Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc. - FORM 10-K

Attached files

file	filename
EX-32.1 - EXHIBIT 32.1 - Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc.	v434243_ex32-1.htm
EX-31.2 - EXHIBIT 31.2 - Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc.	v434243_ex31-2.htm
EX-32.2 - EXHIBIT 32.2 - Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc.	v434243_ex32-2.htm
EX-31.1 - EXHIBIT 31.1 - Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc.	v434243_ex31-1.htm
EX-23.01 - EXHIBIT 23.01 - Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc.	v434243_ex23-01.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

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 000-55331

GENSPERA, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware		20-0438951
State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

2511 N Loop 1604 W, Suite 204 San Antonio, TX		78258
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 210-479-8112

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

None

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

Common Stock, $0.0001 par value

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

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 x No

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. x Yes ¨ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 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). x Yes ¨ 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. x

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

Large accelerated filer ¨		Accelerated filer ¨

Non-accelerated filer ¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company x

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed using the price at which the common equity was last sold as of the last business day of the registrants’ most recently completed second fiscal quarter was $24,885,995. As of March 18, 2016, there were 41,762,356 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. As of such Date, Dr. Russell Richerson has assumed the duties of principal executive and principal accounting officer on an interim basis.

GENSPERA, INC.

FORM 10-K

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015

INDEX

		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	4
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	14
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	23
Item 2.	Properties	23
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	23
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosure	23

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	24
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	26
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	27
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	33
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	33
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	33
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	33
Item 9B.	Other Information	34

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	35
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	39
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	43
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	44
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	46

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	47

PART I

We urge you to read this entire Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the “Risk Factors” section and the financial statements and related notes included herein. As used in this Annual Report, unless context otherwise requires, the words “we,” “us”, “our,” “the Company,” “GenSpera” and “Registrant” refer to GenSpera, Inc. Also, any reference to “common shares,” or “common stock,” refers to our $.0001 par value common stock.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report includes “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. These statements relate to our business development plans, clinical trials, regulatory reviews, timing, strategies, expectations, anticipated expense levels, business prospects and positioning with respect to market for our proposed products, business outlook, technology spending and various other matters (including contingent liabilities and obligations and changes in accounting policies, standards and interpretations), express, our current intentions, beliefs, expectations, strategies or predictions, as well as historical information. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results, to be materially different from anticipated results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. When used in this report, statements that are not statements of current or historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Without limiting the foregoing, the words “plan,” “intend,” “may,” “will,” “expect,” “believe,” “could,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” or “continue” or similar expressions or other variations or comparable terminology are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the assumptions on which the forward-looking statements contained herein are based are reasonable, any of those assumptions could prove to be inaccurate given the inherent uncertainties as to the occurrence or nonoccurrence of future events. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Our future operating results are dependent upon many factors which are outside our control. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may not be realized due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation:

our ability to manage the business despite continuing operating losses and negative cash flows;

our ability to obtain sufficient capital or a strategic business arrangement to fund our operations and expansion plans;

our ability to build the management, human resources and infrastructure necessary to support the growth of our business;

competitive factors and developments beyond our control;

scientific and medical developments beyond our control;

government regulation of our business;

our ability to successfully complete our clinical trials of our proposed drug candidates and gain regulatory approval to market such products;

our ability to maintain and protect our intellectual property;

whether any of our current or future patent applications will result in issued patents;

our ability to obtain and maintain other rights to technology required or desirable for the conduct of our business;

whether any potential strategic benefits of licensing transactions, acquisitions, or licensing of new technologies, if any, will be realized; and

other factors discussed in the “Risk Factors” section, and elsewhere in this annual report.

All forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by these and other factors. We undertake no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether to reflect events or circumstances after the date initially filed or published, to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events or otherwise, except to the extent required by federal securities laws. The risks discussed in this report should be considered in evaluating our business and future financial performance.

ITEM 1.

BUSINESS

Overview

We are an early-stage, pre-revenue, pharmaceutical company focused on the development of prodrug cancer therapeutics for the treatment of solid tumors including liver, brain, prostate and other cancers. A prodrug is an inactive precursor of a drug that is converted into its active form only at the site of the tumor. Our technology platform combines a powerful, plant-derived cytotoxin with a patented prodrug delivery system that targets the release of the drug within the tumor. We believe our cancer prodrugs have the potential to provide a targeted therapeutic approach to a broad range of solid tumors with fewer side effects than those related to current chemotherapy treatments. Our lead drug candidate, mipsagargin, is currently undergoing Phase II clinical evaluation in glioblastoma patients.

Our major focus for the next twelve to eighteen months is on the (i) ongoing Phase II clinical trial in patients with glioblastoma, (ii) development of a clinical protocol for our next clinical trial in glioblastoma, which we anticipate will be a randomized study, (iii) ongoing business development discussions with potential development partners, and (iv) prioritization of our next thapsigargin prodrug development candidate. We anticipate undertaking a pilot study of mipsagargin in patients with prostate cancer during the first half of 2016 but have indefinitely postponed the previously planned Phase II renal cancer study. Our ability to execute our product development plan is dependent on the amount and timing of cash, if any, that we are able to raise. Should we fail to raise sufficient funds to execute our product development plan, our priority is the continuation and completion of our ongoing Phase II clinical study in glioblastoma patients.

In January 2015, we presented preliminary results from our Phase II study of mipsagargin in liver cancer patients, and these data were updated in May 2015 when we received a final clinical study report. We consider the study outcome as positive and the results support our plans to continue the development of mipsagargin for patients with liver cancer, as well as proceed with our clinical development strategy in other indications. We plan to develop subsequent randomized studies to further develop mipsagargin, preferably with a development partner, with a goal of seeking marketing approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. Although data from our completed trials appear promising, the outcomes of our ongoing or future trials may ultimately be unsuccessful.

Going Concern

Recent Developments

In January 2015 we issued updated data from our Phase II liver cancer trial in which a total of twenty-five patients were treated with mipsagargin. Study participants experienced a median time to progression of 4.5 months, more than double the time demonstrated in prior studies with placebo or ineffective agents. Sixty-three percent of patients experienced stable disease at two months. Additionally, mipsagargin was shown to dramatically decrease blood flow in liver tumors.

In February 2015 we announced a strategic partnership with Phyton Biotech for the manufacture of thapsigargin, the key ingredient in mipsagargin. We believe that Phyton Biotech’s plant cell fermentation expertise in converting the Thapsia plant into a preserved, fermentable cell line will provide us access to a sustainable source of high-quality thapsigargin to support the development of our drugs. In July the World Intellectual Property Organization published Phyton Biotech’s international patent application WO 2015/0892978 A1 "Production of Thapsigargins by Thapsia Cell Suspension Culture." The invention described in the patent application provides, for the first time, a suspension cell culture suitable for mass production of thapsigargin, offering a potential alternative route to commercial-scale production of this starting material for synthesis of mipsagargin.

In May 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Orphan Products Development issued an RO-1 grant to Santosh Kesari, M.D., Ph.D., one of the Principal Investigators of our glioblastoma study. The $1.6 million grant covers a four-year period for the study of PSMA and other biomarkers to better identify the subset of patients who will receive the most therapeutic benefit with mipsagargin treatment. Dr. Kesari, who is ranked in the top 1% of neuro-oncologists and neurologists in the U.S. by Castle Connolly Medical Ltd., joined our Scientific Advisory Board in October.

In May 2015, sufficiently encouraging data were observed in the first stage of the ongoing Phase II study of mipsagargin in glioblastoma (brain cancer) patients to warrant continuation of enrollment for an expansion phase of the trial. We have now treated twenty patients in our Phase II glioblastoma clinical trial.

On July 16, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered judgment in GenSpera, Inc. v. Annastasiah Mudiwa Mhaka in favor of GenSpera. In a per curiam order without an opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granting summary judgment in GenSpera's favor in two consolidated cases relating to the inventorship of two patents owned by GenSpera. The district court had issued a declaratory judgment that Dr. Annastasiah Mhaka should not be added as an inventor to the two patents at issue, and had also granted summary judgment with respect to state law tort claims brought by Dr. Mhaka against the company and two of its founders, Dr. John Isaacs and Dr. Sam Denmeade. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit previously dismissed another appeal brought by Dr. Mhaka from the same district court judgments.

In September 2015, we presented encouraging interim data from the ongoing Phase II clinical trial in glioblastoma which showed clear clinical benefit in a subset of patients.

In July and December 2015 we completed two financings with total gross proceeds of $5.0 million. We will use this capital to fund our Phase 2 study for the treatment of glioblastoma and for general corporate purposes.

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

On March 16, 2016, upon receipt of Dr. Dionne’s notice of termination, Dr. Russell Richerson assumed the duties of principal executive and principal accounting officer on an interim basis.

Business Strategy

Our ability to execute our product development plan is dependent on the amount and timing of cash, if any, that we are able to raise. Should we not raise sufficient funds to execute our product development plan, our priority is the continuation and completion of our ongoing and planned Phase II clinical studies in glioblastoma. We are actively involved in identifying a potential development and commercialization partner at both multi-national and regional levels to assist with the development of mipsagargin through clinical trials in liver cancer.

Our current product development plan of mipsagargin contemplates the following major initiatives:

Development of a clinical protocol for our next clinical trial in glioblastoma, which we anticipate will be a randomized study.

Continue ongoing business development discussions with potential development partners.

Continue our Phase II clinical trial in patients with glioblastoma (a form of brain cancer) which is being conducted at the University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center.

Initiation of a Phase II clinical pilot study in patients with prostate cancer via a collaborative agreement with a single site in the U.S.

Clinical and Pre-Clinical Development Strategy

Under the planning and direction of key personnel, we expect to continue to outsource all of our preclinical development (e.g., toxicology), manufacturing, and clinical development activities to contract research organizations (CROs) and contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs). Our contract CROs and CMOs are required to comply with federal, state and United States Food and Drug Administration or FDA regulations including Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), Good Clinical Practices (GCP), and Good Lab Practices (GLP).

