could delay or prevent the development, approval and commercialization of our product candidates.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we or our licensors are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be impaired.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner, or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States and we may fail to seek or obtain patent protection in all major markets. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, nor can we know whether those from whom we license patents were the first to make the inventions claimed or were the first to file. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or U.S. PTO, recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. PTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Even if our pending or future patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our issued patents or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, which could adversely affect us and our collaborators.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. While no such litigation has been brought against us and we have not been held by any court to have infringed a third party’s intellectual property rights, we cannot guarantee that our technology, products or use of our products do not infringe third-party patents. It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing, which is referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our products or the use of our products.

We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology, including interference or derivation proceedings before the U.S. PTO and similar bodies in other countries. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights that may be granted in the future.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our limited number of personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

If we are unable to protect our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also seek to enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Our trade secrets may also be obtained by third parties by other means, such as breaches of our physical or computer security systems. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

Risks Related to iBio CMO’s Operations

If iBio CMO is unable to provide quality and timely offerings to its customers, its business could suffer, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

In January 2016, we entered into a contract manufacturing joint venture operated through our subsidiary iBio CMO, which is owned 70% by iBio and 30% by an affiliate of Eastern Capital Limited (“Eastern”), a stockholder of the Company. iBio CMO operates on the basis of three parallel lines of business: (1) Development and manufacturing of third party products; (2) Development and production of iBio’s proprietary product(s) for treatment of fibrotic diseases; and (3) Commercial technology transfer services. iBio CMO’s operations take place in Bryan, Texas in a facility controlled by another affiliate of Eastern, as sublandlord. The facility is a Class A life sciences building on the campus of Texas A&M University, designed and equipped for plant-made manufacture of biopharmaceuticals.

A failure of quality control systems in iBio CMO’s facilities could cause problems to arise in connection with facility operations or during preparation or provision of products, in both cases, for a variety of reasons, including equipment malfunction, failure to follow specific protocols and procedures, problems with raw materials or environmental factors. Such problems could affect production of a particular batch or series of batches, requiring the destruction of products, or could halt facility production altogether. In addition, failure to meet required quality standards may result in failure to timely deliver products to customers. Any such incident could, among other things, lead to increased costs, lost revenue, reimbursement to customers, damage to and possibly termination of existing customer relationships, time and expense spent investigating the cause and, depending on the cause, similar losses with respect to other batches or products. If problems are not discovered before a product is released to the market, we may be subject to regulatory actions, including product recalls, product seizures, injunctions to halt manufacture and distribution, restrictions on our operations, civil sanctions, including monetary sanctions, and criminal actions. In addition, such issues could subject us to litigation, the cost of which could be significant.

A failure by iBio CMO to attract and maintain customers and any reduction in spending or demand for iBio CMO’s manufacturing, development and technology transfer services could have a material adverse effect on our business.

iBio CMO’s operations will depend, in part, on its ability to attract and maintain customers for its development, manufacturing and technology transfer services and on the amount of customer spending on such services. If iBio CMO fails to attract customers or its customers’ and potential customers’ spending on iBio CMO’s services is reduced, this may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

iBio CMO’s operations are subject to environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, which could increase costs and restrict operations in the future.

iBio CMO’s operations are subject to a variety of environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those of the Environmental Protection Agency and equivalent local and state agencies. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, handling and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, soil and groundwater contamination and employee health and safety. Any failure to comply with environmental, health and safety requirements could result in the limitation or suspension of production or monetary fines or civil or criminal sanctions, or other future liabilities. iBio CMO is also subject to laws and regulations governing the destruction and disposal of raw materials and the handling and disposal of regulated material.

Risks Related to Business Operations

If we acquire companies, products or technologies, we may face integration risks and costs associated with those acquisitions that could negatively impact our business, results from operations and financial condition.

If we are presented with appropriate opportunities, we may acquire or make investments in complementary companies, products or technologies. We may not realize the anticipated benefit of any acquisition or investment. If we acquire companies or technologies, we will face risks, uncertainties and disruptions associated with the integration process, including difficulties in the integration of the operations of an acquired company, integration of acquired technology with our products, diversion of our management’s attention from other business concerns, the potential loss of key employees or customers of the acquired business, and impairment charges if future acquisitions are not as successful as we originally anticipate. In addition, our operating results may suffer because of acquisition-related costs or amortization expenses or charges relating to acquired intangible assets. Any failure to successfully integrate other companies, products or technologies that we may acquire may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Furthermore, we may have to incur debt or issue equity securities to pay for any additional future acquisitions or investments, the issuance of which could be dilutive to our existing stockholders.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

Our operating results may vary significantly in the future, which may adversely affect the price of our common stock.

It is likely that our operating results may vary significantly in the future and that period-to-period comparisons of our operating results are not necessarily meaningful indicators of the future. You should not rely on the results of one quarter as an indication of our future performance. It is also possible that in some future quarters our operating results will fall below our expectations or the expectations of market analysts and investors. If we do not meet these expectations, the price of our common stock may decline significantly.

Provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could discourage a takeover that stockholders may consider favorable.

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and provisions of applicable Delaware law may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or other change in control that a stockholder may consider favorable. Pursuant to our certificate of incorporation, our Board of Directors may issue additional shares of common or preferred stock. Any additional issuance of common stock could have the effect of impeding or discouraging the acquisition of control of us by means of a merger, tender offer, proxy contest or otherwise, including a transaction in which our stockholders would receive a premium over the market price for their shares, and thereby protect the continuity of our management. Specifically, if in the due exercise of its fiduciary obligations, the Board of Directors were to determine that a takeover proposal was not in our best interest, shares could be issued by our Board of Directors without stockholder approval in one or more transactions that might prevent or render more difficult or costly the completion of the takeover by:

•

Diluting the voting or other rights of the proposed acquirer or insurgent stockholder group,

•

Putting a substantial voting block in institutional or other hands that might undertake to support the incumbent Board of Directors, or

•

Effecting an acquisition that might complicate or preclude the takeover.

Our certificate of incorporation also allows our Board of Directors to fix the number of directors in the by-laws. Cumulative voting in the election of directors is specifically denied in our certificate of incorporation. The effect of these provisions may be to delay or prevent a tender offer or takeover attempt that a stockholder may determine to be in his, her or its best interest, including attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the shares held by the stockholders.

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends for the foreseeable future, and therefore investors should not buy our stock if they wish to receive cash dividends.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends or distributions on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain our future earnings to support operations and to finance expansion and therefore we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

The sale of our common stock through current or future equity offerings may cause dilution and could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We are entitled under our certificate of incorporation to issue up to 175 million shares of common stock, par value $.001 per share, and 1 million shares of preferred stock, with no par value. As of June 30, 2016, we had issued and outstanding approximately 89.1 million shares of common stock, and 12.3 million options to purchase shares of common stock. Additionally, we had approximately 2.7 million shares of common stock reserved for future issuance of additional option grants under our 2008 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan and 14.9 million shares reserved under the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement. Accordingly, we will be able to issue up to approximately 56 million additional shares of common stock and 1 million shares of preferred stock. Sales of our common stock offered through current or future equity offerings may result in substantial dilution to our stockholders. The sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock to investors, or anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales.

The issuance of preferred stock or additional shares of common stock could adversely affect the rights of the holders of shares of our common stock.

Our Board of Directors is authorized to issue up to 1 million shares of preferred stock without any further action on the part of our stockholders. Our Board of Directors has the authority to fix and determine the voting rights, rights of redemption and other rights and preferences of preferred stock. Currently, we have no shares of preferred stock outstanding. Our Board of Directors may, at any time, authorize the issuance of a series of preferred stock that would grant to holders the preferred right to our assets upon liquidation, the right to receive dividend payments before dividends are distributed to the holders of common stock, and the right to the redemption of the shares, together with a premium, before the redemption of our common stock, which may have a material adverse effect on the rights of the holders of our common stock. In addition, our Board of Directors, without further stockholder approval, may, at any time, issue large blocks of preferred stock. In addition, the ability of our Board of Directors to issue shares of preferred stock without any further action on the part of our stockholders may impede a takeover of our company and may prevent a transaction that is favorable to our stockholders.

Risks Related to Our Agreement with Aspire Capital

Sales of our common stock to Aspire Capital may cause substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and the sale of the shares of our common stock acquired by Aspire Capital could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

On May 29, 2015, we filed a prospectus supplement to our Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-200410) registering $15.0 million of our common stock that we may issue and sell to Aspire Capital from time to time pursuant to the purchase agreement that we entered into with Aspire Capital on May 15, 2015, which is described under Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources, together with 450,000 commitment shares issued to Aspire Capital in consideration for entering into the purchase agreement. It is anticipated that shares offered to Aspire Capital will be sold over a period of up to 36 months from the date of the prospectus supplement. The number of shares ultimately offered for sale to Aspire Capital is dependent upon the number of shares we elect to sell to Aspire Capital under the agreement. Depending upon market liquidity at the time, sales of shares of our common stock under the agreement with Aspire Capital may cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

Aspire Capital may ultimately purchase all, some or none of the $15.0 million of our common stock that we may sell under the agreement. After Aspire Capital has acquired shares under the agreement, it may sell all, some or none of those shares. Sales to Aspire Capital by us pursuant to the agreement may result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock. The sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock to Aspire Capital, or anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales. However, we have the right to control the timing and amount of any sales of our shares to Aspire Capital and the agreement with Aspire Capital may be terminated by us at any time at our discretion without any cost to us.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Property.

Our corporate office is located in subleased space, leased on a month-to-month basis, at 600 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, and includes shared use of common facilities. In this space, we perform or maintain oversight of our administrative, clinical development, regulatory affairs and business development functions.

iBio CMO’s operations take place in Bryan, Texas in a facility controlled by an affiliate of Eastern Capital Limited, the largest stockholder of the Company, as sublandlord. The facility is a 139,000 square foot Class A life sciences building on the campus of Texas A&M University, designed and equipped for plant-made manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. iBio CMO has a 34-year sublease for the facility. Commercial operations commenced in January 2016. iBio CMO operates on the basis of three parallel lines of business: (1) Development and manufacturing of third party products; (2) Development and production of the Company’s proprietary product(s) for treatment of fibrotic diseases; and (3) Commercial technology transfer services.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

The following information supplements and amends our discussion set forth under Part II, Item 1 “Legal Proceedings” in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016.

Lawsuits

On October 22, 2014, the Company filed a Verified Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against PlantForm Corporation (“PlantForm”) and PlantForm’s president seeking equitable relief and damages based upon PlantForm’s interference with several contracts between the Company and Fraunhofer USA, including its Center for Molecular Biotechnology unit, (“Fraunhofer”) and one of the Company’s consultants and misappropriating the Company’s intellectual property including trade secrets and know-how. On May 14, 2015, after mediation ordered and supervised by the Chancery Court, PlantForm represented and agreed that all drug development and manufacturing activities of PlantForm with Fraunhofer had ceased and would not be renewed at least until after the termination of the Company’s litigation regarding similar subject matter with Fraunhofer, and all of the accrued claims between the Company and PlantForm and its President were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

On March 17, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Fraunhofer and Vidadi Yusibov (“Yusibov”), Fraunhofer’s Executive Director, seeking monetary damages and equitable relief based on Fraunhofer’s material and continuing breaches of their contracts with the Company. On September 16, 2015, the Company voluntarily dismissed its action against Yusibov, without prejudice, and thereafter on September 29, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Amended Complaint against Fraunhofer alleging material breaches of its agreements with the Company and seeking monetary damages and equitable relief against Fraunhofer. Briefing was completed on a motion to dismiss filed by Fraunhofer in lieu of filing an answer to the complaint. Fraunhofer also moved for a protective order in connection with certain discovery served by iBio. The Court bifurcated the action to first resolve the threshold question in the case – the scope of iBio’s ownership of the technology developed or held by Fraunhofer — before proceeding with the rest of the case and the parties stipulated their agreement to that approach. After considering the parties’ written submissions and oral argument on this threshold issue on April 29, 2016, the Court resolved the threshold issue in favor of iBio on July 29, 2016, holding that iBio owns all proprietary rights of any kind to all plant-based technology of Fraunhofer developed or held as of December 31, 2014, including know-how, and is entitled to receive a transfer of the technology from Fraunhofer. On September 19, 2016, Fraunhofer informed the Court that it does not intend to pursue its motion for protective order at this time. iBio intends to seek leave of Court to supplement and amend its current complaint to add additional state law claims against Fraunhofer. The Company is unable to predict the further outcome of this action at this time.

On October 24, 2014, a putative class action captioned Juan Pena, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The action alleged that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer made certain statements in violation of federal securities laws and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On February 23, 2015, the Court issued an order appointing a new lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint in the same matter captioned Vamsi Andavarapu, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Situated v. iBio, Inc., Robert B. Kay, and Robert Erwin. The action alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its President made certain statements in violation of federal securities laws and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On May 6, 2015, the Company, Mr. Kay, and Mr. Erwin filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On September 15, 2015, after voluntary mediation, the Plaintiffs and the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Company entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that provides, among other things, for settlement payments totaling $1,875,000 in exchange for the releases described therein. That stipulation was filed with the Court on December 18, 2015 and, on April 21, 2016, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the case. The settlement has been funded by the Company’s insurance carrier.

On December 4, 2015, a putative derivative action captioned Savage, Derivatively on Behalf of iBio, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Robert B. Kay, Arthur Y. Elliott, James T. Hill, Glenn Chang, Philip K. Russell, John D. McKey, and Seymour Flug, Defendants, and iBio, Inc., Nominal Defendant was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The action alleged that the Company and its management made misstatements about the Company’s business resulting either from (i) a failure by iBio’s directors to establish a system of controls over the Company’s disclosures, or (ii) the directors’ consciously ignoring “red flags” relating to disclosures, and sought to recover an unspecified amount of damages. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Complaint that added an additional named plaintiff and alleged derivative claims generally along the same lines as the original complaint, together with purported direct breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims based on the same conduct. The Verified Amended Complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages. On April 29, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was filed on before June 6, 2016. On June 22, 2016, the plaintiffs advised the Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle, and on July 1, 2016, the Court ordered that the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss be withdrawn without prejudice. The terms of the settlement are subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court. The Company expects that the settlement will be funded by the Company’s insurance carrier.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

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

Market Information

Our common stock is traded on the NYSE MKT under the trading symbol “IBIO.”

The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices for our common stock during the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 as reported by the NYSE MKT. The quotations shown represent inter-dealer prices without adjustment for retail markups, markdowns or commissions, and may not necessarily reflect actual transactions.

	High		Low
Year ended June 30, 2016:
First Quarter	$	0.95	$	0.62
Second Quarter	$	0.71	$	0.55
Third Quarter	$	0.65	$	0.45
Fourth Quarter	$	0.74	$	0.56

Year ended June 30, 2015:
First Quarter	$	0.75	$	0.39
Second Quarter	$	3.21	$	0.61
Third Quarter	$	1.06	$	0.42
Fourth Quarter	$	1.13	$	0.74

Holders

As of October 13, 2016, there were 194 holders of record of our common stock.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The information under this Item is not required to be provided by smaller reporting companies.

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

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with our financial statements and the notes thereto and other information included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Forward-Looking Information and Factors That May Affect Future Results

The following discussion contains forward-looking statements within the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in the following discussion, other than statements that are purely historical, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “believes,” “expects,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “anticipates,” “plans,” or “intends” or the negative thereof, or other variations thereof, or comparable terminology, or by discussions of strategy. Forward-looking statements are based upon management’s present expectations, objectives, anticipations, plans, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, events or developments to be materially different from those indicated in such forward-looking statements, including the risks and uncertainties set forth in Item 1A - Risk Factors. These risks and uncertainties should be considered carefully and readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. As such, no assurance can be given that the future results covered by the forward-looking statements will be achieved.

Overview

Among the Company’s proprietary technologies are the patented iBioLaunch technology, the patented iBioModulator technology, and additional newer and more advanced technologies. Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz, or Fiocruz, a unit of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, a central agency of the Ministry of Health of Brazil, is sponsoring the development an iBioLaunch-produced yellow fever vaccine to replace the vaccine it currently makes in chicken eggs for the populations of Brazil and more than 20 other nations. These advances are occurring subsequent to the demonstration of safety of iBioLaunch-produced vaccine candidates against each of the H1N1 “Swine” flu virus and the H5N1 avian flu virus in successfully completed Phase 1 clinical trials.

We developed our iBioModulator technology based on the use of a modified form of the cellulose degrading enzyme lichenase from Clostridium thermocellum, a thermophilic and anaerobic bacterium. iBioModulator enables an adjuvant component to be fused directly to preferred recombinant antigens to create a single protein for use in vaccine applications.