We intend to conduct several Phase II clinical trials to determine the therapeutic efficacy of mipsagargin in cancer patients. We anticipate that mipsagargin will be therapeutically effective in a wide range of solid tumor types and have chosen to first evaluate the drug in liver cancer, glioblastoma, prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma. We believe this strategy will validate mipsagargin as a platform technology over multiple indications while at the same time diversifying the risk associated with any individual indication.

MIPSAGARGIN

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Indication		Status

Solid Tumors		Completed Phase Ia/b safety, tolerability and dosing refinement study. Closed to further enrollment.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (liver cancer)		In 2012, we obtained clearance from the FDA to initiate our Phase II clinical trial entitled, “A Phase II, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of G-202 as Second-Line Therapy Following Sorafenib for Adult Patients with Progressive Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.” In October of 2014 we closed patient enrollment in the trial. In total, we treated 25 patients. We presented trial data at a poster session at the American Society for Clinical Oncology 2015 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium on January 2015 in San Francisco, CA and presented final data at the BIO International Convention 2015 held in Philadelphia, PA. in June of 2015.

Glioblastoma (brain cancer)		In the first quarter of 2014, we entered into a collaborative arrangement and commenced a Phase II clinical trial in patients with recurrent or progressive glioblastoma. We announced the expansion of the Phase 2 trial to a potential 34 patients in May after the successful completion of the first stage of the trial. In September we announced interim Phase 2 data from 11 patients with glioblastoma with demonstrated clinical benefit in a subset of patients with high levels of PSMA expression in the primary tumor. The trial is ongoing and as of March 1, 2016, a total of twenty patients have been treated in the study. This trial is being conducted at the University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center.

Prostate Cancer		Anticipate enrolling the first patient in a Phase II pilot study in the first half of 2016.

Renal Cell Carcinoma		We have also postponed the start of the Phase II trial in order to focus efforts on clinical development in glioblastoma and our planned clinical trial in patients with prostate cancer.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Liver Cancer)

Hepatocellular carcinoma is cancer that forms in the tissues of the liver. Estimates for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer in the U.S. for 2016 are approximately 39,000 new cases and 27,000 deaths. Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the U.S. is rising, principally in relation to the spread of hepatitis C infection. Hepatocellular carcinoma is potentially curable by surgical resection, but surgery is the treatment of choice for only the small fraction of patients with localized disease. Prognosis depends on the degree of local tumor replacement and the extent of liver function impairment. Treatment options for people with liver cancer are surgery (including liver transplant), ablation, embolization, targeted therapy, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, for which there is only one approved drug (sorafenib), or a combination of these options. There is no standard therapy for patients with advanced metastatic liver cancer after treatment with sorafenib.

Glioblastoma multiforme (Brain Cancer)

Glioblastoma is the most common and most aggressive malignant primary brain tumor in humans. Estimated for brain and other nervous system tumors in the United States in 2016 are approximately 24,000 new cases and 16,000 deaths. Brain tumors account for 85% to 90% of all primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Despite optimal treatment, the median survival for these patients is only 12 - 15 months. Treatment commonly consists of surgery followed by radiation and the drug temozolomide. There are a few drugs that have been approved in patients that have recurrent tumors but none have been shown to promote long-term tumor stabilization or survival.

Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer forms in tissues of the prostate (a gland in the male reproductive system found below the bladder and in front of the rectum). Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, behind only lung cancer. Estimates for prostate cancer in the U.S. for 2016 are about 181,000 new cases and approximately 26,000 deaths. Depending on the situation, the treatment options for men with prostate cancer may include: expectant management (watchful waiting) or active surveillance; surgery; radiation therapy; cryosurgery; hormone therapy; chemotherapy; and vaccine treatment. These treatments are generally used one at a time, although in some cases they may be combined.

Generic Name Designation

In August of 2014, we were notified that the World Health Organization’s or the WHO’s International Nonproprietary Name group or the INN recommended the generic name “mipsagargin” for our lead compound G-202. Mipsagargin was also recommended by the United States Adopted Names Council of the American Medical Association. Our generic name includes a new or novel pre-stem that we believe was proposed based on our compound possessing a unique mechanism of action or structure.

Commercialization Strategy

We intend to (i) license or sell the underlying technology of our drug compounds to third parties during or after Phase II clinical trials, (ii) seek a corporate partner for further development, or (iii) continue developing our drug candidates ourselves. It is expected that such third parties would then continue to develop, market, sell, and distribute any resulting products. As part of our overall strategic plan, we are exploring our options and actively seeking to engage in a collaborative, strategic and/or licensing arrangement with another pharmaceutical company. If we enter into any such transaction, we may be required to give up certain rights to our technology and control over its future development.

Clinical Trials

Phase II Clinical Development of G-202 – Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Liver Cancer)

In 2012, we obtained clearance from the FDA to initiate our Phase II clinical trial entitled, “A Phase II, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of G-202 as Second-Line Therapy Following Sorafenib for Adult Patients with Progressive Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.” This trial was conducted at multiple sites in the U.S. and measured disease progression in 25 patients with advanced stage liver disease and poor liver reserves who had failed first line treatment with sorafenib. Patients were administered episodic dosing of mipsagargin on the first three days of each treatment cycle.

In January 2015, we presented Phase II results that demonstrated that mipsagargin appears to be effective and is well-tolerated by HCC patients. Mipsagargin targets the enzyme prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is highly expressed in tumor vasculature and prostate cancer cells. The Phase II study results (n=25) demonstrate that the prodrug effectively stabilizes progression of HCC by reducing blood flow within tumors while not affecting blood flow within normal tissues. Study participants experienced a median time to progression of 4.5 months, nearly twice the time demonstrated in prior studies with placebo or ineffective agents. Additionally, mipsagargin demonstrated decreased blood flow in liver tumors as measured by DCE-MRI.

We plan to develop subsequent randomized studies to further develop mipsagargin with a development partner with the ultimate goal of seeking regulatory approval to market our drug on a global basis. Notwithstanding that the data from our studies appear promising, the outcome of our ongoing trial is uncertain and our current or future trials may ultimately be unsuccessful.

Phase II Clinical Development of G-202 – Glioblastoma (Brain Cancer)

In the first quarter of 2014, we entered into a collaborative arrangement and plan to conduct a Phase II clinical trial entitled, “An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Phase II Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety and CNS Exposure of G-202 in Patients with Recurrent or Progressive Glioblastoma.” In May we announced that based on preliminary data obtained in the first stage of the trial, we were expanding the trial to a potential 34 patients. In September we announced interim Phase II data from 11 patients with glioblastoma with demonstrated clinical benefit in a subset of patients with high levels of PSMA expression in the primary tumor. In November we reported that a total of 18 patients have been treated in the study. This trial is being conducted at the University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center. As of March 11, 2016, we have treated twenty patients in the study.

Our Technology

Our approach is to identify specific enzymes that are found at high levels in tumors relative to other tissues in the body. Upon identifying these enzymes, we attempt to create a peptide that is recognized predominantly by those enzymes in the tumor and not by enzymes in normal tissues. We then use the peptide as the masking/targeting agent and attach it to our “cytotoxin” to create a prodrug. We believe that this double layer of recognition adds to the tumor-targeting found in our prodrugs.

Cytotoxin-Thapsigargin

Thapsigargin is a cytotoxin found within the plant Thapsia garganica that grows wild in the Mediterranean region. Thapsigargin is a potent inhibitor of the intracellular sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium adenosine triphosphastase (SERCA) pump protein, consequently causing calcium levels to rise significantly and trigger apoptosis (cell death). We chemically modify thapsigargin to create the molecule 12ADT that retains all the potent cell-killing attributes of thapsigargin, but contains a new structure that can be coupled to a masking/targeting agent. Our prodrugs are manufactured by attaching a specific peptide to 12ADT.

Masking/Targeting Agent

We use peptides to mask the cytotoxin and target the tumor (masking/targeting agents). Peptides are short strings of amino-acids, the building blocks of many components found in cells. When attached to 12ADT, they have the potential to make the cytotoxin inactive and once the peptide is removed from 12ADT, the cytotoxin is active again. Our technology attempts to take advantage of the fact that the masking peptides can be removed by chemical reactors in the body called enzymes, and that the recognition of particular peptides by particular enzymes can be very specific. The peptides also make 12ADT soluble in blood. When the masking peptide is removed, 12ADT returns to its natural insoluble state and precipitates directly into nearby tumor cells.

Our Prodrug Therapies

Cancer chemotherapy involves treating patients with cytotoxic drugs (compounds or agents that are toxic to cells). Chemotherapy is often combined with surgery or radiation in the treatment of early-stage disease and it is the preferred, or only, treatment option for many forms of cancer in later stages of the disease. However, major drawbacks of chemotherapy include, but are not limited to:

Side effects - non-cancer cells in the body are also affected, often leading to serious side effects, which may include the destruction of bone marrow, damage to digestive tract cells, and hair loss.

Incomplete tumor kill - many of the leading chemotherapeutic agents act during the process of cell division and may be effective on tumors comprised of rapidly-dividing cells, but are much less effective on tumors that contain slowly dividing cells.

Resistance - tumors will often develop resistance to current drugs after repeated exposure, thereby limiting the effectiveness of such therapies over multiple dosing.

Prodrug chemotherapy is a relatively new approach to cancer treatment that is being explored as a means of delivering higher concentrations of cytotoxic agents at the tumor location while avoiding or decreasing toxicity in the rest of the body. An inactive form of a cytotoxin is administered to the patient. The prodrug is converted into the active cytotoxin preferentially at the tumor site. We believe that our lead compound, mipsagargin, may overcome a number of drawbacks associated with current cancer drugs, including:

Reduced side effects - our lead compound, mipsagargin, appears to be well-tolerated in cancer patients with reduced side effects compared to traditional chemotherapeutic agents, particularly exhibiting significantly less or no effect on the patient’s bone marrow.