In addition to technology developed for iBio pursuant to agreements with Fraunhofer U.S.A., Inc., iBio’s more recently developed technologies provide us with higher expression yields of certain proteins and increased efficiency in adapting gene sequences to achieve specific product objectives. In addition, we are developing improved, proprietary manufacturing processes that we expect to protect as trade secrets.

iBio CMO’s operations take place in Bryan, Texas in a facility controlled by another affiliate of Eastern (the “Second Eastern Affiliate”) as sublandlord. The facility is a Class A life sciences building on the campus of Texas A&M University, designed and equipped for plant-made manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. The Second Affiliate granted iBio CMO a 34-year sublease for the facility. Commercial operations commenced in January 2016. iBio CMO operates on the basis of three parallel lines of business: (1) Development and manufacturing of third party products; (2) Development and production of iBio’s proprietary product(s) for treatment of fibrotic diseases; and (3) Commercial technology transfer services.

Proprietary iBio technologies have been used to advance development of certain products that have been commercially infeasible to develop with conventional technologies such as Chinese hamster ovary cell systems and microbial fermentation methods. They can be used to create and operate manufacturing facilities at substantially lower capital and operating costs. These include development and manufacture of both vaccine and therapeutic product candidates. iBio CMO plans to promote commercial collaborations with third parties on the basis of these technology advantages and to work with customers to achieve laboratory scale technical milestones that can form the basis of longer-term manufacturing business arrangements. iBio itself will be a client of iBio CMO for further IND advancement of its proprietary products beginning with IBIO-CFB03 for the treatment of a range of fibrotic diseases. iBio will work with iBio CMO on the production of IBIO-CFB03 for clinical trials and, with clinical success, for commercial launch.

Results of Operations

Revenue

Gross revenue for 2016 and 2015 was approximately $.95 million and $1.85 million, respectively, a decrease of $.9 million.

Revenue has been primarily attributable to technology services provided to Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz (“Fiocruz”) in connection with the development by Fiocruz of a yellow fever vaccine using our iBioLaunch™ technology. To fulfill our obligations, we engaged Fraunhofer USA Inc. (“Fraunhofer”) as a subcontractor to perform the services required. During 2013, the Company, Fiocruz and Fraunhofer were awaiting approval by the Brazilian government of a contract amendment reflecting a new work plan. During this waiting period, no revenues were recognized by the Company in connection with services provided to Fiocruz through the subcontract arrangement with Fraunhofer. In June 2014, the Company, Fiocruz and Fraunhofer amended their Collaboration and License Agreement reflecting the new work plan and work was resumed by Fraunhofer for the Company to continue development of a yellow fever vaccine using the Company’s iBioLaunch™ technology. In 2016, revenue was lower due to laboratory tasks performed pursuant to the agreement with Fiocruz nearing completion, in some cases being completed and, therefore, requiring less total work than previously necessary.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses for 2016 and 2015 were approximately $3.2 million and $3.5 million, respectively, a decrease of $.3 million. Research and development expenses in 2015 include a reconciliation for services rendered prior to October 1, 2014. In 2016, expenses were increased to reflect the addition of iBio CMO operations and decreased due to changes in the laboratory work with Fiocruz for a net decrease of $.3 million.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses for 2016 and 2015 were approximately $7.7 million and $5.0 million, respectively, an increase of $2.7 million. General and administrative expenses principally include officer and employee salaries and benefits, legal and accounting fees, insurance, consulting services, investor and public relations services, and other costs associated with being a publicly traded company. The increase was primarily due to the expenses related to iBio CMO operations which commenced in December 2015 of approximately $3.0 million.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) for 2016 and 2015 was approximately ($764,000) and $41,000, respectively.

As discussed above, iBio CMO’s operations take place in a facility in Bryan, Texas under a 34-year sublease. Such sublease is accounted for as a capital lease. In 2016, other income (expense) included interest expense of $807,000 incurred under the capital lease and interest and royalty income of $43,000. Other income in 2015 consisted of interest and royalty income.

Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest

This represents the share of the loss in iBio CMO for the Eastern Affiliate for the year ended June 30, 2016.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of June 30, 2016, we had cash of $23 million as compared to $9.5 million as of June 30, 2015. The increase in cash was primarily attributable to proceeds received from stock purchase agreements from Eastern and a contribution for the formation of iBio CMO.

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

Operating activities used $8.1 million in cash in 2016 to fund the loss for the period.

Net Cash Used in Investing Activities

In 2016, net cash used in investing activities was approximately $68,000 for additions to fixed assets.

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities

In 2016, net cash provided by financing activities was approximately $21.7 million. The Company received approximately $7.2 million from Eastern from the sale of common stock and the exercise of warrants and $15 million from a capital contribution for the formation of iBio CMO, offset by payments of $565,000 under the capital lease obligation.

Funding Requirements

We have incurred significant losses and negative cash flows from operations since our spinoff from Integrated BioPharma, Inc. in August 2008. As of June 30, 2016, our accumulated deficit was approximately $57.6 million, and we used approximately $8.1 million of cash for operating activities for the year ended June 30, 2016. As of June 30, 2016, cash on hand was approximately $23 million. The cash on hand is expected to support the Company’s activities at least through June 30, 2017.

We have historically financed our activities through the sale of common stock and warrants. We plan to fund our future business operations using cash on hand, through proceeds from the sale of additional equity and other securities and through proceeds realized in connection with license and collaboration arrangements and operation of the Company’s new subsidiary, iBio CMO.

On May 15, 2015, we entered into a common stock purchase agreement (the “2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement”) with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (referred to below as “Aspire Capital”) pursuant to which we have the option to require Aspire Capital to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of our common stock (the “Purchase Shares”) upon and subject to the terms of the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement. The description of the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement and other information included under the heading “Aspire Capital – 2015 Facility” set forth in Note 11 of the consolidated financial statements included in this report is incorporated into this Item 7 by reference.

No shares have been sold under the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement as of the date of the filing of this report. Despite the proceeds that we may receive pursuant to the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement, we may still need additional capital to fully implement our business, operating and development plans for periods beyond June 30, 2017.

On November 20, 2014, we filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Registration Statement on Form S-3 under the Securities Act, which was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2014. This registration statement allows us, from time to time, to offer and sell shares of common stock, shares of preferred stock, debt securities, units comprised of shares of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and warrants in any combination, and warrants to purchase common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and/or units, up to a maximum aggregate amount of $100 million of such securities. On May 29, 2015, we filed a prospectus supplement to the Registration Statement registering $15.0 million of our common stock that we may issue and sell to Aspire Capital from time to time pursuant to the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement, together with the 450,000 Commitment Shares issued to Aspire Capital in consideration for entering into the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement. We currently have no other firm agreements with any third parties for the sale of our securities pursuant to this registration statement. We cannot be certain that funding will be available on favorable terms or available at all. To the extent that we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience significant dilution. If we are unable to raise funds when required or on favorable terms, we may have to: a) significantly delay, scale back, or discontinue the product application and/or commercialization of our proprietary technologies; b) seek collaborators for our technology and product candidates on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available; c) relinquish or otherwise dispose of rights to technologies, product candidates, or products that we would otherwise seek to develop or commercialize; or d) possibly cease operations.

On January 13, 2016, the Company entered into a contract manufacturing joint venture with an affiliate (the “Eastern Affiliate”) of Eastern Capital Limited (“Eastern”), a stockholder of the Company. The Eastern Affiliate contributed $15 million in cash for a 30% interest in the Company’s subsidiary iBio CMO LLC (“iBio CMO”). The Company retained a 70% interest in iBio CMO and contributed a royalty bearing license which grants iBio CMO a non-exclusive license to use the Company’s proprietary technologies for research purposes and an exclusive U.S. license for manufacturing purposes. On January 13, 2016, the Company also entered into share purchase agreements with Eastern pursuant to which Eastern agreed to purchase 10 million shares of the Company’s common stock at $0.622 per share. The closing for the sale of 3,500,000 of such shares occurred on January 25, 2016. The closing for the remaining 6,500,000 shares occurred in April 2016. In addition, Eastern agreed to exercise warrants it previously acquired to purchase 1,784,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at $0.53 per share. As of the date of the filing of this report, iBio CMO has received $15 million for the capitalization of iBio CMO and the Company has received approximately $7.2 million from Eastern for the acquisition of 10 million shares of common stock and the exercise of the warrants. Prior to the issuance of the shares of common stock pursuant to the purchase agreements with Eastern, Eastern beneficially owned approximately 30% of the Company’s common stock, as reported in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, filed with the SEC on October 13, 2015, calculated in accordance with the SEC’s beneficial ownership rules. As of the closing of the purchase agreements with Eastern and the simultaneous exercise by Eastern of its warrants to purchase iBio common stock, Eastern beneficially owned approximately 38% of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock. See Note 11 in the consolidated financial statements for a further description of the transactions.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As part of our ongoing business, we do not participate in transactions that generate relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities (SPEs), which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually limited purposes. As of June 30, 2016, we were not involved in any SPE transactions.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

A critical accounting policy is one that is both important to the portrayal of a company’s financial condition and results of operations and requires management’s most difficult, subjective or complex judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain.

Our financial statements are presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). All applicable U.S. GAAP accounting standards effective as of June 30, 2016 have been taken into consideration in preparing the financial statements. The preparation of financial statements requires estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and related disclosures. Some of those estimates are subjective and complex, and, consequently, actual results could differ from those estimates. The following accounting policies and estimates have been highlighted as significant because changes to certain judgments and assumptions inherent in these policies could affect our financial statements.

We base our estimates, to the extent possible, on historical experience. Historical information is modified as appropriate based on current business factors and various assumptions that we believe are necessary to form a basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities. We evaluate our estimates on an ongoing basis and make changes when necessary. Actual results could differ from our estimates.

Revenue Recognition

The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the fee is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured. Deferred revenue represents billings to a customer to whom the services have not yet been provided.

The Company generates (or may generate in the future) contract revenue under the following types of contracts:

Fixed-Fee

Under a fixed-fee contract, the Company charges a fixed agreed upon amount for a deliverable. Fixed-fee contracts have fixed deliverables upon completion of the project. Typically, the Company recognizes revenue for fixed-fee contracts after projects are completed, delivery is made and title transfers to the customer, and collection is reasonably assured.

Time and Materials

Under a time and materials contract, the Company charges customers an hourly rate plus reimbursement for other project specific costs. The Company recognizes revenue for time and material contracts based on the number of hours devoted to the project multiplied by the customer’s billing rate plus other project specific costs incurred.

Grant Income

Fixed Assets

Fixed assets are stated at cost net of accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, generally three to five years.

Assets held under the terms of capital leases are included in fixed assets and are depreciated on a straight-line basis over the shorter of terms of the leases or the economic lives of the assets.

Intangible Assets

The Company accounts for intangible assets at their historical cost and records amortization utilizing the straight-line method based upon their estimated useful lives. Patents are amortized over a period of ten years and other intellectual property is amortized over a period from 16 to 23 years. The Company reviews the carrying value of its intangible assets for impairment whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate the carrying amount of such assets may not be fully recoverable. Evaluating for impairment requires judgment, and recoverability is assessed by comparing the projected undiscounted net cash flows of the assets over the remaining useful life to the carrying amount. Impairments, if any, are based on the excess of the carrying amount over the fair value of the assets.

Research and Development Costs

All research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Accordingly, internal research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Third-party research and development costs are expensed when the contracted work has been performed or as milestone results have been achieved.

Share-based Compensation

The Company recognizes the cost of all share-based payment transactions at fair value. Compensation cost, measured by the fair value of the equity instruments issued, adjusted for estimated forfeitures, is recognized in the financial statements as the respective awards are earned over the performance period. The Company uses historical data to estimate forfeiture rates.

The impact that share-based payment awards will have on the Company’s results of operations is a function of the number of shares awarded, the trading price of the Company’s stock at the date of grant or modification, and the vesting schedule. Furthermore, the application of the Black-Scholes option pricing model employs weighted-average assumptions for expected volatility of the Company’s stock, expected term until exercise of the options, the risk-free interest rate, and dividends, if any, to determine fair value. Expected volatility is based on historical volatility of the Company’s common stock; the expected term until exercise represents the weighted-average period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding giving consideration to vesting schedules and the Company’s historical exercise patterns; and the risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for periods corresponding with the expected life of the option. The Company has not paid any dividends since its inception and does not anticipate paying any dividends for the foreseeable future, so the dividend yield is assumed to be zero.

Income Taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be realized. The effect of a change in tax rates or laws on deferred tax assets and liabilities is recognized in operations in the period that includes the enactment date of the rate change. A valuation allowance is established to reduce the deferred tax assets to the amounts that are more likely than not to be realized from operations.

Tax benefits of uncertain tax positions are recognized only if it is more likely than not that the Company will be able to sustain a position taken on an income tax return.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

The information under this Item is not required to be provided by smaller reporting companies.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Financial statements and notes thereto appear on pages F-1 to F-23 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, under the direction of our Executive Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15 under the Exchange Act) as of June 30, 2016. Based on that evaluation, our Executive Chairman and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of June 30, 2016.

(b) Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act, during the quarter ended June 30, 2016 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

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

It is the responsibility of the management of iBio, Inc. to establish and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance to iBio’s management and board of directors regarding the preparation of reliable financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

iBio’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that: (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of iBio; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of iBio are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of iBio; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding the prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of iBio’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements of iBio.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Management has performed an assessment of the effectiveness of iBio’s internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2016 based upon criteria set forth in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 COSO Framework). Based on this assessment, management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of June 30, 2016.

/s/Robert B. Kay		/s/Mark Giannone
Robert B. Kay		Mark Giannone
Executive Chairman		Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)		(Principal Financial Officer and
		Principal Accounting Officer)

October 13, 2016		October 13, 2016

(d) Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

This Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation report by CohnReznick LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, regarding internal control over financial reporting. As a smaller reporting company, our internal control over financial reporting was not subject to audit by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit us to provide only management’s report.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

DIRECTORS

The name, age, years of service on our board of directors, principal occupation and business experience and certain other information for each of our directors as of October 13, 2016 is set forth below:

Name	Age	Years of Service on our Board of Directors
Robert B. Kay	76	Director since August 2008
Glenn Chang	68	Director since August 2008
Arthur Elliott, Ph.D.	80	Director since October 2010
Seymour Flug	81	Director since December 2012
General (Ret.) James T. Hill	70	Director since August 2008
John D. McKey, Jr.	73	Director since August 2008
Philip K. Russell, M.D.	84	Director since March 2010

The principal occupation, business experience and certain other information for each our directors is set forth below.

Robert B. Kay is our Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and has served in these capacities since we became a publicly traded company in August 2008. Previously, Mr. Kay was a founder and senior partner of the New York law firm of Kay Collyer & Boose LLP, with a particular focus on mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures. Mr. Kay received his B.A. from Cornell University’s College of Arts & Sciences and his J.D. from New York University Law School. Mr. Kay oversees every aspect of our business in his role as executive chairman and chief executive officer. Given his years with the company and his prior experience, we believe that Mr. Kay has an excellent understanding of our business and the global markets in which we operate and those in which we anticipate operating in the future.

Glenn Chang Since February 2014, Glenn Chang serves as Chief Financial Officer of Singer Vehicle Design, a private company in the business of automotive design and restoration. Mr. Chang served as the Chief Financial Officer of Alma Bank, a New York headquartered bank with over $900 million of assets and 13 branches in the New York City Metropolitan area from late 2012 to February 2014. Before joining Alma, from 1999 to 2012, Mr. Chang served as a founder, Director, Chief Financial Officer and consultant to First American International Bank which is the largest locally owned Chinese American Bank. Prior to that he spent 20 years at Citibank, N.A as Vice President. Mr. Chang is a retired Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Chang’s extensive executive and financial leadership in his current and former positions and his training and experience as a Certified Public Accountant adds vital expertise to our board of directors and our Audit Committee in the form of financial understanding, business perspective and audit expertise. Mr. Chang is qualified as an Audit Committee Financial Expert as defined in Regulation S-K Item 407(d)(5)(ii).

Arthur Y. Elliott, Ph.D. serves as a member of the American Association for Advancement of Science, American Society for Microbiology, and American Tissue Culture Association. Prior to retiring, Dr. Elliott spent 16 years with Merck & Co., serving ultimately as Executive Director of Biological Operations, Merck Manufacturing Division, responsible for the bulk manufacture, testing, release and registration of all biological products sold. Dr. Elliott also directed the manufacturing, process development, and other operations of North American Vaccine, Inc. for six years, and most recently served as consultant to Aventis (Sanofi Pasteur) Pharmaceutical Corporation in its design and implementation of new, highly automated manufacturing facilities for influenza vaccines. Dr. Elliott has served with the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) in the Avian Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Program in Washington, D.C. as Senior Program Manager for the Antigen Sparing Project since 2006. The program involves the cooperation of three pharmaceutical companies and four government groups (NIH, CDC, United States Food and Drug Administration, and HHS). While at Merck, he worked closely with both Merck Research Laboratories and the Merck Vaccine Division to forecast the timely transfer of technology for new and improved products from the research laboratories through the manufacturing area and into the marketing division for sales introductions. He has served as a biological consultant to the World Health Organization, NIH, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Elliott holds a Ph.D. in Virology from Purdue University, and an M.S. in Microbiology and a B.A. in Biology from North Texas State University. Dr. Elliot’s extensive experience and expertise with the manufacture of vaccines and therapeutics is particularly relevant to our business and our efforts to manufacture such products which in a key component of our business.

Seymour Flug prior to retiring was Chairman of the Board and CEO of Diners Club International and a Managing Director of Citibank. Prior to joining Citibank, Mr. Flug served as Senior Vice President of Hess Oil Company. Mr. Flug began his career as Certified Public Accountant at Deloitte & Touche, a predecessor to the firm now known as Deloitte. Mr. Flug received his B.B.A from Baruch College. Mr. Flug’s experience leading a multinational company and his experience as a certified public accountant allow him to offer us unique perspectives on global business opportunities, best business practices and additional audit expertise. Mr. Flug is qualified as an Audit Committee Financial Expert as defined in Regulation S-K Item 407(d)(5)(ii).

General (Ret.) James T. Hill was the Commander of the 4-Star United States Southern Command, reporting directly to the President and Secretary of Defense at the time of his retirement from active duty. As such he led all U.S. military forces and operations in Central America, South America and the Caribbean, worked directly with U.S. Ambassadors, foreign heads of state, key Washington decision-makers, foreign senior military and civilian leaders, developing and executing United States policy. His responsibilities included management, development and execution of plans and policy within the organization including programming, communications, manpower, operations, logistics and intelligence. General Hill’s experience implementing plans and policies within diverse geographic regions and his insights regarding the conduct of business affairs in Central and South America is a key resource for us.

John D. McKey, Jr. serves since 2003 as of counsel at McCarthy, Summers, Bobko, Wood, Sawyer & Perry, P.A. in Stuart, Florida, and previously was a partner from 1987 through 2003. From 1977 to 1987, Mr. McKey was a partner at Gunster Yoakley in Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. McKey received his B.B.A at the University of Georgia and his J.D. from the University Of Florida College Of Law. Mr. McKey’s extensive experience representing private and public companies operating in varied business sectors brings our board insights and acumen to best corporate practices and implementation of strategic and financial plans.

Philip K. Russell, M.D. served in the U.S. Army Medical Corps from 1959 to 1990, pursuing a career in infectious disease and tropical medicine research. Following his military service, Dr. Russell joined the faculty of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Hygiene and Public Health and worked closely with the World Health Organization as special advisor to the Children’s Vaccine Initiative. He was founding board member of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, and is an advisor to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He has served on numerous advisory boards of national and international agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Russell is a past Chairman of the Albert B. Sabin Vaccine Institute. Dr. Russell’s extensive experience and expertise in the field of infectious diseases and his association with leading governmental and not-for-profit entities engaged in pioneering work throughout the world provides us with invaluable insights into priorities for these entities and business development opportunities for us.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table sets forth the names, ages and biographical information of our executive officers as of October 13, 2016:

Name	Age	Position Held With Us
Robert B. Kay	76	Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Robert L. Erwin	63	President
Mark Giannone	59	Chief Financial Officer
Terence Ryan, Ph.D.	61	Chief Scientific Officer

The following are brief biographies of each executive officer:

Robert B. Kay has been our executive chairman and chief executive officer since we became a publicly traded company in August 2008. Mr. Kay was a founder and senior partner of the New York law firm of Kay Collyer & Boose LLP, with a particular focus on mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures. Mr. Kay received his B.A. from Cornell University’s College of Arts & Sciences and his J.D. from New York University Law School.

Robert L. Erwin has been our President since we became a publicly traded company in August 2008. Mr. Erwin led Large Scale Biology Corporation from its founding in 1988 through 2003, including a successful initial public offering in 2000, and continued as non-executive Chairman until 2006. He served as Chairman of Icon Genetics AG from 1999 until its acquisition by a subsidiary of Bayer AG in 2006. Mr. Erwin recently served as Managing Director of Bio-Strategic Directors LLC, providing consulting services to the life sciences industry. He is currently Chairman of Novici Biotech, a private biotechnology company and a Director of Oryn Therapeutics. Mr. Erwin’s non-profit work focuses on applying scientific advances to clinical medicine, especially in the field of oncology. He is co-founder, President and Director of the Marti Nelson Cancer Foundation, Oncology. Mr. Erwin received his BS degree with Honors in Zoology and an MS degree in Genetics from Louisiana State University.

Mark Giannone has served as our Chief Financial Officer since December 2013. Mr. Giannone has been a member of the accounting firm of Bosco Giannone LLC since its formation in 1999. His prior experience included employment as a senior accountant at Kenneth Leventhal & Co. (acquired by Ernst &Young LLP) and as a tax manager at BDO Seidman, a lecturer in various continuing education programs for the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants and New York University.

Terence E. Ryan, Ph.D., has been our chief scientific officer since March 2012, and prior to that served as senior vice president since joining the Company in July 2010. Dr. Ryan previously served as assistant vice president, Systems Biology at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (later Pfizer, Inc.) from 2007 to 2010, and director of Integrative Biology at GlaxoSmithKline from 2003 to 2007. He has also been director, Cell Biology at Celera Genomics from 2000 to 2003 and associate director of Cell Technologies and Protein Sciences at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Ryan received his A.B. in Biology from Princeton University, his M.S. and Ph.D. in Microbiology from Rutgers University and was a post-doctoral fellow in Molecular Virology at the University of Wisconsin.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Board Committees

Our board of directors has the authority to appoint committees to perform certain management and administrative functions. Our board of directors has constituted audit, compensation and nominating committees.

Nominating Committee and Nomination Process

The Nominating Committee was formed to address general governance and policy oversight; succession planning; to identify qualified individuals to become prospective board members and make recommendations regarding nominations for our board of directors; to advise the board with respect to appropriate composition of board committees; to advise the board about and develop and recommend to the board appropriate corporate governance documents and assist the board in implementing guidelines; to oversee the annual evaluation of the board and our chief executive officer, and to perform such other functions as the board may assign to the committee from time to time. The Nominating Committee has a charter which is available on our website at www.ibioinc.com. The Nominating Committee consists of three independent directors: Arthur Y. Elliott, Ph.D., (Nominating Committee Chairman), Glenn Chang and General James T. Hill.

Our directors take a critical role in guiding our strategic direction and oversee the management of our company. Board candidates are considered based upon various criteria, such as their broad-based business and professional skills and experiences, a global business and social perspective, concern for the long-term interests of our stockholders and personal integrity and judgment. In addition, directors must have time available to devote to board activities and to enhance their knowledge of the life sciences industry. Accordingly, we seek to attract and retain highly qualified directors who have sufficient time to attend to their substantial duties and responsibilities.

Our board of directors believes given the diverse skills and experience required to grow our company that the input of all members of the Nominating Committee is important for considering the qualifications of individuals to serve as directors but does not have a diversity policy. Further, the Nominating Committee believes that the minimum qualifications for serving as our director are that a nominee demonstrate, by significant accomplishment in his or her field, an ability to make a meaningful contribution to the board’s oversight of our business and affairs of and have an impeccable record and reputation for honest and ethical conduct in both his or her professional and personal activities. Whenever a new seat or a vacated seat on the board is being filled, candidates that appear to best fit the needs of the board and our company are identified and unless such individuals are well known to the board, they are interviewed and further evaluated by the Nominating Committee. Candidates selected by the Nominating Committee are then recommended to the full board for their nomination to stockholders. The Nominating Committee recommends a slate of directors for election at the annual meeting. In accordance with NYSE MKT LLC rules, the slate of nominees is approved by a majority of the independent directors.

In carrying out its responsibilities, our board will consider candidates suggested by stockholders. If a stockholder wishes to formally place a candidate’s name in nomination, however, he or she must do so in accordance with the provisions of our First Amended and Restated Bylaws. Suggestions for candidates to be evaluated by the Nominating Committee must be sent to Secretary, iBio, Inc., 600 Madison Avenue, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10022-1737.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee of the board of directors makes recommendations regarding the retention of the independent registered public accounting firm, reviews the scope of the annual audit undertaken by our independent registered public accounting firm and the progress and results of their work, reviews our financial statements, and oversees the internal controls over financial reporting and corporate programs to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The Audit Committee reviews all services performed for us by the independent registered public accounting firm and determines whether they are compatible with maintaining the registered public accounting firm's independence. The Audit Committee has a charter, which is reviewed annually and as may be required due to changes in industry accounting practices or the promulgation of new rules or guidance documents. The Audit Committee charter is available on our website at www.ibioinc.com. The Audit Committee consists of two independent directors as determined by NYSE MKT LLC listing standards: Glenn Chang (Audit Committee Chairman) and Seymour Flug. Mr. Chang and Mr. Flug are each qualified as an Audit Committee Financial Expert as defined in Regulation S-K Item 407(d)(5)(ii).

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors reviews and approves executive compensation policies and practices, reviews salaries and bonuses for our senior executive officers, administers our equity incentive plan and other benefit plans, and considers other matters as may, from time to time, be referred to them by our board of directors. The Compensation Committee has a charter which is available on our website at www.ibioinc.com. The members of the Compensation Committee are General James T. Hill (Compensation Committee Chairman), Arthur Y. Elliott, Ph.D. and Philip K. Russell, M.D.

Board Leadership Structure and Role in Risk Oversight

Our chief executive officer also serves as the executive chairman of our board of directors. We do not have a lead independent director. Our executive chairman, when present, presides over all meetings of our board. We believe this leadership structure is appropriate for our Company at this time because (1) of our size, (2) of the size of our board, (3) our chief executive officer is responsible for our day-to-day operation and implementing our strategy, and (4) discussion of developments in our business and financial condition and results of operations are important parts of the discussion at meetings of our board of directors and it makes sense for our chief executive officer to chair those discussions.

Our board of directors oversees our risk management. This oversight is administered primarily through the following:

Our board’s review and approval of our business strategy, including the projected opportunities and challenges facing our business;

At least quarterly review of our business developments and financial results;

Our Audit Committee’s oversight of our internal controls over financial reporting and its discussions with management and the independent registered public accountants regarding the quality and adequacy of our internal controls and financial reporting; and

Our board’s review and recommendations regarding our executive officer compensation and its relationship to our business objectives and goals.

Meetings of the Board of Directors and Committees

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, the board of directors held two meetings in person or by telephone and acted by unanimous written consent on one occasion and the Audit Committee held four meetings in person or by telephone. No meetings in person or by telephone were held and no actions were taken by either the Nominating Committee or Compensation Committee as matters addressable by such committees were considered and approved by the full board. Between meetings, members of the board of the directors are provided with information regarding our operations and are consulted on an informal basis with respect to pending business. Each director attended at least 75% of the aggregate of the total number of meetings of the board and the total number of meetings of the committees on which such director serves. All of our directors attended our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Although we do not have a policy with regard to board members’ attendance at our annual meetings of stockholders, all of the directors are encouraged to attend such meetings.

Stockholder Communications with the Board of Directors

Interested parties may communicate with the board or specific members of the board, including the independent directors and the members of the Audit Committee, by submitting correspondence addressed to the Board of Directors of iBio, Inc. c/o any specified individual director or directors at 600 Madison Avenue, Suite 1601, New York, New York 10022-1737. Any such correspondence will be forwarded to the indicated directors.

Code of Ethics

We have adopted a written code of ethics within the meaning of Item 406 of SEC Regulation S-K, which applies to all of our employees, including our principal executive officer and our chief financial officer, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.ibioinc.com. If we make any waivers or substantive amendments to the code of ethics that are applicable to our principal executive officer or our chief financial officer, we will disclose the nature of such waiver or amendment in a Current Report on Form 8-K in a timely manner. No waivers from any provision of our policy have been granted.

SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the 1934 Exchange Act requires our directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than ten percent of a registered class of our equity securities, to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our common stock and other equity securities. Officers, directors and greater than ten percent stockholders are required by SEC regulation to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

To our knowledge, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to us and written representations that no other reports were required, during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners were complied with.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

Summary Compensation Table

The table below summarizes the total compensation paid or earned by our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and our two other most highly compensated executive officers who were serving as executive officers at June 30, 2016, the end of our last completed fiscal year. We refer to the executive officers identified in this table as our “named executive officers.

Name and Principal Position	Fiscal Year	Salary		Bonus		Option Awards (1)		Total
Robert B. Kay	2016	$	310,732	$	0	$	470,495	$	781,227
Executive Chairman	2015		309,735		0		238,961		548,696

Mark Giannone	2016		99,000		0		94,099		193,099
Chief Financial Officer	2015		48,000		0		21,263		69,263

Robert Erwin	2016		230,000		0		470,495		700,495
President	2015		230,000		0		238,261		468,261

Terence E. Ryan, Ph.D.	2016		200,000		0		62,733		262,733
Chief Scientific Officer	2015		200,000		0		0		200,000

(1)

Reflects (1) Reflects the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC 718.

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-Ending June 30, 2016

The following table shows information regarding unexercised stock options held by our named executive officers as of June 30, 2016.

Name	Unexercised Options		Exercise Price		Expiration Date	Market Value (1)
Robert Kay (2)		250,000	$	0.20	2/13/19	$	130,000
Robert Kay (2)		250,000	$	0.66	8/10/19	$	15,000
Robert Kay (2)		300,000	$	1.73	8/16/20	$	-
Robert Kay (3)		500,000	$	3.07	12/30/20	$	-
Robert Kay (3)		500,000	$	3.07	12/30/20	$	-
Robert Kay (4)		300,000	$	1.96	10/21/21	$	-
Robert Kay (4)		300,000	$	1.10	7/24/22	$	-
Robert Kay (4)		300,000	$	0.50	7/16/23	$	66,000
Robert Kay (5)		600,000	$	1.00	9/5/24	$	-
Robert Kay (5)		750,000	$	1.72	9/4/25	$	-
Robert Erwin (2)		250,000	$	0.20	2/13/19	$	130,000
Robert Erwin (2)		250,000	$	0.66	8/10/19	$	15,000
Robert Erwin (2)		300,000	$	1.73	8/16/20	$	-
Robert Erwin (4)		300,000	$	1.96	10/21/21	$	-
Robert Erwin (4)		300,000	$	1.10	7/24/22	$	-
Robert Erwin (4)		300,000	$	0.50	7/16/23	$	66,000
Robert Erwin (5)		600,000	$	1.00	9/5/24	$	-
Robert Erwin (5)		750,000	$	1.72	9/4/25	$	-
Terence Ryan (6)		100,000	$	1.38	7/14/20	$	-
Terence Ryan (6)		100,000	$	1.96	10/21/21	$	-
Terence Ryan (5)		100,000	$	1.72	9/4/25	$	-
Mark Giannone (5)		100,000	$	0.58	1/24/24	$	14,000
Mark Giannone (5)		50,000	$	0.49	9/5/24	$	11,500
Mark Giannone (5)		150,000	$	1.72	9/4/25	$	-

(1)

The market value for each award is based upon the closing stock price of $0.72 per share of common stock on June 30, 2016, less the exercise price of the option.

(2)

Options vested in five equal annual installments on the anniversary date of grant. Options fully vested as of June 30, 2016.

(3)

Options vested on the vesting commencement date of the grant. Options fully vested as of June 30, 2016.

(4)

Options vest in five equal annual installments on the anniversary date of grant.

(5)

Options vest in three equal annual installments on the anniversary date of grant.

(6)

Options vested in three equal annual installments on the anniversary date of grant. Options fully vested as of June 30, 2016.

Employment Agreements

As of June 30, 2016, we did not have any employment contracts or other similar agreements or arrangements with any of our named executive officers.