Cell-killing activity - our prodrugs have been shown in animal cancer models to kill slowly-dividing, non-dividing, as well as rapidly-dividing cancer cells.

Lack of acquired drug resistance - testing in animal models of cancer indicated no development of resistance to mipsagargin after multiple cycles of treatment.

Our Prodrug Development Candidates

We currently have identified four prodrug candidates based on our technology, as summarized in the table below. At this time we are focused exclusively on the clinical development of mipsagargin and have deferred further development of the other prodrug candidates.

Prodrug Candidate	Activating Enzyme	Target Location of Active Enzyme	Status/Developments
Mipsagargin	Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)	The blood vessels of most solid tumors	Ongoing Phase II clinical trials being conducted in glioblastoma. Anticipated to commence Phase II clinical trial in patients with prostate cancer. Closed patient enrollment in Phase II clinical trial of patients with liver cancer and presented data in January of 2015. Orphan Drug designation in liver cancer granted.

G-115	Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)	Prostate cancers	Pilot toxicology completed. Limited pre-clinical development.

G-114	Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)	Prostate cancers	Validated efficacy in pre-clinical animal models (Johns Hopkins University).

G-301	Human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2)	Prostate cancers	Validated efficacy in pre-clinical animal models (Johns Hopkins University).

Mipsagargin

The enzymes that we target with our prodrugs are found in very specific places within the body and within the tumors. Our lead drug candidate, mipsagargin, is activated by the enzyme Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen, or PSMA, which is found in prostate epithelial cells in the normal prostate, in prostate cancer cells, and in vascular endothelial cells (blood vessels) found in almost all solid tumors. Thus, we expect that mipsagargin may be used in the treatment of almost all solid tumors. Importantly, we believe that mipsagargin may work by destroying the tumor vasculature, thus starving the tumor to death.

G-115

G-115 is activated by the enzyme Prostate Specific Antigen, or PSA, which is secreted by prostate epithelial cells in the normal prostate and by prostate cancer cells. PSA is found in the bloodstream and is a known tumor marker for prostate cancer, but it is inactive in the bloodstream due to potent binding by a protein inhibitor. However, PSA is enzymatically active on the surface of prostate cancer cells as it is being secreted and this activity forms the basis for tumor targeting with G-115.

G-301

G-301 is activated by the enzyme Human Glandular Kallikrein 2, or hK2, which is secreted by prostate epithelial cells in the normal prostate and by prostate cancer cells. The enzyme hK2 is found in the bloodstream and is known as a tumor marker for prostate cancer but it is inactive in the bloodstream due to potent binding by a protein inhibitor. However, hK2 is enzymatically active on the surface of prostate cancer cells as it is being secreted and this activity forms the basis for tumor targeting with G-301.

Both G-115 and G-301 are believed to be useful in the treatment of prostate cancers only and not to be useful for the treatment of other cancers.

Market and Competitive Considerations

The table below summarizes estimates for a number of potential U.S. target markets for our proposed drug candidates:

	2016 Estimated Number of*
Cancer Type	New Cases		Deaths
Prostate		180,000		26,000
Breast		249,000		41,000
Liver & intrahepatic bile duct		39,000		27,000
Brain & other nervous system		24,000		16,000

Source: CA Cancer J. Clin 2015; 65: 5-29
*All numbers are approximated.

Therapeutic Opportunity for Our Drug Candidates

We believe that current anti-angiogenesis drugs (drugs that disrupt the blood supply to tumors) validate the clinical approach and market potential of our drug candidate. Angiogenesis is the physiological process involving the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing vessels and is a normal process in growth and development, as well as in wound healing. Angiogenesis is also a fundamental step in the development of tumors from a clinically insignificant size to a malignant state because no tumor can grow beyond a few millimeters in size without the nutrition and oxygenation that comes from an associated blood supply. Interrupting this process has been targeted as a point of intervention for slowing or reversing tumor growth. An example of an anti-angiogenic approach is the FDA approved drug, Avastin^®, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, which is important for the growth and survival of endothelial cells. Avastin and other anti-angiogenic drugs have only a limited therapeutic effect with increased median patient survival times of only a few months. Our approach is designed to destroy both the existing and newly growing tumor vasculature, rather than just block new blood vessel formation. We anticipate that this approach will lead to a more immediate collapse of the tumor’s nutrient supply and consequently an enhanced rate and degree of tumor destruction.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are very competitive, fast moving and intense, and expected to be increasingly so in the future. Although we are not aware of any competitor who is developing a drug that is designed to destroy both the existing and newly growing tumor vasculature in a manner similar to our drug candidates, there are several marketed drugs and drugs in development that attack tumor-associated blood vessels to some degree. For example, Avastin^® is a marketed product that acts predominantly as an anti-angiogenic agent. Zybrestat^® is another drug in development that is described as a vascular-disrupting agent that inhibits blood flow to tumors. Nexavar^® and Sutent^® are two other approved drugs that appear to work in part through anti-angiogenic mechanisms. It is impossible to accurately ascertain how well our drugs will compete against these or other products that may be in the marketplace until we have more complete human patient data for comparison.

Intellectual Property

We regard the protection of patents and other intellectual property rights that we own or license as critical to our business and competitive position. To protect our intellectual property, we rely on patent, trade secret and copyright law, as well as confidentiality, nondisclosure, assignment of invention and other contractual arrangements with our officers, directors, employees, consultants, investigators, clinical trial sites, contractors, collaborators and other third parties to whom we disclose confidential information. Our policy is to pursue patent applications on inventions and discoveries that we believe are commercially important to the development and growth of our business. We solely own or have exclusive licenses to all of our patents and patent applications.

Our pipeline currently includes four drug product candidates: mipsagargin (solid tumors), G-114 (prostate cancer), G-115 (prostate cancer) and G-301 (prostate cancer). Our patent portfolio is currently composed of: 14 issued U.S. patents; 3 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications; 1 pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, application; and more than 35 pending applications throughout the world, including European, Japan, China and Hong Kong, among others.

When appropriate, we plan to continue to seek patent protection for inventions in our core technologies and in ancillary technologies that support our core technologies or which we otherwise believe would provide us with a competitive advantage. We expect to be able to accomplish this by filing and maintaining patent applications for discoveries we make, either alone or in collaboration with scientific collaborators and strategic partners. Typically, we plan to file patent applications in the United States as well as foreign countries, where applicable. In addition, we may obtain licenses or options to acquire licenses to patent filings from other individuals and organizations that we anticipate could be useful in advancing our research, development and commercialization initiatives and our strategic business interest.

In addition to and separate from patent protection, mipsagargin for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma has been granted orphan drug designation under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, as amended, which was enacted to provide incentives to pharmaceutical companies who create treatments for rare diseases. It does so by granting seven years of exclusivity after approval of a drug in the rare disease, or "orphan" indication. During the seven-year period, the FDA may not grant marketing authorization (e.g. to a generic manufacturer) for the same drug for the orphan indication.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not plan to develop company-owned or company-operated manufacturing facilities. We outsource all drug manufacturing to contract manufacturers that are required to operate in compliance with cGMP. We may also seek to refine the current manufacturing process in order to achieve improvements in efficiency, costs, purity and the like as well as address different drug formulations to achieve improvements in stability and/or drug delivery.

Supply of Raw Materials - Thapsibiza SL

To our knowledge, there is only one commercial supplier of Thapsia garganica seeds. In April 2007, we obtained the proper permits from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the USDA) for the importation of Thapsia garganica seeds. In April 2012, we entered into a five year sole source agreement with Thapsibiza, SL. Either party can extend the agreement for an additional five years by providing 30 days written notice prior to the expiration date. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Thapsibiza, SL has agreed to exclusively provide us Thapsia garganica seeds while we retain the right to seek additional suppliers. The agreement requires us to purchase minimum quantities of seeds per harvest period.

Long-term Supply of Raw Materials

We believe that we have sufficient supply of Thapsia garganica seeds in storage to complete our clinical trials as currently planned. However, in order to secure a long-term, stable supply of thapsigargin starting material, we are engaged in two ongoing research projects, including traditional cultivation and metabolic engineering of moss cells.

We are funding an ongoing Thapsia garganica cultivation project with Thapsibiza, SL. It is known that thapsigargin is produced in the various parts of the plant and we are evaluating the most cost-effective way to produce thapsigargin, whether it is extracted from seedlings, early roots, stems and/or shoots or from seeds of the mature plant. Reliable germination methods are established and transfer of plantings from greenhouse to fields appears straightforward. At the current time, we believe traditional cultivation, farming and harvesting of Thapsia garganica is the most reliable and straightforward source of thapsigargin starting material.

We also co-funded a moss project at the University of Copenhagen. A major goal of the project entitled SPOTLight (Sustainable Production of Thapsigargin using Light) is to produce thapsigargin in high yields in genetically modified moss cells thus enabling an inexpensive year-round supply of thapsigargin for drug manufacturing. The SPOTLight project was primarily funded by a DKK 18.3M (approximately $3.5M USD) grant from The Danish Council for Strategic Research and is directed by Dr. Søren Brøgger Christensen, Professor at the University of Copenhagen, member of our Scientific Advisory Board and the scientist responsible for the initial isolation and characterization of thapsigargin. As a result of our co-funding, under the terms of our agreement, we have obtained an exclusive, milestone- and royalty-free, fully paid license to the resulting moss cell lines necessary to generate thapsigargin or its chemical precursors. We recognize that this is an ambitious project and that the goal of having a thapsigargin-producing cell line may not be reached. However, even if the project can only generate cell lines that produce chemical precursors of thapsigargin, this might form the basis of a semi-synthetic route to thapsigargin on a commercially viable scale.