Equity Incentive Plan

On August 12, 2008, the Company adopted the iBioPharma 2008 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for employees, officers, directors and external service providers. In December 2013 our stockholders approved an amendment to the Plan to increase the number of shares of our common stock authorized for issuance thereunder from 10 million shares to 15 million shares. Under the provisions of the Plan, the Company may grant options to purchase stock and/or make awards of restricted stock up to an aggregate amount of 15 million shares. Stock options granted under the Plan may be either incentive stock options (as defined by Section 422 of the internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) or non-qualified stock options at the discretion of the board of directors. Vesting of awards occurs ratably on the anniversary of the grant date over the service period as determined at the time of grant.

Director Compensation

Compensation for our non-employee directors has historically consisted of a grant of stock options vesting over a three-year period and additional cash compensation. We do not have a fixed policy with respect to this compensation, but the compensation is generally equal for each non-employee director except in cases where a director assumes additional responsibilities above and beyond standard board service. Directors who are also our employees receive no additional compensation for their services as directors.

Director Compensation Table

The following table sets forth summary information concerning the total compensation paid to our non-employee directors for services to the Company during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016:

Director Compensation	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash		Option Awards (1)(2)		Total
General James T. Hill	$	25,000	$	62,733	$	87,733
Glenn Chang		10,000		62,733		72,733
John D. McKey		10,000		62,733		72,733
Philip K. Russell		10,000		62,733		72,733
Arthur Elliot		10,000		62,733		72,733
Seymour Flug		10,000		62,733		72,733
	$	75,000	$	376,398	$	451,398

(1)

Reflects the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC 718.

(2)

The aggregate number of stock options outstanding for each non-employee director was as follows: Gen. Hill 490,000, Mr. Chang 490,000, Mr. McKey 590,000, Dr. Russell 400,000, Dr. Elliott 400,000, and Mr. Flug 280,000.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

The following table sets forth information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our outstanding common stock as of October 13, 2016:

each person who is known by us to be the beneficial owner of 5% or more of our outstanding common stock;

each of our directors including our chief executive officer;

each of our other named executive officers; and

all of our current executive officers and directors as a group.

Except as otherwise noted in the footnotes below, to our knowledge, each of the persons named in this table has sole voting and investment power with respect to the securities indicated as beneficially owned.

	Number of			Percent of
	Shares			Shares
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner (1)	Beneficially			Beneficially
5% Stockholders	Owned (2)			Owned (2)

Eastern Capital Limited		33,744,000	(3)		37.9	%
E. Gerald Kay		5,945,695	(4)		6.7	%
Carl DeSantis		5,014,873	(5)		5.6	%

Directors

Robert B. Kay		4,200,962	(6)		4.6	%
Glenn Chang		415,483	(7)		0.5	%
Arthur Y. Elliott, Ph.D.		313,333	(8)		0.4	%
John McKey, Jr.		989,891	(9)		1.1	%
Seymour Flug		193,333	(8)		0.2	%
General James T. Hill		418,333	(10)		0.5	%
Philip K. Russell, M.D.		313,333	(8)		0.4	%

Other Executive Officers

Robert L. Erwin		2,170,000	(8)		2.4	%
Terence E. Ryan, Ph.D.		233,333	(8)		0.3	%
Mark Giannone		172,834	(11)		0.2	%

All current directors and executive officers as a group (10 persons)		9,420,835	(12)		9.7	%

(1)

The address of Eastern Capital Limited (“Eastern”) is Box 31363, Grand Cayman, E9 KY1 1206. The address of E. Gerald Kay is c/o Integrated BioPharma, Inc., 225 Long Avenue, Box 278, Hillside, New Jersey 07205. The address of Carl DeSantis is c/o CDS International Holdings, Inc., 3299 NW 2nd Avenue, Boca Raton, FL 33431. The address of each of our directors and executive officers is c/o iBio, Inc., 600 Madison Avenue, Suite 1601, New York, New York 10022-1737.

(2)

Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules of the SEC and includes voting or investment power with respect to shares of our common stock. On October 13, 2016, there were 89,109,410 shares of common stock outstanding. Shares of common stock issuable under stock options that are exercisable within 60 days after October 13, 2016 are deemed outstanding and are included for purposes of computing the number of shares owned and percentage ownership of the person holding the option but are not deemed outstanding for computing the percentage ownership of any other person.

(3)

Consists of 33,744,000 shares of common stock. This information is based solely on information set forth in a Schedule 13D/A Amendment No. 7 filed with the SEC on April 11, 2016 by Eastern, Portfolio Services Ltd. and Kenneth B. Dart.

(4)

Consists of 5,945,695 shares of common stock. This information is based solely on information set for forth in a Schedule 13D filed with the SEC on June 13, 2013 by E. Gerald Kay and EGK, LLC. The number of shares of common stock beneficially owned by these entities may have changed since the filing of the Schedule 13D.

(5)

Consists of 5,014,873 shares of common stock. This information is based solely on information set forth in a Schedule 13D/A Amendment No. 3 filed with the SEC on November 18, 2014 by Carl DeSantis, the DeSantis Revocable Trust, and CD Financial LLC.

(6)

Includes (i) 211,333 shares of common stock, (ii) 819,629 shares of common stock held by EVJ LLC, of which Mr. Kay is the manager, and (iii) 3,170,000 shares of common stock underlying vested stock options held by Mr. Kay.

(7)

Includes (i) 12,150 shares of common stock and (ii) 403,333 shares of common stock underlying vested stock options.

(8)

All shares listed are shares of common stock underlying vested stock options.

(9)

Includes (i) 486,558 shares of common stock and (ii) 503,333 shares of common stock underlying vested stock options.

(10)

Includes (i) 15,000 shares of common stock and (ii) 403,333 shares of common stock underlying vested stock options.

(11)

Includes (i) 22,834 shares of common stock and (ii) 150,000 shares of common stock underlying vested stock options.

(12)

Includes 7,853,331 shares of common stock underlying vested stock options.

Equity Compensation Plans

The following table provides information regarding the status of the Plan at June 30, 2016:

	Number of Shares of Common Stock to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options		Weighted-Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options		Number of Options Available for Future Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans (excluding securities reflected in the previous columns)
Equity compensation plan approved by stockholders		12,273,334	$	1.31		2,726,666

Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders		—		—		—

Total		12,273,334	$	1.31		2,726,666

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence.

Director Independence

Our board of directors has determined that Messrs. Chang, Flug and McKey, Drs. Elliott and Russell and General Hill are each “independent directors” as such term is defined in Section 803 of the New York Stock Exchange MKT Company Guide.

Policies and Procedures for Related Person Transactions

The policy our board of directors is to review with management and our independent registered public accounting firm any related party transactions brought to the board’s attention which could reasonably be expected to have a material impact on our financial statements. The Company’s practice is for management to present to the board of directors each proposed related party transaction, including all relevant facts and circumstances relating thereto, and to update the board of directors as to any material changes to any approved related party transaction. In connection with this requirement, each of the transactions or relationships disclosed below were disclosed to and approved by our board of directors. In addition, transactions involving our directors and their affiliated entities were disclosed and reviewed by our board of directors in its assessment of our directors’ independence requirements.

Research and Development Services Vendor

In January 2012, the Company entered into an agreement with Novici Biotech, LLC (“Novici”) in which iBio’s President is a minority stockholder. Novici performs platform technology development services for iBio, including laboratory feasibility analyses of gene expression, protein purification and preparation of research samples. The transaction has been conducted on an arm’s length basis at market terms. The accounts payable balance includes amounts due to Novici of approximately $200,000 and $153,000 at June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Research and development expenses related to Novici were approximately $1,036,000 and $995,000 for the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively

Capital Lease with Largest Stockholder

As discussed in Item 2 above, iBio CMO is leasing its facility in Bryan, Texas as well as certain equipment from an affiliate of Eastern (the “Affiliate”) under a 34-year sublease. iBio CMO began operations at the facility on December 22, 2015 pursuant to agreements between iBio CMO and the Affiliate granting iBio CMO temporary rights to access the facility. These temporary agreements were superseded by the Sublease Agreement, dated January 13, 2016, between iBio CMO and the Affiliate (the “Sublease”). The 34-year term of the Sublease may be extended by iBio CMO for a ten-year period, so long as iBio CMO is not in default under the Sublease. Under the Sublease, iBio CMO is required to pay base rent at an annual rate of $2,100,000, paid in equal quarterly installments on the first day of each February, May, August and November. The base rent is subject to increase annually in accordance with increases in the Consumer Price Index. The base rent under the Affiliate’s ground lease for the property is subject to adjustment, based on an appraisal of the property, in 2030 and upon any extension of the ground lease. The base rent under the Sublease will be increased by any increase in the base rent under the ground lease as a result of such adjustments. In addition to the base rent, iBio CMO is required to pay, for each calendar year during the term, a portion of the total gross sales for products manufactured or processed at the facility, equal to 7% of the first $5,000,000 of gross sales, 6% of gross sales between $5,000,001 and $25,000,000, 5% of gross sales between $25,000,001 and $50,000,000, 4% of gross sales between $50,000,001 and $100,000,000, and 3% of gross sales between $100,000,001 and $500,000,000. However, if for any calendar year period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019, iBio CMO’s applicable gross sales are less than $5,000,000, or for any calendar year period from and after January 1, 2020, its applicable gross sales are less than $10,000,000, then iBio CMO is required to pay the amount that would have been payable if it had achieved such minimum gross sales and shall pay no less than the applicable percentage for the minimum gross sales for each subsequent calendar year. iBio CMO is responsible for all costs and expenses in connection with the ownership, management, operation, replacement, maintenance and repair of the property under the Sublease.

General and administrative expenses related to the Affiliate were approximately $565,000 in 2016. Interest expense incurred under the capital lease obligation amounted to $807,000 in 2016.

Operating Lease with Minority Stockholder

Effective January 1, 2015, the Company is leasing office space on a month-to-month basis from an entity owned by a minority stockholder of the Company for approximately $2,000 per month.

Limitation of Liability of Officers and Directors and Indemnification

Our certificate of incorporation, as amended, provides for indemnification of our officers and directors to the extent permitted by Delaware law, which generally permits indemnification for actions taken by officers or directors as our representatives if the officer or director acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the corporation.

As permitted under Delaware law, the By-laws contain a provision indemnifying directors against expenses (including attorneys’ fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by them in connection with an action, suit or proceeding if they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of our Company, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe their conduct was unlawful.

Historical Relationship with Integrated BioPharma, Inc.

We were a subsidiary of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (“Integrated BioPharma”) from February 21, 2003 until August 18, 2008. On that date, Integrated BioPharma spun off iBio in a transaction that was intended to be a tax free distribution to Integrated BioPharma and its U.S. stockholders. As part of that transaction, we entered into a number of agreements with Integrated BioPharma including an indemnification and insurance matters agreement and a tax responsibility allocation agreement. Messrs. E. Gerald Kay and Carl DeSantis, affiliates of Integrated BioPharma, were in 2008 and continue to remain beneficial holders of more than 5% of our common stock. The agreements are described below.

Indemnification. In general, under the indemnification and insurance matters agreement, we agreed to indemnify Integrated BioPharma, its affiliates and each of its and their respective directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives from all liabilities that arise from:

any breach by us of the separation and distribution agreement or any ancillary agreement;

any of our liabilities reflected on our consolidated balance sheets included in the information statement relating to the spin-off;

our assets or businesses;

the management or conduct of our assets or businesses;

the liabilities allocated to or assumed by us under the separation and distribution agreement, the indemnification and insurance matters agreement or any of the other ancillary agreements;

various on-going litigation matters in which we are named defendant, including any new claims asserted in connection with those litigations, and any other past or future actions or claims based on similar claims, facts, circumstances or events, whether involving the same parties or similar parties, subject to specific exceptions;

claims that are based on any violations or alleged violations of U.S. or foreign securities laws in connection with transactions arising after the distribution relating to our securities and the disclosure of financial and other information and data by us or the disclosure by Integrated BioPharma as part of the distribution of our financial information or our confidential information; or

any actions or claims based on violations or alleged violations of securities or other laws by us or our directors, officers, employees, agents or representatives, or breaches or alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by our board of directors, any committee of our board or any of its members, or any of our officers or employees.

Integrated BioPharma agreed to indemnify us and our affiliates and our directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives from all liabilities that arise from:

any breach by Integrated BioPharma of the separation and distribution agreement or any ancillary agreement;

any liabilities allocated to or to be retained or assumed by Integrated BioPharma under the separation and distribution agreement, the indemnification and insurance matters agreement or any other ancillary agreement;

liabilities incurred by Integrated BioPharma in connection with the management or conduct of Integrated BioPharma’s businesses; and

various ongoing litigation matters to which we are not a party.

Integrated BioPharma is not obligated to indemnify us against any liability for which we are also obligated to indemnify Integrated BioPharma. Recoveries by Integrated BioPharma under insurance policies will reduce the amount of indemnification due from us to Integrated BioPharma only if the recoveries are under insurance policies Integrated BioPharma maintains for our benefit. Recoveries by us will in all cases reduce the amount of any indemnification due from Integrated BioPharma to us.

Under the indemnification and insurance matters agreement, a party has the right to control the defense of third-party claims for which it is obligated to provide indemnification, except that Integrated BioPharma has the right to control the defense of any third-party claim or series of related third- party claims in which it is named as a party whether or not it is obligated to provide indemnification in connection with the claim and any third-party claim for which Integrated BioPharma and we may both be obligated to provide indemnification. We may not assume the control of the defense of any claim unless we acknowledge that if the claim is adversely determined, we will indemnify Integrated BioPharma in respect of all liabilities relating to that claim. The indemnification and insurance matters agreement does not apply to taxes covered by the tax responsibility allocation agreement.

Offset. Integrated BioPharma is permitted to reduce amounts it owes us under any of our agreements with Integrated BioPharma, by amounts we may owe to Integrated BioPharma under those agreements.

Assignment. We may not assign or transfer any part of the indemnification and insurance agreement without Integrated BioPharma’s prior written consent. Nothing contained in the agreement restricts the transfer of the agreement by Integrated BioPharma.

Tax Responsibility Allocation Agreement

In order to allocate our responsibilities for taxes and certain other tax matters, we and Integrated BioPharma entered into a tax responsibility allocation agreement prior to the date of the distribution. Under the terms of the agreement, with respect to consolidated federal income taxes, and consolidated, combined and unitary state income taxes, Integrated BioPharma will be responsible for, and will indemnify and hold us harmless from, any liability for income taxes with respect to taxable periods or portions of periods ending prior to the date of distribution to the extent these amounts exceed the amounts we have paid to Integrated BioPharma prior to the distribution or in connection with the filing of relevant tax returns. Integrated BioPharma is also responsible for, and will indemnify and hold us harmless from, any liability for income taxes of Integrated BioPharma or any member of the Integrated BioPharma group (other than us) by reason of our being severally liable for those taxes under U.S. Treasury regulations or analogous state or local provisions. Under the terms of the agreement, with respect to consolidated federal income taxes, and consolidated, combined and unitary state income taxes, we are responsible for, and will indemnify and hold Integrated BioPharma harmless from, any liability for our income taxes for all taxable periods, whether before or after the distribution date. With respect to separate state income taxes, we are also responsible for, and will indemnify and hold Integrated BioPharma harmless from, any liability for income taxes with respect to taxable periods or portions of periods beginning on or after the distribution date. We are also responsible for, and will indemnify and hold Integrated BioPharma harmless from, any liability for our non-income taxes and our breach of any obligation or covenant under the terms of the tax responsibility allocation agreement, and in certain other circumstances as provided therein. In addition to the allocation of liability for our taxes, the terms of the agreement also provide for other tax matters, including tax refunds, returns and audits.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

The following table represents aggregate fees billed to us by CohnReznick LLP:

	For the Year Ended June 30,
	2016		2015
Audit Fees	$	138,969	$	88,357
Audit-related Fees		—		—
Tax Fees		—		—
Other Fees		—		—
Total Fees	$	138,969	$	88,357

In the above table, in accordance with the SEC’s definitions and rules, “audit fees” are fees we paid CohnReznick LLP for professional services for the audit of our financial statements included in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, review of our financial statements included in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and services normally provided in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements, consents and assistance with and review of our documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

The Audit Committee’s policy is to pre-approve all audit and permissible non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm. These services may include audit services, audit-related services, tax services and other services. Pre-approval is generally detailed as to the particular service or category of services and is generally subject to a specific budget. The independent registered public accounting firm and management are required to periodically report to the audit committee regarding the extent of services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with this pre-approval, and the fees for the services performed to date. The Audit Committee may also pre-approve particular services on a case-by-case basis. The Audit Committee has determined that the rendering of the services other than audit services by CohnReznick LLP is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

(a)

Exhibits and Index

(1)

A list of the financial statements filed as part of this report is set forth in the index to financial statements at page F-1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

(2)

An index of exhibits incorporated by reference or filed with this Report is provided below:

Exhibit No.		Description
3.1		Certificate of Incorporation of the Company (1)
3.2		Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company (1)
3.3		First Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company (2)
4.1		Form of Common Stock Certificate (3)
4.4		Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant (2013) (4)
4.6		Registration Rights Agreement, dated August 25, 2014, between the Company and Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (5)
4.7		Registration Rights Agreement, dated May 15, 2015, between the Company and Aspire Capital Fund LLC (6)
10.1		Technology Transfer Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2004, between the Company and Fraunhofer USA Center for Molecular Biotechnology, Inc. as amended (7)
10.2		Ratification dated September 6, 2013 of Terms of Settlement by and between the Company and Fraunhofer USA Center for Molecular Biotechnology, Inc. (8)+
10.3		Common Stock Purchase Agreement, dated August 25, 2014 between the Company and Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (5)
10.4		Common Stock Purchase Agreement, dated May 15, 2015 between the Company and Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (6)
10.5		Share Purchase Agreement, dated January 13, 2016, between iBio, Inc. and Eastern Capital Limited, for the purchase of 3,500,000 shares of common stock (9)
10.6		Share Purchase Agreement, dated January 13, 2016, between iBio, Inc. and Eastern Capital Limited, for the purchase of 6,500,000 shares of common stock (9)
10.7		Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of iBio CMO LLC, dated January 13, 2016, between the Company, Bryan Capital Investors LLC and iBio CMO LLC (10)
10.8		License Agreement, dated January 13, 2016, between the Company and iBio CMO LLC (10)
10.9		Sublease Agreement, dated January 13, 2016, between College Station Investors LLC and IBIO CMO LLC (10)
21		Subsidiaries of Registrant *
23.1		Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm *
31.1		Certification of Periodic Report by Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 *
31.2		Certification of Periodic Report by Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 *
32.1		Certification of Periodic Report by 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 Periodic Report by 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*
101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema*
101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation*
101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition*
101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Labeled*
101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation*

(1)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on May 15, 2014 (Commission File No. 001-35023).