Manufacturing Partnership

In February 2014, we entered into an agreement with Phyton Biotech GmbH (Phyton) to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate plant cell suspension cultures derived from Thapsia garganica as a potential source of thapsigargin, the key ingredient in the company's investigational agent mipsagargin. In November 2014, we expanded our strategic partnership to have Phyton develop a method for a high producing cell line derived from the Thapsia garganica expressing thapsigargin. We anticipate this method development will provide us with a sustainable source of high quality thapsigargin, and assist us in achieving commercial production of our active pharmaceutical ingredient.

Governmental Regulations

FDA Approval Process

Prior to commencement of clinical studies involving humans, preclinical testing of new pharmaceutical products is generally conducted on animals in the laboratory to evaluate the potential efficacy and safety of the product candidate. The results of these studies are submitted to the FDA as part of an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, which must become effective before clinical testing in humans can begin. Typically, human clinical evaluation involves a time-consuming and costly three-phase process. In Phase I, clinical trials are conducted with a small number of people to assess safety, tolerability and to evaluate the pattern of drug distribution within the body. In Phase II, clinical trials are conducted with groups of patients afflicted with a specific disease in order to determine preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and expanded evidence of safety. (In some cases, an initial trial is conducted in diseased patients to assess both preliminary efficacy and preliminary safety, in which case it is referred to as a Phase I/II trial.) In Phase III, large-scale, multi-center, comparative trials are conducted with patients afflicted with a target disease in order to provide enough data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety required by the FDA. The FDA closely monitors the progress of each of the three phases of clinical testing and may, at its discretion, re-evaluate, alter, suspend, or terminate the testing based upon the data which have been accumulated to that point and its assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to the patient. All adverse events must be reported to the FDA. Monitoring of all aspects of the study to minimize risks is a continuing process.

The results of the preclinical and clinical testing on non-biologic drugs and certain diagnostic drugs are submitted to the FDA in the form of a New Drug Application (NDA) for approval prior to commencement of commercial sales. In responding to an NDA submission, the FDA may grant marketing approval, may request additional information, may deny the application if it determines that the application does not provide an adequate basis for approval, and may also refuse to review an application that has been submitted if it determines that the application does not provide an adequate basis for filing and review. There can be no assurance that approvals would be granted on a timely basis, if at all, for any of our proposed products.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The first NDA applicant to receive FDA approval for a particular active ingredient to treat a particular disease with FDA orphan drug designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same orphan indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee.

European and Other Regulatory Approval

Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, approval of a product by comparable regulatory authorities in Europe and other countries is necessary prior to commencement of marketing the product in such countries. The regulatory authorities in each country may impose their own requirements and may refuse to grant an approval, or may require additional data before granting it, even though the relevant product has been approved by the FDA or another authority. As with the FDA, the regulatory authorities in the European Union (EU), and other developed countries have lengthy approval processes for pharmaceutical products. The process for gaining approval in particular countries varies, but generally follows a similar sequence to that described for FDA approval. In Europe, the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products provides a mechanism for EU-member states to exchange information on all aspects of product licensing. The EU has established a European agency for the evaluation of medical products, with both a centralized community procedure and a decentralized procedure, the latter being based on the principle of licensing within one member country followed by mutual recognition by the other member countries.

Reimbursement and Health Care Cost Control

Reimbursement for the costs of treatments and products such as ours from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and others, both in the United States and abroad, is a key element in the success of new health care products. Significant uncertainty often exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved health care products. The revenue and profitability of some health care-related companies have been affected by the continuing efforts of governmental and third party payors to contain or reduce the cost of health care through various means. Payors are increasingly attempting to limit both coverage and the levels of reimbursement for new therapeutic products approved for marketing by the FDA, and are refusing, in some cases, to provide any coverage for uses of approved products for disease indications for which the FDA has not granted marketing approval. In certain foreign markets, pricing or profitability of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control.

In the United States, there have been a number of federal and state proposals to implement government control over health care costs. The U.S. Patient Protection and Affordance Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act were signed into law in March 2010. A number of provisions of those laws require further rulemaking action by governmental agencies to implement. The laws change access to health care products and services and create new fees for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. Future rulemaking could increase rebates, reduce prices or the rate of price increases for health care products and services, or require additional reporting and disclosure. The laws also include new authorization to the FDA to approve companies to market biosimilar products within the United States, although to date FDA rulemaking under this legislation has been limited. We cannot predict the timing or impact of any such future rulemaking on our business.

Other Regulations

We are also subject to various U.S. federal, state, local and international laws, regulations and recommendations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances, including radioactive compounds and infectious disease agents, used in connection with our business. Additionally, we are subject to regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. We cannot accurately predict the extent of government regulation which might result from future legislation or administrative action.

Scientific Advisory Board

We have access to a number of academic and industry advisors with expertise in clinical and pharmaceutical development. Members of our Scientific Advisory Board, or SAB, meet with our management and key scientific employees on an ad hoc basis to provide advice in their respective areas of expertise and further assist us by periodically reviewing with management our preclinical and clinical activities. The members of our SAB are Søren Brøgger Christensen, PhD, Samuel R. Denmeade, MD, John T. Isaacs, PhD and Santosh Kesari, MD, PhD. Our SAB members possess deep insight into our technologies and our drug candidate’s mechanism of action which is instrumental in advancing our clinical and development programs. In connection with a member’s retention on our SAB, we have entered into confidentiality agreements as well as assignment of invention agreements, subject to the member respective obligations and responsibilities to any institution or institutions at which they are employed.

Employees

As of December 31, 2015, we employed two full-time individuals both of whom hold advanced degrees. In addition, we contract with approximately 12 to 15 consultants to assist in activities related to our operations and research and development plan. On March 16, 2016, pursuant to Dr. Dionne’s termination as chief executive officer and chief financial officer, the Company only has one full-time employee as of the date of this report.

Corporate History

We were incorporated in the State of Delaware in November 2003 and our principal office is located in San Antonio, Texas. Since our inception, we have invested a substantial portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of mipsagargin (G-202). Mipsagargin is the only product candidate for which we have conducted clinical trials, and to date we have not marketed, distributed or sold any products. We have generated no revenues from the sale of our product candidates and have experienced substantial net operating losses.

Where to Find More Information

We make our public filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all exhibits and amendments to these reports. These materials are available on the Company’s website at www.genspera.com or on the SEC’s web site, http://www.sec.gov. You may also read or copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Alternatively, you may obtain copies of these filings, including exhibits, by writing or telephoning us at:

GENSPERA

2511 N Loop 1604 W, Suite 204

San Antonio, TX 78258

Attn: Chief Executive Officer

Tel: 210-479-8112

ITEM 1A.

RISK FACTORS

We have described below a number of uncertainties and risks which, in addition to uncertainties and risks presented elsewhere in this Annual Report, may adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition. The uncertainties and risks enumerated below as well as those presented elsewhere in this Annual Report should be considered carefully in evaluating us, our business and the value of our securities. The following important factors, among others, could cause our actual business, financial condition and future results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report or presented elsewhere by management from time to time.

Risks Related to our Financial Position and Need to Raise Additional Capital

We may not be able to continue as a going concern if we do not obtain additional financing by September 2016.

Our cash and cash equivalents balance at December 31, 2015 was $2.5 million. Based on our current expected level of operating expenditures, we expect to be able to fund our operations until September 2016, at which time we will need additional capital. Our ability to continue as a going concern is wholly dependent upon obtaining sufficient financing to fund our operations. We have no committed sources of additional capital and our access to capital funding is always uncertain. Accordingly, despite our ability to secure capital in the past, there is no assurance that additional equity or debt financing will be available to us when needed. In the event that we are not able to secure financing, we may be forced to curtail operations, delay or stop ongoing clinical trials, cease operations altogether or file for bankruptcy.

Our auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Risks Relating to Our Stage of Development and Business

We are an early-stage company, have no product revenues, are not profitable and may never be profitable.

From inception through December 31, 2015, we have raised approximately $34.9 million through the sale of our securities and exercise of outstanding warrants. During this same period, we have recorded an accumulated deficit of approximately $45.3 million. Our net losses for the two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were $5.9 million and $7.0 million, respectively. None of our products in development have received approval from the FDA, or other regulatory authorities; we have no sales and have never generated revenues nor do we expect to for the foreseeable future. Currently, our only product candidate in clinical development is mipsagargin, which: (i) has completed a single arm Phase II clinical trial in liver cancer, and (ii) is being tested in a Phase II clinical trial in glioblastoma patients. We expect to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue the research, pre-clinical and clinical development of our product candidates. Accordingly, we will need additional capital to fund our continuing operations. Since we do not generate any revenue, the most likely sources of such additional capital includes the sale of our securities, a strategic licensing collaboration transaction or joint venture involving the rights to one or more of our product candidates, or from grants. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders are likely to experience dilution with regard to their percentage ownership of the company, which may be significant. If we raise additional funds through collaborations or licensing arrangements, we may be required to relinquish some or all the rights to our technologies, product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we raise additional capital by incurring debt, we could incur significant interest expense and become subject to covenants that could affect the manner in which we conduct our business, including securing such debt obligations with our assets.

Our product candidates are at various stages of early development and significant financial resources are required to develop commercially viable products and obtain regulatory approval to market and sell such products. To date, we have dedicated substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to the development of mipsagargin and depend heavily on its success. We will need to devote significantly more research and development efforts, financial resources and personnel to develop commercially viable products and obtain regulatory approvals. We may encounter hurdles and unexpected issues as we proceed in the development of mipsagargin and our other product candidates. Although initial data from our clinical trials appear promising, the outcome of the trials is uncertain and these trials or future trials may ultimately be unsuccessful. If we fail to develop and successfully commercialize our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed and could fail.

We have only one full-time employee, a limited operating history, and may not be able to effectively operate our business.

Our limited staff and operating history means that there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding our ability to:

develop and commercialize our technologies and proposed products;

obtain regulatory approval to commence the marketing of our products;

identify, hire and retain needed personnel in order to implement our business plan, including pre-clinical and clinical testing;

manage growth;

achieve market acceptance or insurance reimbursement for any of our proposed products, if successfully developed; or

respond to competition.

No assurances can be given as to exactly when, if at all, we will be able to fully develop, and take the necessary steps to derive any revenues from our proposed product candidates.

Raising capital may be difficult as a result of our history of losses and limited operating history in our current stage of development.

When making investment decisions, investors typically look at a company’s earnings and historical performance in evaluating the risks and operations of the business and the business’s future prospects. Our history of losses and relatively limited operating history in our current stage of development makes such evaluation, as well as any estimation of our future performance, substantially more difficult. As a result, investors may be unwilling to invest in us or on terms or conditions which are acceptable. If we are unable to secure additional financing, we may need to materially scale back our business plan and/or operations or cease operations altogether.

Risks Related to Commercialization

The market for our proposed products is rapidly changing and competitive.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are subject to rapid and substantial technological change and innovation. Developments by others may render our proposed products noncompetitive or obsolete, or we may be unable to keep pace with technological developments and other market factors. Competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and others diversifying into the field is intense and is expected to increase.

As a pre-revenue company, our resources are limited and we may experience challenges inherent in the early development of novel therapeutics. Competitors have developed or are in the process of developing technologies that are, or in the future may be, the basis for competition. Some of these technologies may have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing similar therapeutic efforts compared to our proposed products. Our competitors may develop therapies that are safer, more effective and less costly than our proposed products and therefore, present a serious competitive threat to us.

The acceptance of therapies that are alternatives to ours may limit market acceptance of our proposed products, even if commercialized. Many of our targeted diseases and conditions can also be treated by other medications and treatments. These treatments may be widely accepted in medical communities and have a longer history of use. The established use of other competing therapies may limit the potential for our proposed products, even if commercialized.

Our proposed products may not be accepted by the healthcare community.

Our proposed products, if approved for marketing, may not achieve market acceptance by the healthcare community since hospitals, physicians, patients or the medical community in general may decide not to utilize them. We are attempting to develop products that are likely to be first approved for marketing as a treatment for late stage cancer where there is no truly effective standard of care. If approved for use in late stage cancer, our proposed products might then be evaluated in earlier stages where they could represent a substantial departure from established treatment methods and would most likely compete with a number of more conventional drugs and therapies which are manufactured and marketed by major pharmaceutical companies. It is too early in the development cycle of our proposed products for us to predict our major competitors. The degree of market acceptance of our products, if developed, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

our ability to demonstrate the clinical efficacy and safety of our proposed products to the medical community;

our ability to create products that are superior to alternative products;

our ability to establish in the medical community the potential advantage of our treatments over alternative treatment methods; and

the reimbursement policies of government and third-party payors.

If the healthcare community does not accept our products, our business could be materially harmed.

Our potential competitors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have significantly greater resources than we have.

We compete against numerous companies, many of which have substantially greater resources than we have. Several such competitors have research programs and/or efforts to treat the same diseases we target. Companies such as Merck & Co., Inc., Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi S.A., as well as others, have substantially greater financial, research, manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. As a result, such competitors may find it easier to compete in our industry and bring competing products to market.

Risks Related to the Development and Manufacturing of Our Product Candidates

We intend to rely exclusively upon third-party FDA-regulated manufacturers and suppliers for our proposed products.

We currently have no internal manufacturing capability, and intend to rely exclusively on FDA-approved licensees, strategic partners or third party contract manufacturers or suppliers for the foreseeable future. Because manufacturing facilities are subject to regulatory oversight and inspection, the failure of any of our third-party FDA regulated manufactures or suppliers to comply with regulatory requirements could result in material manufacturing delays and product shortages, which could delay or otherwise negatively impact our clinical trials and product development plans. Should we be forced to manufacture our proposed products, we cannot give any assurance that we would be able to develop internal manufacturing capabilities or secure third party suppliers for raw materials. In the event we seek third party suppliers or alternative manufacturers, they may require us to purchase a minimum amount of materials or could require other unfavorable terms. Any such event would materially impact our business prospects and could delay the development of our proposed products. Moreover, we cannot give any assurance that the contract manufacturers or suppliers that we select will be able to supply our products in a timely or cost effective manner or in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements or our own specifications.

We may not be able to establish or maintain the third-party relationships that are necessary to develop or potentially commercialize our product candidates.

Our business plan relies heavily on third party collaborators, partners, licensees, clinical research organizations, clinical investigators, vendors or other third parties to support our research and development efforts and to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully negotiate agreements for, or maintain relationships with, these third parties on a commercially reasonable basis, if at all. Additionally, to commercialize our proposed products, we intend to rely on third party licensees or the outright sale of our proposed products to pharmaceutical partner(s). If we fail to establish or maintain such third-party relationships as anticipated, we could experience delays in the development or commercialization of our proposed products.

We are dependent upon third parties to develop our product candidates, and such parties are, to some extent, outside of our control.

We depend upon independent contract research organizations, investigators and collaborators, such as universities and medical institutions, to conduct our pre-clinical and clinical trials. These individuals and/or entities are not our employees and we cannot control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. These third parties may not assign as great a priority to our programs or pursue them as diligently as we would if we were undertaking such programs ourselves. If these third parties fail to devote sufficient time and resources to our programs, or if their performance is substandard, the development of our drug candidates and corresponding FDA approval could be delayed or fail entirely.

Our business is dependent upon securing and importing sufficient quantities of seeds from the plant, Thapsia garganica, which grows in very specific locations outside of the United States.

The therapeutic component of our proposed products, including mipsagargin, is referred to as 12ADT. 12ADT is derived from the seeds of the Thapsia garganica plant, which grows along the coastal regions of the Mediterranean Sea. We currently secure the seeds from Thapsibiza, SL, a third-party supplier. There can be no assurances that Thapsia garganica will continue to grow in sufficient quantities to produce a commercial supply or that the countries from which we can secure Thapsia garganica will continue to allow the collect and/or export of such seeds. The process of importing Thapsia garganica seeds is subject to U.S. import and export laws and controls. Our supply agreement with Thapsibiza, SL (our sole supplier) expires on April 6, 2017 or April 6, 2022 if extended. In the event we are no longer able to obtain these seeds in the future, we may not be able to produce our proposed drug and our business will be adversely affected.

We may be required to expend significant capital to locate, secure and finance land for cultivation and harvesting of Thapsia garganica.

We believe that we can satisfy our needs for the clinical development of mipsagargin, through completion of Phase III clinical studies and early commercialization, from Thapsia garganica that grows naturally in the wild. In the event mipsagargin is approved for commercial marketing and is widely adopted by the medical community, our current supply of Thapsia garganica may not be sufficient. In order to secure sufficient quantities of Thapsia garganica, we would need to secure adequate acreage of land to cultivate and grow Thapsia garganica. We have not yet fully assessed the amount of land or other costs that would be associated with a full-scale farming operation. There can be no assurances that we will be able to secure sufficient acres of land, or the capital to purchase or lease such land, to grow sufficient quantities of Thapsia garganica to manufacture mipsagargin on a commercial scale. Our inability to secure adequate seeds could adversely impact our business.

The synthesis of 12ADT must be conducted in special facilities, which limits the locations where it may be manufactured.

We are required to manufacture the 12ADT that is to be used in our clinical trials in FDA approved facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturing facilities qualified to handle and manufacture toxic therapeutic agents and compounds. This limits the potential number of manufacturing sites for our therapeutic compounds derived from Thapsia garganica. No assurances can be provided that these facilities will be available for the manufacture of our therapeutic compounds under our time schedules or within the parameters of our manufacturing budget. In the event facilities are not available for the manufacturing of our therapeutic compounds, we may not be able to complete our clinical trials and our business and future prospects would be adversely affected.

Our therapeutic compounds may not be able to be manufactured profitably on a large enough scale to support commercialization.

To date, our therapeutics compounds have only been manufactured at a scale which is adequate to supply our research activities and early-stage clinical trials. There can be no assurance that the procedures currently used to manufacture our therapeutic compounds will work at a scale which is adequate for commercial needs. In the event our therapeutic compounds cannot be manufactured in sufficient quantities for commercialization, our future prospects could be significantly impacted and our financial prospects would be materially harmed.

Risks Relating to our Intellectual Property

Our competitive position is dependent on our intellectual property and we may not be able to withstand challenges to our intellectual property rights.

We rely on our intellectual property, including our issued and applied for U.S. and foreign patents as well as our licenses, as the foundation of our business. If our intellectual property rights are challenged, no assurances can be given that our patents or licenses would survive claims alleging invalidity or infringement on other patents and/or licenses. In addition, disputes may arise regarding inventorship of our intellectual property. It is possible that our intellectual property may be infringing upon existing patents that we are not currently unaware of. As the number of participants in the marketplace grows, the possibility of patent infringement claims against us increases. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how such disputes would be resolved. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with patent litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be required to be publicly disclosed. Any litigation claims against us may cause us to incur substantial costs and could place a significant strain upon our financial resources, divert the attention of management or restrict our core business or result in the public disclosure of confidential information.