(2)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 14, 2009 (Commission File No. 000-53125).

(3)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Form 10-12G filed with the SEC on July 11, 2008 (Commission File No. 000-53125).

(4)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 23, 2013 (Commission File No. 001-35023).

(5)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 26, 2014 (Commission File No. 001-35023).

(6)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on May 15, 2015 (Commission File No. 001-35023).

(7)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Form 10-12G filed with the SEC on June 18, 2008 Commission File No. 000-53125).

(8)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, filed with the SEC on September 30, 2013 (Commission File No. 001-35023).

(9)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 14, 2016 (Commission File No. 000-35023).

(10)

Incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on February 22, 2016 (Commission File No. 001-35023).

Filed herewith.

Confidential treatment requested as to certain portions, which portions have been separately filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

		iBio, Inc.
		(Registrant)

Dated: October 13, 2016		/s/Robert B. Kay
		Robert B. Kay
		Executive Chairman
		(Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: October 13, 2016		/s/Mark Giannone
		Mark Giannone
		Chief Financial Officer
		(Principal Financial Officer and
		Principal Accounting Officer)

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:

Name	Title	Date

/s/Robert B. Kay	Executive Chairman	October 13, 2016
Robert B. Kay	(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/Mark Giannone	Chief Financial Officer	October 13, 2016
Mark Giannone	(Principal Financial Officer and
	Principal Accounting Officer)

/s/Glenn Chang	Director	October 13, 2016
Glenn Chang

/s/Arthur Y. Elliott	Director	October 13, 2016
Arthur Y. Elliott, Ph.D.

/s/Seymour Flug	Director	October 13, 2016
Seymour Flug

/s/James T. Hill	Director	October 13, 2016
General James T. Hill, USA (Retired)

/s/John D. McKey, Jr.	Director	October 13, 2016
John D. McKey, Jr.

/s/Philip K. Russell	Director	October 13, 2016
Philip K. Russell, M.D.

[This page intentionally left blank.]

iBio, Inc.

Financial Statement Index

	Page
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	F-2
Financial Statements:
Consolidated Balance Sheets – June 30, 2016 and 2015	F-3
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss – Fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015	F-4
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity – Fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015	F-5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows – Fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015	F-6
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	F-7

F-1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and

Stockholders of iBio, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. The Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/ CohnReznick LLP

Roseland, New Jersey
October 13, 2016

F-2

iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(In Thousands, except share and per share amounts)

	June 30, 2016			June 30, 2015

Assets
Current assets:
Cash	$	23,014		$	9,494
Accounts receivable - trade		484			445
Accounts receivable - unbilled		122			-
Work in process		22			-
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		264			182
Total current assets		23,906			10,121

Fixed assets, net of accumulated depreciation		25,574			13
Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization		2,092			2,360
Security deposit		28			-
Total Assets	$	51,600		$	12,494

Liabilities and Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable (related party of $200 and $153 as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively)	$	1,177		$	1,104
Accrued expenses (related party of $623 and $0 as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively)		920			159
Capital lease obligation - current portion		170			-
Deferred revenue		24			-
Total Current Liabilities		2,291			1,263

Capital lease obligation - net of current portion		25,265			-

Total Liabilities		27,556			1,263

Commitments and Contingencies

Equity
iBio, Inc. Stockholders’ Equity:
Preferred stock - no par value; 1,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and outstanding		-			-
Common stock - $0.001 par value; 175,000,000 shares authorized; 89,109,410 and 77,205,410 shares issued and outstanding as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively		89			77
Additional paid-in capital		67,468			59,006
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(29	)		(25	)
Accumulated deficit		(57,591	)		(47,827	)
Total iBio, Inc. Stockholders’ Equity		9,937			11,231
Noncontrolling interest		14,107			-
Total Equity		24,044			11,231
Total Liabilities and Equity	$	51,600		$	12,494

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-3

iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss

(In Thousands, except per share amounts)

	Years Ended
	June 30,
	2016			2015

Revenues	$	948		$	1,851

Operating expenses:
Research and development (related party of $1,036 and $995), net of $65 in grant income		3,156			3,495
General and administrative (related party of $565 and $0)		7,685			5,022
Total operating expenses		10,841			8,517

Operating loss		(9,893	)		(6,666	)

Other income (expense):
Interest expense (related party of $807 and $0)		(807	)		-
Interest income		22			9
Royalty income		21			32

Total other income (expense)		(764	)		41

Consolidated net loss		(10,657	)		(6,625	)
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest		893			-
Net loss attributable to iBio, Inc.	$	(9,764	)	$	(6,625	)

Comprehensive loss:
Consolidated net loss	$	(10,657	)	$	(6,625	)
Other comprehensive loss - foreign currency translation adjustments		(4	)		(25	)

Comprehensive loss	$	(10,661	)	$	(6,650	)

Loss per common share attributable to iBio, Inc. stockholders - basic and diluted	$	(0.12	)	$	(0.09	)

Weighted-average common shares outstanding - basic and diluted		80,973			71,495

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-4

iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity

Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015

(In Thousands)

											Accumulated
									Additional		Other
	Preferred Stock				Common Stock				Paid-In		Comprehensive			Accumulated			Noncontrolling
	Shares		Amount		Shares		Amount		Capital		Loss			Deficit			Interest			Total

Balance as of July 1, 2014		-	$	-		65,642	$	66	$	47,235	$	-		$	(41,202	)	$	-		$	6,099

Sale of common stock		-		-		8,769		9		9,991		-			-			-			10,000

Commitment fee		-		-		1,132		1		-		-			-			-			1

Exercises of warrants		-		-		1,663		1		866		-			-			-			867

Share-based compensation		-		-		-		-		914		-			-			-			914

Foreign currency translation adjustment		-		-		-		-		-		(25	)		-			-			(25	)

Net loss		-		-		-		-		-		-			(6,625	)		-			(6,625	)

Balance as of June 30, 2015		-	$	-		77,206	$	77	$	59,006	$	(25	)	$	(47,827	)	$	-		$	11,231

Balance as of July 1, 2015		-	$	-		77,206	$	77	$	59,006	$	(25	)	$	(47,827	)	$	-		$	11,231

Capital contribution - noncontrolling interest		-		-		-		-		-		-			-			15,000			15,000

Sale of common stock		-		-		10,000		10		6,210		-			-			-			6,220

Exercises of warrants		-		-		1,904		2		1,007		-			-			-			1,009

Share-based compensation		-		-		-		-		1,245		-			-			-			1,245

Foreign currency translation adjustment		-		-		-		-		-		(4	)		-			-			(4	)

Net loss		-		-		-		-		-		-			(9,764	)		(893	)		(10,657	)

Balance as of June 30, 2016		-	$	-		89,110	$	89	$	67,468	$	(29	)	$	(57,591	)	$	14,107		$	24,044

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-5

iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(In Thousands)

	Years Ended
	June 30,
	2016			2015

Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$	(10,657	)	$	(6,625	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Share-based compensation		1,245			914
Amortization of intangible assets		363			358
Depreciation		577			5
Loss on abandonment of intangible assets		33			48
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
Accounts receivable – trade		(39	)		(240	)
Accounts receivable – unbilled		(122	)		-
Work in process		(22	)		-
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(82	)		(64	)
Security deposit		(28	)		-
Accounts payable		(125	)		806
Accrued expenses		761			73
Deferred revenue		24			-

Net cash used in operating activities		(8,072	)		(4,725	)

Cash flows from investing activities:
Additions to intangible assets		-			(202	)
Purchases of fixed assets		(68	)		(13	)

Net cash used in investing activities		(68	)		(215	)

Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from sale of common stock		6,220			10,000
Proceeds from exercise of warrants		1,009			867
Capital contribution – noncontrolling interest		15,000			-
Payment of capital lease obligation		(565	)		-

Net cash provided by financing activities		21,664			10,867

Effect of exchange rate changes		(4	)		(23	)

Net increase in cash		13,520			5,904
Cash - beginning of year		9,494			3,590
Cash - end of year	$	23,014		$	9,494

Schedule of non-cash activities:
Purchases of fixed assets financed by capital lease	$	26,000		$	-
Unpaid intangible assets included in accounts payable – net	$	129		$	-
Unpaid intangible assets included in accrued expenses – net	$	-		$	(12	)
Unpaid fixed assets included in accounts payable	$	71		$	-

Supplemental cash flow information:
Cash paid during the year for interest	$	485		$	-

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-6

iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Nature of Business

iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries (“iBio” or the “Company”) is a biotechnology company focused on the commercialization of its proprietary plant-based protein expression technologies for vaccines and therapeutic proteins and on developing and commercializing select biopharmaceutical product candidates. The advantages of iBio’s technology include reduced production time, capital and operating costs for biopharmaceuticals and the ability to manufacture therapeutic proteins that are difficult or commercially infeasible to produce with conventional methods.

iBio was established as a public company in August 2008 as the result of a spinoff from Integrated BioPharma, Inc. The Company operates in one business segment under the direction of its Executive Chairman. The Company’s wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries are as follows:

iBioDefense Biologics LLC (“iBioDefense”) – iBioDefense, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is a Delaware limited liability company formed in July 2013 to explore development and commercialization of defense-specific applications of the Company’s proprietary technology. iBioDefense did not commence any business activities and was dissolved on June 10, 2016.

iBio Peptide Therapeutics LLC (“iBio Peptide”) – iBio Peptide, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is a Delaware limited liability company formed in November 2013. iBio Peptide did not commence any business activities and was dissolved on June 9, 2016.

iBIO DO BRASIL BIOFARMACÊUTICA LTDA. (“iBio Brazil”) – iBio Brazil is a subsidiary organized in Brazil in which the Company has a 99% interest. iBio Brazil was formed to manage and expand the Company’s business activities in Brazil. The activities of iBio Brazil are intended to include coordination and expansion of the Company’s existing relationship with Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz (“Fiocruz”) beyond the current Yellow Fever Vaccine program (see Note 8) and development of additional products with private sector participants for the Brazilian market. iBio Brazil commenced operations during the first quarter of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.

iBio Manufacturing LLC (“iBio Manufacturing”) – iBio Manufacturing, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is a Delaware limited liability company formed in November 2015. iBio Manufacturing has not commenced any activities to date.

iBio CMO LLC (“iBio CMO”) – iBio CMO is a Delaware limited liability company formed on December 16, 2015 to develop and manufacture plant-made pharmaceuticals. As of December 31, 2015, the Company owned 100% of iBio CMO. On January 13, 2016, the Company entered into a contract manufacturing joint venture with an affiliate of Eastern Capital Limited (“Eastern”), a stockholder of the Company (the “Eastern Affiliate”). The Eastern Affiliate contributed $15 million in cash for a 30% interest in iBio CMO. The Company retained a 70% interest in iBio CMO and contributed a royalty bearing license which grants iBio CMO a non-exclusive license to use the Company’s proprietary technologies for research purposes and an exclusive U.S. license for manufacturing purposes. The Company retained the exclusive right to grant product licenses to those who wish to sell or distribute products made using the Company’s technologies.

iBio CMO’s operations take place in Bryan, Texas in a facility controlled by another affiliate of Eastern (the “Second Eastern Affiliate”) as sublandlord. The facility is a 139,000 square foot Class A life sciences building on the campus of Texas A&M University, designed and equipped for plant-made manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. The Second Affiliate granted iBio CMO a 34-year sublease for the facility as well as certain equipment (see Note 10). Commercial operations commenced in January 2016. iBio CMO expects to operate on the basis of three parallel lines of business: (1) Development and manufacturing of third party products; (2) Development and production of iBio’s proprietary product(s) for treatment of fibrotic diseases; and (3) Commercial technology transfer services.

Basis of Presentation

Liquidity

The Company’s primary sources of liquidity are cash on hand and cash available from the sale of common stock of the Company. At this time, cash flows from operating activities represent net outflows for operating expenses and expenses for technology and product development. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had $23.0 million in cash on hand which is expected to support the Company’s activities through June 30, 2017.

Since its spin-off from Integrated BioPharma, Inc. in August 2008, the Company has incurred significant losses and negative cash flows from operations. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s accumulated deficit was $57.6 million, and it had cash used in operating activities of $8.1 million and $4.7 million for the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The Company has historically financed its activities through the sale of common stock and warrants. Through June 30, 2016, the Company has dedicated most of its financial resources to investing in its iBioLaunch™ and iBioModulator™ platforms, its proprietary candidates for treatment of fibrotic diseases, advancing its intellectual property, and general and administrative activities.

F-7

On May 15, 2015, the Company entered into a common stock purchase agreement with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (“Aspire Capital”) pursuant to which the Company has the option to require Aspire Capital, upon and subject to the terms of the agreement, to purchase up to $15 million of its common stock, over a three-year term. No shares have been sold under the 2015 Facility as of the date of the filing of this report. See Note 11 for a further description of the agreement.

Coincident with the entry into the iBio CMO joint venture, Eastern agreed to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's common stock at $0.622 per share. The closing for the sale of 3,500,000 of such shares occurred on January 25, 2016. The sale of the remaining 6,500,000 shares occurred on April 13, 2016. In addition, Eastern agreed to, and on January 25, 2016 did, exercise warrants it previously acquired to purchase 1,784,000 shares of the Company's common stock at $0.53 per share. As of the date of the filing of this report, the Company has received $15 million for the capitalization of iBio CMO and approximately $7.2 million from Eastern for the acquisition of 10 million shares of common stock and the exercise of the warrants. See Note 11 for a further description of the transactions.

The Company plans to fund its future business operations using cash on hand, through proceeds from the sale of additional equity or other securities, including sales of common stock to Aspire Capital pursuant to the common stock purchase agreement entered into on May 15, 2015, and through proceeds realized in connection with license and collaboration arrangements. The Company cannot be certain that such funding will be available on favorable terms or available at all. To the extent that the Company raises additional funds by issuing equity securities, its stockholders may experience significant dilution.

The Company's financial statements were prepared under the assumption that the Company will continue as a going concern. If the Company is unable to raise funds when required or on favorable terms, this assumption may no longer be operative, and the Company may have to: a) significantly delay, scale back, or discontinue the product application and/or commercialization of its proprietary technologies; b) seek collaborators for its technology and product candidates on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available; c) relinquish or otherwise dispose of rights to technologies, product candidates, or products that it would otherwise seek to develop or commercialize; or d) possibly cease operations.

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated as part of the consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. These estimates include the valuation of intellectual property, legal and contractual contingencies and share-based compensation. Although management bases its estimates on historical experience and various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, actual results could differ from these estimates.

Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable are reported at their outstanding unpaid principal balances net of allowances for uncollectible accounts. The Company provides for allowances for uncollectible receivables based on management's estimate of uncollectible amounts considering age, collection history, and any other factors considered appropriate. The Company writes off accounts receivable against the allowance for doubtful accounts when a balance is determined to be uncollectible. At June 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company determined that an allowance for doubtful accounts was not needed.

Revenue Recognition

The Company’s contract revenue consists primarily of amounts earned under contracts with third-party customers and reimbursed expenses under such contracts. The Company analyzes its agreements to determine whether the elements can be separated and accounted for individually or as a single unit of accounting in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 605-25, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables,” and Staff Accounting Bulletin 104, “Revenue Recognition.” Allocation of revenue to individual elements that qualify for separate accounting is based on the separate selling prices determined for each component, and total contract consideration is then allocated pro rata across the components of the arrangement. If separate selling prices are not available, the Company will use its best estimate of such selling prices, consistent with the overall pricing strategy and after consideration of relevant market factors. For the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company did not have any revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables.

The Company generates (or may generate in the future) contract revenue under the following types of contracts:

F-8

Fixed-Fee

Time and Materials

Grant Income

Grants are recognized as income when all conditions of such grants are fulfilled or there is a reasonable assurance that they will be fulfilled. Grant income is classified as a reduction of research and development expenses. In 2016, grant income amounted to approximately $65,000. No grant income was recognized in 2015.

Work in Process

Work in process consists primarily of the cost of labor and other overhead incurred on contracts that have not been completed as of June 30, 2016.

Research and Development

The Company accounts for research and development costs in accordance with the FASB ASC 730-10, “Research and Development” (“ASC 730-10”). Under ASC 730-10, all research and development costs must be charged to expense as incurred. Accordingly, internal research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Third-party research and development costs are expensed when the contracted work has been performed or as milestone results have been achieved.

Fixed Assets

Fixed assets are stated at cost net of accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets ranging from three to fifteen years.

Assets held under the terms of capital leases are included in fixed assets and are depreciated on a straight-line basis over the terms of the leases or the economic lives of the assets. Obligations for future lease payments under capital leases are shown within liabilities and are analyzed between amounts falling due within and after one year (see Note 10).

Intangible Assets

Derivative Instruments

The Company does not use derivative instruments in its ordinary course of business.

In connection with the issuances of debt and/or equity instruments, the Company may issue options or warrants to purchase common stock. In certain circumstances, these options or warrants may be classified as liabilities rather than as equity. In addition, the debt and/or equity instrument may contain embedded derivative instruments, such as conversion options or anti-dilution features, which in certain circumstances may be required to be bifurcated from the associated host instrument and accounted for separately as a derivative liability instrument. The Company accounts for derivative liability instruments under the provisions of FASB ASC 815, “Derivatives and Hedging.”

There are no options or warrants of the Company presently outstanding that require accounting as a derivative liability.

Foreign Currency

The Company accounts for foreign currency translation pursuant to FASB ASC 830, “Foreign Currency Matters.” The functional currency of iBio Brazil is the Brazilian Real. Under FASB ASC 830, all assets and liabilities are translated into United States dollars using the current exchange rate at the end of each fiscal period. Revenues and expenses are translated using the average exchange rates prevailing throughout the respective periods. All transaction gains and losses from the measurement of monetary balance sheet items denominated in Reals are reflected in the statement of operations as appropriate. Translation adjustments are included in accumulated other comprehensive loss.

F-9

Share-based Compensation

Income Taxes

Tax benefits of uncertain tax positions are recognized only if it is more likely than not that the Company will be able to sustain a position taken on an income tax return. The Company has no liability for uncertain tax positions as of June 30, 2016 and 2015. Interest and penalties, if any, related to unrecognized tax benefits would be recognized as income tax expense. The Company does not have any accrued interest or penalties associated with unrecognized tax benefits, nor was any significant interest expense recognized during the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015.

New Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”) was issued. The amendments in ASU 2014-09 affect any entity that either enters into contracts with customers to transfer goods or services or enters into contracts for the transfer of nonfinancial assets unless contracts are within the scope of other standards (e.g., insurance contracts or lease contracts). This ASU will supersede the revenue recognition requirements in ASC 605, “Revenue Recognition,” and most industry-specific guidance.

The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. To achieve that core principle, an entity should apply the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the contract(s) with a customer.

Step 2: Identify the performance obligations in the contract.

Step 3: Determine the transaction price.

Step 4: Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract.

Step 5: Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation.

ASU 2014-09 was scheduled to be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early application is not permitted. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of Effective Date” (“ASU 2015-14”) which defers the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year. ASU 2014-09 is now effective for annual reporting periods after December 15, 2017 including interim periods within that reporting period. Earlier application is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The Company is currently evaluating the effects of adopting ASU 2014-09 on its consolidated financial statements.

Effective January 1, 2016, the Company adopted ASU 2014-12, “Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period” (“ASU No. 2014-12”). ASU No. 2014-12 requires that a performance target that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period is treated as a performance condition. An entity should recognize compensation cost in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the periods for which the requisite service has already been rendered. If the performance target becomes probable of being achieved before the end of the requisite service period, the remaining unrecognized compensation cost should be recognized prospectively over the remaining requisite service period. The total amount of compensation cost recognized during and after the requisite service period should reflect the number of awards that are expected to vest and should be adjusted to reflect those awards that ultimately vest. ASU 2014-12 became effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2015. The adoption of ASU 2014-12 did not have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

F-10

In June 2014, ASU 2014-15, “Presentation of Financial Statements – Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern” (“ASU No. 2014-15”) was issued. Before the issuance of ASU 2014-15, there was no guidance in U.S. GAAP about management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern or to provide related footnote disclosures. This guidance is expected to reduce the diversity in the timing and content of footnote disclosures. ASU 2014-15 requires management to assess an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern by incorporating and expanding upon certain principles that are currently in U.S. auditing standards as specified in the guidance. ASU 2014-15 becomes effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016 (year ended June 30, 2017 for the Company) and for annual and interim periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effects of adopting ASU 2014-15 on its consolidated financial statements but the adoption is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Effective January 1, 2016, the Company adopted 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”). ASU 2015-01 eliminates the concept of an extraordinary item from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As a result, an entity will no longer be required to segregate extraordinary items from the results of ordinary operations, to separately present an extraordinary item on its income statement, net of tax, after income from continuing operations or to disclose income taxes and earnings-per-share data applicable to an extraordinary item. However, ASU 2015-01 will still retain the presentation and disclosure guidance for items that are unusual in nature and occur infrequently. ASU 2015-01 became effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2015. The adoption of ASU 2015-01 did not have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, “Interest – Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs” (“ASU 2015-03”) as part of its initiative to reduce complexity in accounting standards (the Simplification Initiative). The FASB received feedback that having different balance sheet presentation requirements for debt issuance costs and debt discount and premium creates unnecessary complexity. Recognizing debt issuance costs as a deferred charge (that is, an asset) also is different from the guidance in International Financial Reporting Standards, which requires that transaction costs be deducted from the carrying value of the financial liability and not recorded as separate assets. Additionally, the requirement to recognize debt issuance costs as deferred charges conflicts with the guidance in FASB Concepts Statement No. 6, “Elements of Financial Statements,” which states that debt issuance costs are similar to debt discounts and in effect reduce the proceeds of borrowing, thereby increasing the effective interest rate. FASB Concepts Statement No. 6 further states that debt issuance costs cannot be an asset because they provide no future economic benefit. To simplify presentation of debt issuance costs, the amendments in this update require that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. The recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs are not affected by the amendments in this update. For public business entities, the amendments in this update are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company will evaluate the effects of adopting ASU 2015-03 if and when it is deemed to be applicable.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, “Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes” (“ASU 2015-17”). ASU 2015-17 requires deferred tax assets and liabilities to be classified as noncurrent in the consolidated balance sheet. ASU 2015-17 becomes effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is permitted. A reporting entity should apply the amendment prospectively or retrospectively. The Company is currently evaluating the effects of adopting ASU 2015-17 on its consolidated financial statements.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, “Financial Instruments – Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“ASU 2016-01”). The amendments require all equity investments to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income (other than those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee). The amendments also require an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments. In addition, the amendments eliminate the requirement to disclose the fair value of financial instruments measured at amortized cost for entities that are not public business entities and the requirement to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet for public business entities. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company will evaluate the effects of adopting ASU 2016-01 if and when it is deemed to be applicable.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)” (“ASU 2016-02”) which supersedes existing guidance on accounting for leases in “Leases (Topic 840).” The standard requires lessees to recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases on the balance sheet. A lessee should recognize in the balance sheet a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. The new guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018 (fiscal year ended June 30, 2020 for the Company) and interim periods within those fiscal years. The amendments should be applied at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach with earlier application permitted as of the beginning of an interim or annual reporting period. The Company is currently evaluating the effects of adopting ASU 2016-02 on its consolidated financial statements.

F-11

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, “Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting” (“ASU 2016-09”). ASU 2016-09 affects entities that issue share-based payment awards to their employees. ASU 2016-09 is designed to simplify several aspects of accounting for share-based payment award transactions which include – the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, classification on the statement of cash flows and forfeiture rate calculations. This guidance is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2016-09 on its consolidated financial statements.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing” (“ASU 2016-10”) related to identifying performance obligations and licensing. ASU 2016-10 is meant to clarify the guidance in FASB ASU 2014- 09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” Specifically, ASU 2016-10 addresses an entity’s identification of its performance obligations in a contract, as well as an entity’s evaluation of the nature of its promise to grant a license of intellectual property and whether or not that revenue is recognized over time or at a point in time. The pronouncement has the same effective date as the new revenue standard, which is effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2016-10 on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients" ("ASU 2016-12"). The amendments in ASU 2016-12 affect the guidance in ASU 2014-09 by clarifying certain specific aspects of the guidance, including assessment of collectability, treatment of sales taxes and contract modifications, and providing certain technical corrections. ASU 2016-12 will have the same effective date and transition requirements as ASU 2014-09. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2016-12 on its consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments” (“ASU 2016-15”). ASU 2016-15 will make eight targeted changes to how cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-15 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. The new standard will require adoption on a retrospective basis unless it is impracticable to apply, in which case it would be required to apply the amendments prospectively as of the earliest date practicable. The Company is currently in the process of evaluating the impact of ASU 2016-15 on its consolidated financial statements.

Management does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards if currently adopted would have a material effect on the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Financial Instruments and Fair Value Measurement

The carrying values of cash, accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and other current assets, accounts payable and accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance sheets approximated their fair values as of June 30, 2016 and 2015 due to their short-term nature. The carrying value of the capital lease obligation approximated its fair value at June 30, 2016 as the interest rate used to discount the lease payments approximated market.

Fixed Assets

iBio CMO is leasing its facility in Bryan, Texas as well as certain equipment from the Second Affiliate under a 34-year sublease. See Note 10 for more details of the terms of the sublease.

The economic substance of the sublease is that the Company is financing the acquisition of the facility and equipment and, accordingly, the facility and equipment are recorded as assets and the lease is recorded as a liability. As the sublease involves real estate and equipment, the Company separated the equipment component and accounted for the facility and equipment as if each was leased separately.

The following table summarizes by category the gross carrying value and accumulated depreciation of fixed assets (in thousands):

	June 30, 2016			June 30, 2015
Facility under capital lease	$	20,000		$	-
Equipment under capital lease		6,000			-
Facility improvements		42			-
Office equipment and software		137			40
		26,179			40
Accumulated depreciation – assets under capital lease		(571	)		-
Accumulated depreciation – other		(34	)		(27	)
		(605	)		(27	)
Net fixed assets	$	25,574		$	13

F-12

Depreciation expense was approximately $577,000 and $4,600 in 2016 and 2015, respectively. Depreciation of the assets under the capital lease amounted to approximately $571,000 in 2016.

Intangible Assets

The Company has two categories of intangible assets – intellectual property and patents. Intellectual property consists of all technology, know-how, data, and protocols for producing targeted proteins in plants and related to any products and product formulations for pharmaceutical uses and for other applications. Intellectual property includes, but is not limited to, certain technology for the development and manufacture of novel vaccines and therapeutics for humans and certain veterinary applications acquired in December 2003 from Fraunhofer USA Inc., acting through its Center for Molecular Biotechnology (“Fraunhofer”), pursuant to a Technology Transfer Agreement, as amended (the “TTA”). The Company designates such technology acquired from Fraunhofer as iBioLaunch technology or as iBioModulator technology. The value attributed to Patents owned or controlled by the Company is based on payments for services and fees related to the further development and protection of the Company’s patent portfolio.

In January 2014, the Company entered into a license agreement with a U.S. university whereby iBio acquired exclusive worldwide rights to certain issued and pending patents covering specific candidate products for the treatment of fibrosis (the “Licensed Technology”). The license agreement provides for payment by the Company of a license issue fee, annual license maintenance fees, reimbursement of prior patent costs incurred by the university, payment of a milestone payment upon regulatory approval for sale of a first product, and annual royalties on product sales. In addition, the Company has agreed to meet certain diligence milestones related to product development benchmarks. As part of its commitment to the diligence milestones, the Company successfully commenced production of a plant-made peptide comprising the Licensed Technology before March 31, 2014. The next milestone – filing a New Drug Application with the FDA or foreign equivalent covering the Licensed Technology (“IND”) – became due on December 1, 2015. A six-month extension was automatically granted until June 1, 2016 under the license agreement. On August 11, 2016, the agreement was amended and replaced the original milestone schedule to provide that the IND filing be accomplished by June 30, 2017.

The following table summarizes by category the gross carrying value and accumulated amortization of intangible assets (in thousands):

	June 30, 2016			June 30, 2015
Intellectual property – gross carrying value	$	3,100		$	3,100
Patents – gross carrying value		2,265			2,181
		5,365			5,281
Intellectual property – accumulated amortization		(1,932	)		(1,776	)
Patents – accumulated amortization		(1,341	)		(1,145	)
		(3,273	)		(2,921	)
Net intangible assets	$	2,092		$	2,360

Amortization expense, included in general and administrative expenses, was approximately $363,000 and $358,000 for 2016 and 2015. In addition, in 2016 and 2015, the Company incurred losses on the abandonment of patents of approximately $33,000 and $48,000, respectively. The weighted-average remaining life for intellectual property and patents at June 30, 2016 was approximately 7.5 years and 6.6 years, respectively. The estimated annual amortization expense for the next five years and thereafter is as follows (in thousands):

For the Year Ending June 30,
2017	$	345
2018		327
2019		297
2020		265
2021		244
Thereafter		614
Total	$	2,092

Significant Vendors

Fraunhofer

Fraunhofer was the Company’s most significant vendor solely on the basis of the three-party Yellow Fever vaccine development program among Fiocruz/Bio-Manguinhos, the Company, and Fraunhofer (described in greater detail below). The accounts payable balance under this three-party agreement includes amounts due Fraunhofer of approximately $341,000 and $445,000 as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and accrued expenses of $122,000 and $0 as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. See Note 16 – Commitments and Contingencies.

F-13

On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into the Collaboration and License Agreement (the “CLA”) which is a three party agreement involving the Company, Fraunhofer and Fiocruz, a public entity, member of the Indirect Federal Public Administration and linked to the Health Ministry of Brazil, acting through its unit Bio-Manguinhos. The CLA provides for the development of a Yellow Fever vaccine to be manufactured and distributed within Latin America and Africa by Fiocruz. The CLA was supplemented by a bilateral agreement between iBio and Fraunhofer dated December 27, 2010 in which the Company engaged Fraunhofer as a contractor to provide the research and development services (both, together, the “Agreement”). The services are billed to Fiocruz at Fraunhofer’s cost, so the Company’s revenue is equivalent to expense and there is no profit.

On June 12, 2014, Fiocruz, Fraunhofer and iBio executed an amendment to the CLA (the “Amended Agreement”) which provides for revised research and development, work plans, reporting, objectives, estimated budget, and project billing process. In 2016 and 2015, under the Amended Agreement, the Company recognized revenue of $758,000 and $1,851,000, respectively, for work performed for Fiocruz pursuant to the Amended Agreement by the Company’s subcontractor, Fraunhofer, and recognized research and development expenses of the same amount due Fraunhofer for that work.

In September 2013, the Company and Fraunhofer completed the Terms of Settlement for the TTA Seventh Amendment (the “Settlement Agreement”). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement various contractual obligations existing at June 30, 2013 were released, terminated or modified. See Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies for significant modifications.

On March 17, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Fraunhofer and Vidadi Yusibov, Fraunhofer's Executive Director. See Note 16 - Lawsuits for additional information.

Novici Biotech, LLC

In January 2012, the Company entered into an agreement with Novici Biotech, LLC (“Novici”) in which iBio’s President is a minority stockholder. Novici performs laboratory feasibility analyses of gene expression, protein purification and preparation of research samples. In addition, the Company and Novici collaborate on the development of new technologies and product candidates for exclusive worldwide commercial use by the Company. The accounts payable balance includes amounts due to Novici of approximately $200,000 and $153,000 at June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Research and development expenses related to Novici were approximately $1,036,000 and $995,000 in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Accrued Expenses

Accrued expenses consist of the following (in thousands):

	June 30, 2016		June 30, 2015
Interest – related party (see Note 14)	$	323	$	-
Rent and real estate taxes – related party (see Note 14)		300		-
Research and development		122		-
Salaries and benefits		55		39
Facility expenses		53		-
Stock exchange fees		-		65
Other accrued expenses		67		55
Total accrued expenses	$	920	$	159

10.

Capital Lease Obligation

As discussed above, iBio CMO is leasing its facility in Bryan, Texas as well as certain equipment from the Second Affiliate under a 34-year sublease. iBio CMO began operations at the facility on December 22, 2015 pursuant to agreements between iBio CMO and the Second Affiliate granting iBio CMO temporary rights to access the facility. These temporary agreements were superseded by the Sublease Agreement, dated January 13, 2016, between iBio CMO and the Second Affiliate (the “sublease”). The 34-year term of the sublease may be extended by iBio CMO for a ten-year period, so long as iBio CMO is not in default under the sublease. Under the sublease, iBio CMO is required to pay base rent at an annual rate of $2,100,000, paid in equal quarterly installments on the first day of each February, May, August and November. The base rent is subject to increase annually in accordance with increases in the Consumer Price Index. The base rent under the Second Affiliate’s ground lease for the property is subject to adjustment, based on an appraisal of the property, in 2030 and upon any extension of the ground lease. The base rent under the sublease will be increased by any increase in the base rent under the ground lease as a result of such adjustments. iBio CMO is also responsible for all costs and expenses in connection with the ownership, management, operation, replacement, maintenance and repair of the property under the sublease.

F-14

In addition to the base rent, iBio CMO is required to pay, for each calendar year during the term, a portion of the total gross sales for products manufactured or processed at the facility, equal to 7% of the first $5,000,000 of gross sales, 6% of gross sales between $5,000,001 and $25,000,000, 5% of gross sales between $25,000,001 and $50,000,000, 4% of gross sales between $50,000,001 and $100,000,000, and 3% of gross sales between $100,000,001 and $500,000,000. However, if for any calendar year period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019, iBio CMO’s applicable gross sales are less than $5,000,000, or for any calendar year period from and after January 1, 2020, its applicable gross sales are less than $10,000,000, then iBio CMO is required to pay the amount that would have been payable if it had achieved such minimum gross sales and shall pay no less than the applicable percentage for the minimum gross sales for each subsequent calendar year. Percentage rent amounted to $27,000 in 2016.

Interest expense incurred under the capital lease obligation amounted to $807,000 and $0 in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Future minimum payments under the capitalized lease obligations are due as follows:

Year Ending:	Principal			Interest		Total
2017	$	169,818		$	1,930,182	$	2,100,000
2018		183,110			1,916,890		2,100,000
2019		197,443			1,902,557		2,100,000
2020		212,898			1,887,102		2,100,000
2021		229,562			1,870,438		2,100,000
Thereafter		24,441,676			35,933,324		60,375,000

Total minimum lease payments		25,434,507		$	45,440,493	$	70,875,000
Less: current portion		(169,818	)
Long-term portion of minimum lease obligations	$	25,264,689

11.

Stockholders’ Equity

Preferred Stock

The Company’s Board of Directors is authorized to issue, at any time, without further stockholder approval, up to 1 million shares of preferred stock. The Board of Directors has the authority to fix and determine the voting rights, rights of redemption and other rights and preferences of preferred stock. As of June 30, 2016 and 2015, there were no shares of preferred stock issued and outstanding.

Common Stock

As of June 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company was authorized to issue up to 175 million shares of common stock. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had reserved up to 15 million shares of common stock for incentive compensation (stock options and restricted stock). No shares are reserved for the exercise of warrants.

Issuances of common stock were as follows:

Aspire Capital – 2014 Facility

On August 25, 2014, the Company entered into a common stock purchase agreement with Aspire Capital Fund, which provided that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital was committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the approximately 24-month term of the purchase agreement. As of April 28, 2015, Aspire Capital fulfilled its commitment to purchase $10.0 million of the Company’s common stock under the agreement.

In consideration for entering into the purchase agreement, following the approval of the issuance of the shares by NYSE MKT, Aspire Capital received a commitment fee of $300,000 – 3% of the $10 million commitment – payable in 681,818 shares of the Company’s common stock priced at $0.44 per share, the closing price on the day preceding execution of the agreement. In addition, on September 19, 2014 following approval of the issuance of the shares by NYSE MKT, Aspire Capital purchased 1,136,354 shares of common stock at $0.44 per share for $500,000 pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement.

Concurrently with entering into the purchase agreement, the Company also entered into a registration rights agreement with Aspire Capital, in which the Company agreed to file one or more registration statements as permissible and necessary to register under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the sale of shares of the Company’s common stock under the purchase agreement.

After the Securities and Exchange Commission declared effective the registration statement, on any trading day on which the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock exceeded the “Floor Price” of $0.44 (the closing sale price of the Company’s shares on the business day before the Company entered into the purchase agreement with Aspire Capital), the Company had the right, in its sole discretion, to present Aspire Capital with a purchase notice, directing Aspire Capital (as principal) to purchase up to 150,000 shares of common stock per trading day, provided that the aggregate price of such purchase did not exceed $500,000 per trading day, up to an additional $9.5 million of common stock in the aggregate at a per share price equal to the lesser of the lowest sale price of common stock on the purchase date, or the arithmetic average of the three lowest closing sale prices of common stock during the ten consecutive trading days ending on the trading day immediately preceding the purchase date.

F-15

In addition, on any date on which the Company submitted a purchase notice to Aspire Capital in an amount equal to 150,000 shares of common stock and the closing sale price of common stock was equal to or greater than the Floor Price of $0.44, the Company also had the right, in its sole discretion, to present Aspire Capital with a volume-weighted average price (“VWAP”) purchase notice directing Aspire Capital to purchase an amount of stock equal to up to 30% of the aggregate shares of the Company’s common stock traded on the NYSE MTK on the next trading day, subject to a maximum number of shares determined by the Company, and a minimum trading price equal to the greater of (a) 80% of the closing price of common stock on the business day immediately preceding the date of the VWAP purchase, or (b) such higher price as set forth by the Company in the notice for the VWAP purchase. The purchase price per share pursuant to such VWAP purchase notice was the lower of (i) the closing sale price on the date of sale and (ii) 97% of the volume-weighted average price for common stock traded on the NYSE MKT on (i) the date of the VWAP purchase if the aggregate stock to be purchased on that date did not exceed the volume maximum stated in the Company’s notice for the VWAP purchase, or (ii) the portion of such business day until such time as aggregate stock to be purchased equaled the volume maximum stated in the Company’s notice or the time at which the sale of the stock fell below the minimum trading price described above.

The purchase agreement provided that the Company and Aspire Capital could not effect any sales under the purchase agreement on any purchase date where the closing sale price of common stock is less than $0.44 (the closing sale price of shares on the business day before the Company entered into the purchase agreement referred to as the “Floor Price”). A lower Floor Price of $0.20 per share of Common Stock applied, if the Company’s stockholders approved the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement. The Company was under no obligation to request our stockholders to approve the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement. However, the purchase price for any purchases of shares under the purchase agreement could not be less than $0.44 per share, unless stockholder approval was obtained. There were no trading volume requirements or restrictions under the purchase agreement with Aspire Capital, and the Company controlled the timing and amount of any sales of our common stock to Aspire Capital. Aspire Capital had no right to require any sales by the Company, but was obligated to make purchases from the Company as directed in accordance with the purchase agreement. There were no limitations on use of proceeds, financial or business covenants, restrictions on future fundings, rights of first refusal, participation rights, penalties or liquidated damages in the purchase agreement.

Aspire Capital purchased 8,768,806 shares of common stock for $10,000,000 pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement, fulfilling its commitment to purchase $10.0 million of the Company’s common stock under the agreement.

Aspire Capital – 2015 Facility

On May 15, 2015, the Company entered into a common stock purchase agreement (the “2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement”) with Aspire Capital, pursuant to which the Company has the option to require Aspire Capital to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Purchase Shares”) upon and subject to the terms of the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement. In consideration for entering into the purchase agreement, Aspire Capital received a commitment fee of 450,000 shares (the “Commitment Shares”).

On any business day after the Commencement Date (as defined below) and over the 36-month term of the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement, the Company has the right, in its sole discretion, to present Aspire Capital with a purchase notice (each, a “Purchase Notice”) directing Aspire Capital to purchase up to 200,000 Purchase Shares per business day; however, no sale pursuant to such a Purchase Notice may exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per business day, unless the Company and Aspire Capital mutually agree. The Company and Aspire Capital also may mutually agree to increase the number of shares that may be sold to as much as an additional 2,000,000 Purchase Shares per business day. The purchase price per Purchase Share pursuant to such Purchase Notice (the “Purchase Price”) is the lower of (i) the lowest sale price for the Company’s common stock on the date of sale or (ii) the average of the three lowest closing sale prices for the Company’s common stock during the 10 consecutive business days ending on the business day immediately preceding the purchase date. The applicable Purchase Price will be determined prior to delivery of any Purchase Notice.

In addition, on any date on which the Company submits a Purchase Notice to Aspire Capital for at least 150,000 Purchase Shares and the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock is higher than $0.40, the Company also has the right, in its sole discretion, to present Aspire Capital with a volume-weighted average price purchase notice (each, a “VWAP Purchase Notice”) directing Aspire Capital to purchase an amount of the Company’s common stock equal to up to 35% of the aggregate shares of common stock traded on the next business day (the “VWAP Purchase Date”), subject to a maximum number of shares determined by the Company (the “VWAP Purchase Share Volume Maximum”). The purchase price per Purchase Share pursuant to such VWAP Purchase Notice (the “VWAP Purchase Price”) shall be the lesser of the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock on the VWAP Purchase Date or 97% of the volume weighted average price for the Company’s common stock traded on the VWAP Purchase Date if the aggregate shares to be purchased on that date does not exceed the VWAP Purchase Share Volume Maximum, or the portion of such business day until such time as the sooner to occur of (1) the time at which the aggregate shares traded has exceeded the VWAP Purchase Share Volume Maximum, or (2) the time at which the sale price of the Company’s common stock falls below the VWAP Minimum Price Threshold (to be appropriately adjusted for any reorganization, recapitalization, non-cash dividend, stock split, reverse stock split or other similar transaction). The VWAP Minimum Price Threshold is the greater of (i) 80% of the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock on the business day immediately preceding the VWAP Purchase Date or (ii) such higher price as set forth by the Company in the VWAP Purchase Notice.

F-16

The number of Purchase Shares covered by and timing of each Purchase Notice or VWAP Purchase Notice are determined at the Company’s discretion. The aggregate number of shares that the Company can sell to Aspire Capital under the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement may in no case exceed 15,343,406 shares of our common stock (which is equal to approximately 19.99% of the common stock outstanding on the date of the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement, including the 450,000 Commitment Shares issued to Aspire Capital in consideration for entering into the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement) (the “Exchange Cap”), unless (i) shareholder approval is obtained to issue more, in which case the Exchange Cap will not apply; provided that at no time shall Aspire Capital (together with its affiliates) beneficially own more than 19.99% of the Company’s common stock.

The 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement contains customary representations, warranties, covenants, closing conditions and indemnification and termination provisions. Sales under the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement could commence only after certain conditions were satisfied (the date on which all requisite conditions have been satisfied being referred to as the “Commencement Date”), which conditions included the delivery to Aspire Capital of a prospectus supplement covering the Commitment Shares and the Purchase Shares, approval for listing on NYSE MKT of the Purchase Shares and the Commitment Shares, the issuance of the Commitment Shares to Aspire Capital, and the receipt by Aspire Capital of a customary opinion of counsel and other certificates and closing documents. Either party had the option to terminate the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement in the event the Commencement Date had not occurred by July 1, 2015. The 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement may be terminated by the Company at any time, at its discretion, without any cost or penalty.

The Company’s net proceeds will depend on the Purchase Price, the VWAP Purchase Price and the frequency of the Company’s sales of Purchase Shares to Aspire Capital; subject to the maximum $15.0 million available amount. The Company’s delivery of Purchase Notices and VWAP Purchase Notices will be made subject to market conditions, in light of the Company’s capital needs from time to time. The Company expects to use proceeds from sales of Purchase Shares for general corporate purposes and working capital requirements.

In connection with the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement, the Company also entered into a Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with Aspire Capital, dated May 15, 2015. The Registration Rights Agreement provides, among other things, a requirement to register the sale of the Commitment Shares and the Purchase Shares to Aspire Capital pursuant to the Company’s existing shelf registration statement (the “Registration Statement”). The Company further agreed to keep the Registration Statement effective and to indemnify Aspire Capital for certain liabilities in connection with the sale of the Securities under the terms of the Registration Rights Agreement. On May 29, 2015, the Company filed a prospectus supplement to the Company’s existing Registration Statement on Form S-3, registering $15.0 million of the Company’s common stock that it may issue and sell to Aspire Capital from time to time pursuant to the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement, together with the 450,000 Commitment Shares issued to Aspire Capital in consideration for entering into the 2015 Aspire Purchase Agreement.

No shares have been sold under the 2015 Facility as of the date of the filing of this report.

Eastern – Share Purchase Agreements

On January 13, 2016, the Company entered into a share purchase agreement with Eastern pursuant to which Eastern agreed to purchase 3,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $0.622 per share. The Company received proceeds of $2,177,000 and the shares were issued on January 25, 2016. In addition, Eastern agreed to exercise warrants it had previously acquired to purchase 1,784,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.53 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $945,000 from the exercise of the warrants and the shares were issued on January 25, 2016.

On January 13, 2016, the Company entered into a separate share purchase agreement with Eastern pursuant to which Eastern agreed to purchase 6,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $0.622 per share, subject to the approval of the Company’s stockholders. The Company’s stockholders approved the issuance of the 6,500,000 shares to Eastern at the Company’s annual meeting on April 7, 2016. On April 13, 2016, the Company issued the 6,500,000 shares and received proceeds of $4,043,000. These shares are subject to a three-year standstill agreement which will restrict additional acquisitions of the Company’s common stock by Eastern and its controlled affiliates to limit its beneficial ownership of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock to a maximum of 38%, absent the approval by a majority of the Company’s board of directors.

Exercises of Warrants

In 2015, the Company issued 1,636,000 shares of common stock for the exercise of warrants and received proceeds of approximately $867,000. In addition, the Company issued 26,691 shares of common stock for the cashless exercise of 75,000 warrants.

In 2016, in addition to the exercise of warrants by Eastern discussed above, the Company issued 120,000 shares of common stock for the exercise of warrants and received proceeds of approximately $64,000.

Warrants

The Company has historically financed its operations through the sale of common stock and warrants, sold together as units.

F-17

The following table summarizes all warrant activity for 2016 and 2015:

	Warrants			Weighted- average Exercise Price
Outstanding as of July 1, 2014		8,769,911		$	1.38
Exercised		(1,711,000	)	$	0.51
Expired		(425,587	)	$	0.66
Outstanding as of June 30, 2015		6,633,324		$	1.63
Exercised		(1,904,000	)	$	0.53
Expired		(4,729,324	)	$	2.08
Outstanding as of June 30, 2016		-		$	-

Exercisable as of June 30, 2016		-		$	-

12.

Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share

Basic earnings (loss) per common share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) allocated to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. For purposes of calculating diluted earnings per common share, the denominator includes both the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period and the number of common stock equivalents if the inclusion of such common stock equivalents is dilutive. Dilutive common stock equivalents potentially include stock options and warrants using the treasury stock method. The following table summarizes the components of the earnings (loss) per common share calculation (in thousands, except per share amounts):

	Years ended June 30,
	2016			2015
Basic and diluted numerator:

Net loss available to iBio, Inc. stockholders	$	(9,764	)	$	(6,625	)

Basic and diluted denominator:

Weighted-average common shares outstanding		80,973			71,495

Per share amount	$	(0.12	)	$	(0.09	)

In 2016 and 2015, the Company incurred net losses which cannot be diluted; therefore, basic and diluted loss per common share is the same. As of June 30, 2016, shares issuable which could potentially dilute future earnings included approximately 12.3 million stock options. As of June 30, 2015, shares issuable which could potentially dilute future earnings included approximately 9.5 million stock options and 6.6 million warrants.