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

Some or all of our patent applications may not issue as patents, or the claims of any issued patents may not afford meaningful protection for our technologies or products. In addition, patents issued to us or our licensors, if any, may be challenged and subsequently narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. Patent litigation is widespread in the biotechnology industry and could harm our business. Litigation might be necessary to protect our patent position or to determine the scope and validity of third-party proprietary rights. If we choose to go to court to stop someone else from using the inventions claimed in our patents, that individual or company would have the right to ask the court to rule that such patents are invalid and/or should not be enforced against that third party. These lawsuits are expensive and we may not have the required resources to pursue such litigation or to protect our patent rights. In addition, there is a risk that the court might decide that these patents are not valid and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the inventions. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of these patents is upheld, the court could refuse to stop the other party on the ground that such other party’s activities do not infringe on our rights contained in these patents.

Furthermore, a third party may claim that we are using inventions covered by their patent rights and may go to court to stop us from engaging in our normal operations and activities, including making or selling our product candidates. These lawsuits are costly and could materially increase our operating expenses and divert the attention of managerial and technical personnel. There is a risk that a court would decide that we are infringing the third party’s patents and would order us to stop the activities covered by the patents. In addition, there is a risk that a court would order us to pay the other party damages for having violated the other party’s patents. The biotechnology industry has produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform.

Because some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until eighteen months after filing, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our issued patents or our pending applications or that we were the first to invent the technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications and could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies.

If another party has filed a United States patent application on inventions similar to ours, we may have to participate in an interference or other proceeding in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the PTO, or a court to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our United States patent position with respect to such inventions.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the capital necessary to continue our operations.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends upon compliance with various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

The PTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property.

We rely in part on trade secret protection in order to protect our proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect, and we cannot be certain that others do not develop the same or similar technologies on their own. Additionally research with regard to our technologies has been performed in countries outside of the United States and we also anticipate conducting future clinical trials outside the US. The laws in some of these countries may not provide protection for our trade secrets and intellectual property. We have taken steps, including entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, service providers, and potential strategic partners to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how. These agreements generally require that the other party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties all confidential information developed by the party or made known to the party by us during the course of the party’s relationship with us. We also typically obtain agreements from these parties which provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us are our property. However, these agreements may not be honored, including in foreign countries in which we conduct research, and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets or know-how is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets or know-how. The failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive position.

We may be subject to claims that our employees or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ and hire individuals and/or entities who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these individuals, entities or us have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Risks Relating to Marketing Approval and Government Regulations

Thapsia garganica is highly toxic and we may be liable for any contamination or injury we may cause or any environmental and safety law we may violate.

The therapeutic component of our proposed products, including our lead product mipsagargin, is highly toxic. As a consequence, we are subject to numerous environmental and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling of toxic materials. We may be required to incur significant costs to comply with current or future environmental laws and regulations and may be adversely affected by the cost of compliance with these laws and regulations. Although we believe that our safety procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of hazardous materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. In the event of such an accident, state or federal authorities could curtail our use of these materials and we could be liable for any civil damages that result, the cost of which could be substantial. Further, any failure by us to control the use, disposal, removal or storage, or to adequately restrict the discharge, or assist in the clean-up of toxic substances could subject us to significant liabilities, including joint and several liabilities under certain statutes. Although we feel this risk may be minimized through our use of third parties, it is possible that the employees of such contractors could suffer medical issues related to the handling of these toxic agents and subsequently seek compensation from us via, for example, litigation. Any such liability could exceed our resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. No assurances can be given, despite our contractual relationship with the third-party contractor, that we would not be the subject of litigation. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting us may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with these laws and regulations and substantial fines or penalties if we violate any of these laws or regulations, which would adversely affect our business.

Data obtained from clinical trials are susceptible to varying interpretations and may not be sufficient to support approval of our proposed products by the FDA.

The design of our clinical trials is based on many assumptions about the expected effect of our product candidate and if those assumptions are incorrect, our clinical trials may not produce statistically significant results. Preliminary results may not be confirmed on full analysis of the detailed results of early clinical trials. Data already obtained, or in the future obtained, from pre-clinical studies and clinical trials do not necessarily predict the results that may be obtained from later trials. Moreover, pre-clinical and clinical data are susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier trials. The failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a proposed formulation or product under development could delay or prevent regulatory clearance of the potential drug. Our products may not prove to be safe and effective in clinical trials and may not meet all regulatory requirements needed to receive regulatory approval. Although data from our trials appear promising, the outcome of the trials is uncertain and these trials or future trials may ultimately be unsuccessful. Our clinical trials may among other things, not demonstrate sufficient levels of safety and efficacy necessary to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for our drugs, and thus our proposed drugs may not be approved for marketing.

Our proposed products may not receive FDA or other regulatory approvals.

The FDA and comparable government agencies in foreign countries impose substantial regulations on the manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products through expensive, lengthy and detailed laboratory, pre-clinical and clinical testing procedures, sampling activities and other costly and time-consuming procedures. Satisfaction of these regulations typically takes several years or more and varies substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the proposed product. Our proposed products are subject to extensive regulation and/or acceptance by numerous governmental authorities in the United States, including the FDA, and authorities in other countries. Most of our proposed products will require governmental approval before they can be commercialized. Our failure to receive the regulatory approvals in the United States or foreign countries would likely cause us to cease operations and go out of business.

Our proposed products may not have favorable results in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval.

Encouraging results from pre-clinical studies and our clinical trials to date should not be relied upon as evidence that our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or our product approved for marketing. Even though the results of our Phase II studies to date seem promising, we will be required to demonstrate through further clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates as they proceed through clinical trials. If any product candidate fails to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy in any clinical trial, then we could experience potentially significant delays in, or be required to abandon, development of that product candidate. Although initial data from our trials appear promising, the outcome of the trials is uncertain and these trials or future trials may ultimately be unsuccessful.

We may be unable to complete all of our planned Phase II clinical trials of mipsagargin if we do not have adequate enrollment or capital to finance the studies.

We are conducting a Phase II clinical trial in patients with glioblastoma, and we anticipate commencing additional clinical trials in the future. The initiation, continuation and/or completion of these trials are dependent on a number of factors, including adequate capital to fund the clinical trials and patient enrollment at the trial sites. At present, we have limited capital resources and require significant additional capital to complete any ongoing or future clinical trials that we may initiate. Our failure to enroll sufficient patients or to finance our clinical trials could materially harm our business.

If users of our proposed products are unable to obtain adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, market acceptance of our proposed products may be limited and we may not achieve revenues or profits.

The continuing efforts of governments, insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and other payers of healthcare costs to contain or reduce costs of health care may affect our future revenues and profitability as well as the future revenues and profitability of our potential customers, suppliers and collaborative partners in addition to the availability of capital. In other words, our ability to commercialize our proposed products depends in large part on the extent to which appropriate reimbursement levels for the cost of our proposed formulations, products and related treatments are obtained by the health care providers of these products and treatments. At this time we cannot predict the precise impact that recently adopted or future laws will have on these reimbursement levels.

We may be unable to comply with our reporting and other requirements under federal securities laws.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as related new rules and regulations implemented by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, require changes in the corporate governance practices and financial reporting standards for public companies. These laws, rules and regulations, including compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 relating to internal control over financial reporting, would be expected to materially increase the Company’s legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and more burdensome. Presently we qualify as a non-accelerated filer. Accordingly, we are exempt from the requirements of Section 404(b) and our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to audit the design and operating effectiveness of our internal controls and management’s assessment of the design and the operating effectiveness of such internal controls. In the event we become an accelerated filer, we will be required to expend substantial capital in connection with compliance.

We do not have effective internal controls over our financial reporting.

Because of our limited resources, management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting may not be effective in providing reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Effective internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures are necessary for us to provide reliable financial and other reports and effectively prevent fraud. If we cannot provide reliable financial or SEC reports or prevent fraud, investors may lose confidence in our SEC reports, our operating results and the trading price of our common stock could suffer materially and we may become subject to litigation.

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure may result in additional expenses and will divert time and attention away from revenue generating activities.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related SEC regulations, have created uncertainty for public companies and significantly increased the costs and risks associated with accessing the public markets and public reporting. Our management team invests significant time and financial resources to comply with both existing and evolving standards for public companies, which will lead to increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from developing our business to compliance activities which could have an adverse effect on our business.

Risks Relating to our Securities

Our common stock price may be particularly volatile because of our stage of development and business.

The market prices for the securities of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in general, and early-stage drug development companies in particular, such as ours, have been highly volatile and may continue to be highly volatile in the future. The following may have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock:

the development status of our drug candidates, particularly the results of our clinical trials;

market conditions or trends related to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, or the market in general;

announcements of technological innovations, new commercial products, or other material events by our competitors or us;

disputes or other developments concerning our proprietary rights;

changes in, or failure to meet, securities analysts’ or investors’ expectations of our financial and developmental performance;

additions or departures of key personnel;

loss of any strategic relationship;

discussions of our business, products, financial performance, prospects, or stock price by the financial and scientific press and online investor communities such as chat rooms;

industry developments, including, without limitation, changes in healthcare policies or practices or third-party reimbursement policies;

public concern as to, and legislative action with respect to, testing or other research areas of biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies, the pricing and availability of prescription drugs, or the safety of drugs;

regulatory developments in the United States or foreign countries; and

economic, political and other external factors.

Broad market fluctuations may cause the market price of our common stock to decline substantially. Additionally, fluctuations in the trading price or liquidity of our common stock may materially and adversely affect, among other things, the interest of investors to purchase our common stock on the open market and, generally, our ability to raise capital.

Our board of directors has broad discretion to issue additional securities.