13.

Share-Based Compensation

The following table summarizes the components of share-based compensation expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations (in thousands):

	Year Ended June 30,
	2016		2015
Research and development	$	20	$	-
General and administrative		1,245		914
Totals	$	1,265	$	914

Stock Options

On August 12, 2008, the Company adopted the iBioPharma 2008 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for employees, officers, directors and external service providers. The original Plan provided that the Company may grant options to purchase stock and/or make awards of restricted stock up to an aggregate amount of 10 million shares. On December 18, 2013, the Plan was amended to increase the number of shares reserved for awards under the Plan from 10 million to 15 million. As of June 30, 2016, there were approximately 2.9 million shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under the Plan. Stock options granted under the Plan may be either incentive stock options (as defined by Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) or non-qualified stock options at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Vesting of service awards occurs ratably on the anniversary of the grant date over the service period, generally three or five years, as determined at the time of grant. Vesting of performance awards occurs when the performance criteria have been satisfied. The Company uses historical data to estimate forfeiture rates.

Issuances of stock options during 2015 were as follows:

On September 4, 2014, the Company granted stock options to members of the Board of Directors, officers and employees to purchase 1.64 million shares of common stock. These options vest ratably on the anniversary of the date of grant over a three year service period, expire ten years from the date of grant, and have an exercise price of $0.49 per share.

Issuances of stock options during 2016 were as follows:

On September 4, 2015 and March 1, 2016, the Company granted stock options to members of the Board of Directors, officers and employees to purchase 2.75 million shares of common stock. These options vest ratably over a three to five year service period, expire ten years from the date of grant, and have a weighted average exercise price of $1.64 per share.

F-18

Issuances of stock options during 2015 were as follows:

On September 5, 2014, the Company granted stock options to members of the Board of Directors, officers and employees to purchase 1.64 million shares of common stock. These options vest ratably on the anniversary of the date of grant over a three year service period, expire ten years from the date of grant, and have a weighted-average exercise price of $0.86 per share.

On November 20, 2014, the Company granted stock options to a consultant to purchase 100,000 shares of common stock. These options vest over a three year service period, expire four years from the date of grant, and have an exercise price of $1.15 per share.

On October 17, 2014, a consulting agreement dated March 1, 2012 with a former employee was terminated for cause. As a result, 500,000 options with an exercise price of $0.87 were cancelled.

The following table summarizes all stock option activity during the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015:

	Stock Options			Weighted- average Exercise Price		Weighted- average Remaining Contractual Term (in years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value (in thousands)
Outstanding as of July 1, 2014		8,483,334		$	1.25		7.0	$	179
Granted		1,740,000		$	0.88
Forfeited/expired		(700,000	)	$	0.75
Outstanding as of June 30, 2015		9,523,334		$	1.22		6.6	$	1,848
Granted		2,750,000		$	1.64
Forfeited/expired		-		$	-
Outstanding as of June 30, 2016		12,273,334		$	1.31		6.4	$	993
As of June 30, 2016 vested and expected to vest		12,225,441		$	1.31		6.4	$	991

Exercisable as of June 30, 2016		7,583,357		$	1.31		5.1	$	773

The total fair value of stock options that vested during 2016 and 2015 was approximately $800,000 and $1.1 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2016, there was approximately $1.6 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock options that the Company expects to recognize over a weighted-average period of 1.9 years.

The weighted-average grant date fair value of stock options granted during 2016 and 2015 was $0.62 and $0.43 per share, respectively. The Company estimated the fair value of options granted using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

	2016		2015
Risk-free interest rate		1.83% - 2.13%		1.3% - 2.3%
Dividend yield		0%		0%
Volatility		109.49% - 112.17%		96.7% - 113.9%
Expected term (in years)		9		4 - 9

14.

Related Party Transactions

Novici Biotech, LLC

Agreements with Eastern Capital Limited and its Affiliates.

As more fully discussed in Note 11, the Company entered into two share purchase agreements with Eastern and sold 10 million shares of common stock at a price of $0.622 per share. The Company received proceeds of $6,220,000. In addition, Eastern agreed to exercise warrants it had previously acquired to purchase 1,784,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.53 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $945,000 from the exercise of the warrants.

F-19

Concurrently with the execution of the Purchase Agreements, iBio entered into a contract manufacturing joint venture with an affiliate of Eastern to develop and manufacture plant-made pharmaceuticals through iBio’s recently formed subsidiary, iBio CMO. The Eastern Affiliate contributed $15.0 million in cash to iBio CMO, for a 30% interest in iBio CMO. iBio retained a 70% equity interest in iBio CMO. As the majority equity holder, iBio has the right to appoint a majority of the members of the Board of Managers that manages the iBio CMO joint venture. Specified material actions by the joint venture require the consent of iBio and the Eastern Affiliate. iBio contributed to the capital of iBio CMO a royalty bearing license, which grants iBio CMO a non-exclusive license to use the iBio’s proprietary technologies, including the iBioLaunch technology and additional iBio technologies, for research purposes and an exclusive U.S. license for manufacturing purposes. iBio retains all other rights in its intellectual property, including the right for itself to commercialize products based on its proprietary technologies or to grant licenses to others to do so.

In connection with the joint venture, the Second Eastern Affiliate, which controls the subject property as sublandlord, granted iBio CMO a 34-year sublease of a Class A life sciences building in Bryan, Texas, on the campus of Texas A&M University, designed and equipped for plant-made manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. Accrued expenses at June 30, 2016 due to the Second Eastern Affiliate is $623,000. General and administrative expenses related to Second Eastern Affiliate were approximately $565,000 in 2016. Interest expense related to the Second Eastern Affiliate was approximately $807,000 in 2016. The terms of the sublease are described in Note 10.

A three-year standstill agreement (the “Standstill Agreement”) that took effect upon the issuance of the Eastern Shares pursuant to the 6,500,000 Purchase Agreement restricts additional acquisitions of iBio common stock by Eastern and its controlled affiliates to limit its beneficial ownership of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock to a maximum of 38%, absent approval by a majority of the Company’s Board of Directors.

Operating Lease with Minority Stockholder

Effective January 1, 2015, the Company is leasing office space on a month-to-month basis from an entity owned by a minority stockholder of the Company. Rent was $2,200 per month through November 2015 and increased to $2,500 per month effective December 2015. Rent expense totaled $28,500 and $13,200 in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

15.

Income Taxes

The components of net loss consist of the following (in thousands):

	For the Years Ended June 30,
	2016			2015
United States	$	(10,635	)	$	(6,532	)
Brazil		(22	)		(93	)
Total	$	(10,657	)	$	(6,625	)

The components of the provision (benefit) for income taxes consist of the following (in thousands):

	For the Years Ended June 30,
	2016			2015
Current – Federal, state and foreign	$	-		$	-
Deferred – Federal		(260	)		(2,299	)
Deferred – State		(9	)		(377	)
Deferred – Foreign		(1	)		(12	)
Total		(270	)		(2,688	)
Change in valuation allowance		270			2,688
Income tax expense	$	-		$	-

The Company has deferred income taxes due to income tax credits, net operating loss carryforwards, and the effect of temporary differences between the carrying values of certain assets and liabilities for financial reporting and income tax purposes.

F-20

The components of the Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities are as follows (in thousands):

	As of June 30,
	2016			2015
Deferred tax assets (liabilities):
Net operating loss	$	17,172		$	14,213
Share-based compensation		726			3,992
Research and development tax credits		1,097			890
Suspended losses in iBio CMO		255			-
Basis in iBio CMO		145			-
Intangible assets		(219	)		(188	)
Vacation accrual and other		17			16
Valuation allowance		(19,193	)		(18,923	)
Total	$	-		$	-

The Company has a valuation allowance against the full amount of its net deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of realization of the deferred tax assets due to operating loss history of the Company. The Company currently provides a valuation allowance against deferred taxes when it is more likely than not that some portion, or all of its deferred tax assets will not be realized. The valuation allowance could be reduced or eliminated based on future earnings and future estimates of taxable income.

Federal net operating losses of approximately $5.5 million were used by the Former Parent prior to June 30, 2008 and are not available to the Company. The Former Parent allocated the use of the Federal net operating losses available for use on its consolidated Federal tax return on a pro rata basis based on all of the available net operating losses from all the entities included in its control group.

U.S. Federal and state net operating losses of approximately $44.7 million and $33.5 million, respectively, are available to the Company as of June 30, 2016 and will expire at various dates through 2036. These carryforwards could be subject to certain limitations in the event there is a change in control of the Company pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 382, though the Company has not performed a study to determine if the loss carryforwards are subject to these Section 382 limitations. The Company has a research and development credit carryforward of approximately $1.1 million at June 30, 2016. In addition, the Company has foreign net operating losses totaling approximately $89,000 with no expiration date.

A reconciliation of the statutory tax rate to the effective tax rate is as follows:

	Years Ended June 30,
	2016			2015
Statutory federal income tax rate		34	%		34	%
State (net of federal benefit)		6	%		6	%
Research and development tax credit		1	%		1	%
Permanent differences		(7	)%		-	%
Expiration of stock options and warrants		(31	)%		-	%
Change in valuation allowance		(3	)%		(41	)%
Effective income tax rate		-	%		-	%

The Company has not been audited in connection with income taxes. iBio files U.S. Federal and state income tax returns subject to varying statutes of limitations. The 2011 through 2015 tax returns generally remain open to examination by U.S. Federal and state tax authorities. In addition, the 2014 and 2015 Brazilian federal tax return remains open to examination by Brazil federal tax authorities.

16.

Commitments and Contingencies

Agreements

In September 2013, the Company and Fraunhofer completed the Terms of Settlement for the TTA Seventh Amendment (the “Settlement Agreement”). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement various contractual obligations existing at June 30, 2013 were released, terminated or modified. The significant modifications post June 30, 2013 are of follows:

The Company’s obligation under the TTA, prior to the Settlement Agreement, to make three $1 million payments to Fraunhofer in April 2013, November 2013, and April 2014 (the “Guaranteed Annual Payments”) was terminated and replaced with an undertaking to engage Fraunhofer to perform for at least $3 million in work requested and as directed by iBio before December 31, 2015. For the year ended June 30, 2015, $2.7 million in research and development services were performed by Fraunhofer. As of December 31, 2015, the total engagement of Fraunhofer for work requested by iBio is $3.0 million. In addition to the foregoing, the Company sought to engage Fraunhofer for substantial additional other work, but Fraunhofer did not respond to the Company’s requests for proposals for such work.

The Company’s obligation to remit to Fraunhofer minimum annual royalty payments in the amount of $200,000 was terminated. Instead under the terms of the TTA and for a period of 15 years, the Company shall pay Fraunhofer one percent (1%) of all receipts derived by the Company from sales of products produced utilizing the iBioLaunch or iBioModulator technology and ten percent (10%) of all receipts derived by the Company from licensing either of those technologies to third parties. The Company will be obligated to remit royalties to Fraunhofer only on technology license revenues that iBio actually receives and on revenues from actual sales by iBio of products derived from the technology developed under the TTA until the later of November 2023 or until such time as the aggregate royalty payments total at least $4 million. All new intellectual property invented by Fraunhofer during the period of the TTA is owned by and is required to be transferred to iBio. The Company has no financial obligations to Fraunhofer with respect to the Company’s use of technologies developed independently of Fraunhofer.

F-21

On June 12, 2014, Fiocruz, Fraunhofer and iBio executed an amendment to the CLA (the “Amended Agreement”) to create a new research and development plan for the development of a recombinant Yellow Fever vaccine providing revised reporting, objectives, estimated budget, and project billing process. Under the CLA and bilateral agreement between iBio and Fraunhofer dated December 27, 2010, Fraunhofer, which has been engaged to act as the Company’s subcontractor for performance of research and development services for the new research and development plan, will bill Fiocruz directly on behalf of the Company at the rates, amounts and times provided in the Amended Agreement, and the proceeds of such billings and only the proceeds will be paid to Fraunhofer for its services so the Company’s expense is equal to its revenue and no profit is recognized for these activities under the Amended Agreement. For the year ended June 30, 2015, $2.1 million in research and development services were performed by Fraunhofer for the Company pursuant to the amended CLA. As of December 31, 2015, the total engagement of Fraunhofer for work requested by iBio is $3.0 million. See Note 8 - Significant Vendors for additional information. In addition to the foregoing, the Company sought to engage Fraunhofer for substantial additional other work, but Fraunhofer did not respond to the Company’s requests for proposals for such work.

On January 14, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), the Company entered into an exclusive worldwide License Agreement (“LA”) with the University of Pittsburgh (“UP”) covering all of the U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications and related intellectual property owned by UP pertinent to the use of endostatin peptides for the treatment of fibrosis. The Company paid an initial license fee of $20,000 and is required to pay all of UP’s patent prosecution costs that were incurred prior to, totaling $30,627, and subsequent to the Effective Date. On each anniversary date the Company is to pay license fees ranging from $25,000 to $150,000 for the first five years and $150,000 on each subsequent anniversary date until the first commercial sale of the licensed technology. Beginning with commercial sales of the technology or approval by the FDA or foreign equivalent, the Company will be required to pay milestone payments, royalties and a percentage of any non-royalty sublicense income to UP.

On December 30, 2013, the Company entered into a Project Agreement with the Medical University of South Carolina (“MUSC”) providing for the performance of research and development services by MUSC related to peptides for the treatment of fibrosis. The agreement requires the Company to make payments totaling $78,000 through December 1, 2014 and provides the Company with certain intellectual property rights. Effective September 1, 2014, the Company and MUSC executed an Amendment to the agreement. The Amendment extended the term of the agreement to December 31, 2015 and increased the total payments due MUSC from the Company by $161,754.

New Lease

As discussed above, iBio CMO is leasing its facility in Bryan, Texas from the Second Affiliate under a 34-year sublease. See Note 10 for more details of the sublease.

Lawsuits

F-22

On December 4, 2015, a putative derivative action captioned Savage, Derivatively on Behalf of iBio, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Robert B. Kay, Arthur Y. Elliott, James T. Hill, Glenn Chang, Philip K. Russell, John D. McKey, and Seymour Flug, Defendants, and iBio, Inc., Nominal Defendant was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The action alleged that the Company and its management made misstatements about the Company’s business resulting either from (i) a failure by iBio’s directors to establish a system of controls over the Company’s disclosures, or (ii) the directors’ consciously ignoring “red flags” relating to disclosures, and sought to recover an unspecified amount of damages. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Complaint that added an additional named plaintiff and alleged derivative claims generally along the same lines as the original complaint, together with purported direct breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims based on the same conduct. The Verified Amended Complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages. On April 29, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was filed on June 6, 2016. On June 22, 2016, the plaintiffs advised the Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle, and on July 1, 2016, the Court ordered that the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss be withdrawn without prejudice. The terms of the settlement are subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court. The Company expects that the settlement will be funded by the Company’s insurance carrier.

17.

Segment Reporting

As discussed above, iBio Brazil began operations in the first quarter of fiscal 2015. In accordance with FASB ASC 280, “Segment Reporting,” the Company discloses financial and descriptive information about its reportable geographic segments. Geographic segments are components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is available and regularly evaluated by the chief operating decision maker in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance.

Year ended June 30, 2016	United States			Brazil			Total

Net revenues	$	948		$	-		$	948
Research and development expenses		3,156			-			3,156
General and administrative expenses		7,663			22			7,685
Operating loss		(9,871	)		(22	)		(9,893	)
Interest expense		(807	)		-			(807	)
Interest and other income		43			-			43
Consolidated net loss		(10,635	)		(22	)		(10,657	)
Total assets		51,580			20			51,600
Fixed assets, net		25,574			-			25,574
Intangible assets, net		2,092			-			2,092
Depreciation expense		575			2			577
Amortization of intangible assets		363			-			363

Year ended June 30, 2015	United States			Brazil			Total

Net revenues	$	1,851		$	-		$	1,851
Research and development expenses		3,495			-			3,495
General and administrative expenses		4,929			93			5,022
Operating loss		(6,573	)		(93	)		(6,666	)
Interest expense		-			-			-
Interest and other income		41			-			41
Consolidated net loss		(6,532	)		(93	)		(6,625	)
Total assets		12,448			46			12,494
Fixed assets, net		3			10			13
Intangible assets, net		2,360			-			2,360
Depreciation expense		3			2			5
Amortization of intangible assets		358			-			358

F-23