We are authorized under our certificate of incorporation to issue up to 150,000,000 shares of common stock and 30,000,000 “blank check” shares of preferred stock. Shares of our blank check preferred stock provide the board of directors’ with broad authority to determine voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights. As of December 31, 2015, we have issued and outstanding 41,762,356 shares of common stock and 76,016,970 shares of common stock reserved for future grants under our equity compensation plans and for issuances upon the exercise or conversion of currently outstanding shares of preferred stock, options, warrants and other convertible securities. As of December 31, 2015, we have issued and outstanding 1,853 shares of Series A 0% convertible preferred stock. Accordingly, we are entitled to issue up to 32,220,674 additional shares of common stock, and 29,998,147 additional shares of “blank check” preferred stock. Our board may generally issue those common and preferred shares, or convertible securities to purchase those shares, without further approval by our shareholders. Any additional preferred shares we may issue could have such rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions as may be designated from time-to-time by our board, including preferential dividend rights, voting rights, conversion rights, redemption rights and liquidation provisions.

It is likely that we will issue a large amount of additional securities to raise capital in order to further our business plans. It is also likely that we will issue a large amount of additional securities to directors, officers, employees and consultants as compensatory grants in connection with their services, both in the form of stand-alone grants or under our various stock plans. Any issuances could be made at a price that reflects a discount to, or a premium from, the then-current market price of our common stock. These issuances would dilute the percentage ownership interest of our current shareholders, which would have the effect of reducing your influence on matters on which our stockholders vote, and might dilute the net tangible book value per share of our common stock.

Future sales of our common stock could cause our stock price to fall.

Transactions that result in a large amount of newly issued shares become readily tradable, or other events that cause current stockholders to sell shares, could place downward pressure on the trading price of our common stock. In addition, the lack of a robust trading market may require a stockholder who desires to sell a large number of shares of common stock to sell the shares in increments over time to mitigate any adverse impact of the sales on the market price of our stock. If our stockholders sell, or the market perceives that our stockholders intend to sell for various reasons, substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, including shares issued upon the exercise of outstanding options or warrants, the market price of our common stock could fall. Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock may make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem reasonable or appropriate. We may become involved in securities class action litigation that could divert management’s attention and harm our business.

As of December 31, 2015, we had 41,762,356 shares of common stock and 1,853 shares of Series A 0% Convertible Preferred Stock issued and outstanding. Substantially all of the common shares and common shares underlying the preferred shares are available for public sale, subject in some cases to volume and other limitations or delivery of a prospectus. As of December 31, 2015, we had reserved for issuance (i) 16,060,417 shares of our common stock issuable upon the conversion of 1,853 shares of Series A 0% Convertible Preferred Stock including an additional number of common shares we are contractually obligated to reserve pursuant to our December 2015 Offering; (ii) 48,126,553 shares of our common stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants at a weighted average exercise price of $0.79 per share, including an additional number of common shares we are contractually obligated to reserve pursuant to our December 2015 Offering; and (iii) 8,764,195 shares of our common stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding stock options under our equity compensation plans at a weighted average exercise price of $1.60 per share. Subject to applicable vesting requirements and holding periods, upon conversion or exercise of the outstanding convertible notes, warrants and options, the underlying shares may be resold into the public market. We cannot predict if future issuances or sales of our common stock, or the availability of our common stock for sale, would harm the market price of our common stock or our ability to raise capital.

The market for our common stock has been illiquid and our investors may be unable to sell their shares as a result.

Our common stock trades with limited volume on the OTCQB tier of the OTC Markets Group Inc. Accordingly, although a limited public market for our common stock exists, it is still relatively illiquid compared to that of a seasoned issuer. Any prospective investor in our securities should consider the limited market of our common stock when making an investment decision. No assurances can be given that the trading volume of our common stock will increase or that a liquid public market for our securities will ever materialize.

We have not paid cash dividends in the past and do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. If we do not pay dividends, our common stock may be less valuable because a return on your investment will only occur if the market price of our common stock appreciates.

Provisions of Delaware law and executive employment agreements may prevent or delay a change of control, which could depress the trading price of our common stock.

We are subject to the Delaware anti-takeover laws regulating corporate takeovers. These anti-takeover laws prevent Delaware corporations from engaging in a merger or sale of more than 10% of its assets with any stockholder, including all affiliates and associates of the stockholder, who owns 15% or more of the corporation’s outstanding voting stock, for three years following the date that the stockholder acquired 15% or more of the corporation’s assets unless:

the Board of Directors approved the transaction in which the stockholder acquired 15% or more of the corporation’s assets;

after the transaction in which the stockholder acquired 15% or more of the corporation’s assets, the stockholder owned at least 85% of the corporation’s outstanding voting stock, excluding shares owned by directors, officers and employee stock plans in which employee participants do not have the right to determine confidentially whether shares held under the plan will be tendered in a tender or exchange offer; or

on or after this date, the merger or sale is approved by the Board of Directors and the holders of at least two-thirds of the outstanding voting stock that is not owned by the stockholder.

A Delaware corporation may opt out of the Delaware anti-takeover laws if its certificate of incorporation or bylaws so provides. We have not opted out of the provisions of the anti-takeover laws. As such, these laws could prohibit or delay mergers or other takeover or change of control transactions and may discourage attempts by other companies to acquire us.

In addition, employment agreements with certain executive officers provide for the payment of severance and accelerated vesting of options and restricted stock in the event of termination following a change of control. These provisions could have the effect of discouraging potential takeover attempts even if it would be beneficial to shareholders.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could discourage a third-party from acquiring us.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as applicable, among other things (i) provide our board with the ability to alter the bylaws without stockholder approval and (ii) provide that vacancies on our board of directors may be filled by a majority of directors in office. These provisions, while designed to reduce vulnerability to an unsolicited acquisition proposal, and to discourage certain tactics used in proxy fights, may negatively impact a third-party’s decision to acquire us even if it would be beneficial to shareholders.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports or if they publish unfavorable research or reports, an active market for our common stock may not develop and the price of our common stock could decline.

We are a small company which is relatively unknown to stock analysts, stock brokers, institutional investors and others in the investment community that generate or influence sales volume. Even if we come to the attention of such persons, they may be reluctant to follow or recommend an unproven company such as ours until such time as we became more seasoned and viable. Generally, the trading market for a company’s securities depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish. We currently have limited research coverage by securities and industry analysts. As a consequence, there may be periods of time when trading activity in our shares is minimal or non-existent, as compared to a seasoned issuer with significant research coverage. We cannot give you any assurance that a broader or more active public trading market for our common stock will develop or if developed, will be sustained, or that current trading levels could be sustained or not diminish. In addition, in the event any analysts downgrades our securities, the price of our shares would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases to cover us or fails to publish regular reports on us, interest in the purchase of our securities could decrease, which could cause the price of our common stock and its trading volume, if any, to decline.

Our common stock may be considered a “penny stock,” and may be subject to additional sale and trading regulations that may make it more difficult to sell.

Our common stock may be considered a “penny stock.” The principal result or effect of being designated a penny stock is that securities broker-dealers participating in sales of our common stock may be subject to the penny stock regulations set forth in Rules 15g-2 through 15g-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. For example, Rule 15g-2 requires broker-dealers dealing in penny stocks to provide potential investors with a document disclosing the risks of penny stocks and to obtain a manually signed and dated written receipt of the document at least two business days before effecting any transaction in a penny stock for the investor’s account. Moreover, Rule 15g-9 requires broker-dealers in penny stocks to approve the account of any investor for transactions in such stocks before selling any penny stock to that investor. This procedure requires the broker-dealer to (i) obtain from the investor information concerning his or her financial situation, investment experience and investment objectives; (ii) reasonably determine, based on that information, that transactions in penny stocks are suitable for the investor and that the investor has sufficient knowledge and experience as to be reasonably capable of evaluating the risks of penny stock transactions; (iii) provide the investor with a written statement setting forth the basis on which the broker-dealer made the determination in (ii) above; and (iv) receive a signed and dated copy of such statement from the investor, confirming that it accurately reflects the investor’s financial situation, investment experience and investment objectives. Compliance with these requirements may make it more difficult and time consuming for holders of our common stock to resell their shares to third parties or to otherwise dispose of them in the market or otherwise.

Other Risks

We received a notice of termination from Dr. Craig Dionne, our former chief executive officer demanding certain payments pursuant to the termination of his employment agreement.

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us notice of termination of his employment as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Dionne’s notice of termination states that such termination was for “Good Reason” (as that term is defined in his September 9, 2009 employment agreement) as a result of purported material changes in his authority, functions, duties and responsibilities as chief executive officer. The Company disputes such claims, and does not believe Dr. Dionne had “Good Reason” to terminate his employment. However, in the event of litigation, the outcome of such litigation, as well as the costs associated therewith, could have a material adverse effect on our operations. For a further discussion of this matter, please see the section of this annual report entitled “Litigation.”

We may be required to make significant payments to members of our management in the event their employment with us is terminated or if we experience a change of control.

We are a party to employment agreements with members of management. In the event we terminate the employment of any of these executives, we experience a change in control or, in certain cases, if such executive terminates their employment with us, such executive will be entitled to receive certain severance and related payments. Additionally, in such instance, certain securities held by members of management shall become immediately vested and exercisable. Upon the occurrence of any such event, our obligation to make such payments could significantly impact our working capital and, accordingly, our ability to execute our business plan which could have a materially adverse effect to our business. Also, these provisions may discourage potential takeover attempts that could be beneficial to our stockholders.

If our management team is not effective or if we fail to attract, hire or retain qualified personnel, we may not be able to design, develop or commercialize our products successfully or manage our business.

Our anticipated growth and expansion may require the addition of new personnel and the development of additional expertise by existing management. There is intense competition for qualified personnel in such areas. Accordingly, there can be no assurances that we would be able to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary for the successful development of our business.

ITEM 1B.

UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2.

PROPERTIES

Our executive offices are located at 2511 N Loop 1604 W, Suite 204, San Antonio, TX 78258. We lease this facility, consisting of approximately 2,376 square feet, for approximately $4,950 per month. Our lease expires on October 14, 2018. There is no affiliation between us or any of our principals or agents and our landlords or any of their principals or agents.

ITEM 3.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Dionne’s notice of termination states that such termination was for “Good Reason” as a result of a material change in his authority, functions, duties and responsibilities as chief executive officer. In the event that termination was for “Good Reason”, Dr. Dionne would be entitled to certain severance payments as well as other benefits. The notice of termination, in additional to requesting such severance, also requests the payment of Dr. Dionne’s annual and long term bonus for 2014 and 2015. While the Company disputes that the termination was for “Good Reason,” as well as the amount of the bonuses due Dr. Dionne, if any, at this time the Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this matter, and any views formed as to the viability of these claims or the financial liability which could result may change from time to time as the matter proceeds through its course. The Company is uncertain whether any litigation may result from the foregoing and the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain.

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 shares are quoted on the OTCQB under the symbol GNSZ. Although a market for our common stock exists, it is relatively illiquid. The prices reflect high and low inter-dealer bid prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission, and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

Quarter Ended	High		Low
2015:
Fourth Quarter	$	0.45	$	0.145
Third Quarter	$	0.897	$	0.353
Second Quarter	$	0.82	$	0.578
First Quarter	$	1.02	$	0.60
2014:
Fourth Quarter	$	0.75	$	0.53
Third Quarter	$	0.91	$	0.66
Second Quarter	$	1.33	$	0.20
First Quarter	$	1.44	$	1.20

Holders

As of February 26, 2016, we had approximately 135 record holders of our common stock.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock and we do not currently anticipate declaring or paying cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the operation and expansion of our business. Any future determination relating to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on a number of factors, including future earnings, capital requirements, financial conditions, future prospects, contractual restrictions and covenants, applicable law and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. If we do not pay dividends, a return on your investment will occur only if the market price of our common stock appreciates.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2015 with respect to our compensation plans under which equity securities may be issued.

	(a)		(b)		(c)
	Number of Securities to be Issued upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights		Weighted-Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights		Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans (Excluding Securities Reflected in Column (a))
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders:
2007 Stock Plan, as amended (1)		3,818,321	$	1.48		2,011,679
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders:
2009 Executive Compensation Plan		4,945,874		1.62		1,054,126
Total		8,764,195	$	1.60		3,065,805

(1) Our 2007 Stock Plan, as amended, provides for the issuance of up to 1,500,000 common shares during any calendar year. The plan provides for the issuance of up to 6,000,000 common shares in the aggregate.

GenSpera 2007 Equity Compensation Plan

Our 2007 Equity Compensation Plan (“2007 Plan”) is administered by our board or any of its committees. The purposes of the 2007 Plan are to attract and retain the best available personnel for positions of substantial responsibility, to provide additional incentive to Employees, Directors and Consultants, and to promote the success of our business. The issuance of awards under our 2007 Plan is at the discretion of the administrator, which has the authority to determine the persons to whom any awards shall be granted and the terms, conditions and restrictions applicable to any award. Under our 2007 Plan, we may grant stock options, restricted stock, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock units, performance units, performance shares and other stock based awards. Our 2007 Plan authorizes the issuance of up to 1,500,000 shares of common stock for the foregoing awards per fiscal year with an aggregate of 6,000,000 shares of common stock available for issuance under the 2007 Plan. As of December 31, 2015, we have granted awards under the 2007 Plan equal to 4,550,821 shares of our common stock, and 562,500 shares have been cancelled or forfeited. Accordingly, there are 2,011,679 shares of common stock available for future awards under the 2007 Plan. In the event of a change in control, awards under the 2007 Plan will become fully vested unless such awards are assumed or substituted by the successor corporation.

GenSpera 2009 Executive Compensation Plan

Our 2009 Executive Compensation Plan, as amended (“2009 Plan”) is administered by our Board or any of its committees. The purpose of our 2009 Plan is to advance the interests of GenSpera and our stockholders by attracting, retaining and rewarding persons performing services for us and to motivate such persons to contribute to our growth and profitability. The issuance of awards under our 2009 Plan is at the discretion of the administrator, which has the authority to determine the persons to whom any awards shall be granted and the terms, conditions and restrictions applicable to any award. Under our 2009 Plan, we may grant stock options, restricted stock, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock units, performance units, performance shares and other stock-based awards. As of December 31, 2015, our 2009 Plan authorizes the issuance of up to 6,000,000 shares of our common stock for the foregoing awards, and we have granted awards under the plan equal to 4,945,874 common shares, and no shares have been cancelled or forfeited. Accordingly, there are 1,054,126 shares of common stock available for future awards under the 2009 Plan.

Deferred Compensation Plan

In July of 2011, we adopted the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Plan”). The Deferred Plan is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Deferred Plan is intended to be an unfunded “top hat” plan which is maintained primarily to provide deferred compensation benefits for a select group of our “management or highly compensated employees” within the meaning of Sections 201, 301, and 401 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), and to therefore be exempt from the provisions of Parts 2, 3, and 4 of Title I of ERISA. The Deferred Plan is intended to help build a supplemental source of savings and retirement income through pre-tax deferrals of eligible compensation, which may include cash, option and stock bonus awards, discretionary cash, option and stock awards and/or any other payments which may be designated by the Deferred Plan administrator, as eligible, for deferral under the Deferred Plan from time to time. As administered, the Deferred Plan is used to defer compensation of stock awards granted under our other equity compensation plans and does not by its terms approve any grants or awards.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

The following information is given with regard to unregistered securities sold since January 1, 2015. The following securities were issued in private offerings pursuant to the exemption from registration contained in the Securities Act and the rules promulgated thereunder in reliance on Section 4(2) thereof, relating to offers of securities by an issuer not involving any public offering.

In January 2015, we issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 150,000 shares of common stock as compensation for business and advisory services. We valued the services at approximately $48,000. The warrants have an exercise price of $0.65 per share, a term of five years and provide for cashless exercise if the shares underlying the warrants are not registered.

In March 2015, we issued a total of 30,000 common shares as partial compensation for business advisory services. The services associated with the shares were valued at approximately $27,000 in total.

In May 2015, we issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 75,000 shares of common stock as compensation for business and advisory services. We valued the services at approximately $18,000. The warrants have an exercise price of $0.65 per share, a term of five years and provide for cashless exercise if the shares underlying the warrants are not registered.

In June 2015, we amended 3,826,792 of the Series B and 4,163,961 of the Series C warrants in order to extend their respective term and reduce their exercise price. Pursuant to the amendment, the amended Series B and C warrants now have an exercise price of $0.70 and expire on December 31, 2016.

In July 2015, we offered and sold 3,591,278 units, in a private placement to certain accredited investors with whom we had a prior relationship or who were shareholders. Each unit consists of: (i) one share of common stock, (ii) one Series D common stock purchase warrant, and (iii) one Series E common stock purchase warrant. The price was $0.70 per unit, and resulted in gross proceeds of approximately $2.5 million. The Series D warrants have a term of five years and entitle the holder to purchase our common stock at a price per share of $0.80 per share. The Series E warrants have a term of eighteen months and entitle the holder to purchase our common stock at a price per share of $0.70 per share. In the event that the shares underlying the warrants are not subject to a registration statement at the time of exercise, the warrants may be exercised on a cashless basis after 30 days from the issuance date. In connection with the offering, we issued our placement agent 287,303 common stock purchase warrants with substantially the same terms as our Series D warrants.

In July 2015, we issued a total of 125,000 common shares as partial compensation for business advisory services. The services associated with the shares were valued at approximately $95,000 in total.

In November 2015, Dr. Dionne, our former chief executive officer, converted three promissory notes with an aggregate principal balance of $105,000 into 262,500 shares of common stock. Dr. Dionne waived all interest under the notes in exchange for a reduction from the conversion price of $0.50 per share to $0.40 per share.

In November 2015, we issued a warrant to purchase an aggregate of 75,000 shares of common stock as compensation for business and advisory services. We valued the services at approximately $11,000. The warrant has an exercise price of $0.35 per share, a term of five years and provides for cashless exercise if the shares underlying the warrant are not registered.

In December 2015, we offered and sold 1,853 units, in a private placement to certain accredited investors for gross proceeds of approximately $2.5 million. The preferred stock has a stated value of $1,000 per share and the common shares are issuable pursuant to conversion of the preferred stock at a conversion price of $0.15 per share, subject to a 9.99% beneficial ownership limitation and subject to adjustment pursuant to stock splits and dividends, and subject to adjustment pursuant to customary anti-dilution protection for subsequent equity sales for a period of 18 months from the effective date of this registration statement. The warrants include (i) 6,177,084 Series F common stock purchase warrants with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of five years from the date in which the shares underlying the warrants are registered, (ii) 6,177,084 Series G common stock purchase warrants with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of eighteen months from the date in which the shares underlying the warrants are registered, (iii) 3,571,430 Series H common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant to a contractually obligated exercise of prior outstanding warrants, with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of five years from the issuance date, and (iv) 3,571,430 Series I common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant to a contractually obligated exercise of prior outstanding warrants, with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of eighteen months from the issuance date. The common shares underlying the preferred stock are subject to adjustment in the in the event of stock splits and dividends, subsequent equity sales, pro rata distributions and fundamental transactions. In the event that the shares underlying all of the warrants issued in the December 2015 Offering are not subject to a registration statement at the time of exercise, the warrants may be exercised on a cashless basis after 6 months from the issuance date. The warrants also contain provisions providing for an adjustment in the underlying number of shares and exercise price in the event of stock splits or dividends, fundamental transactions, and pro rata distributions. The warrants do not contain any price protection provisions. In connection with the offering, we issued our placement agent 988,334 common stock purchase warrants with substantially the same terms as our Series F warrants.

Use of Proceeds

On May 23, 2014, our registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-194687) was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission for our initial public offering pursuant to which we sold an aggregate of 4,163,961 units at a public offering price of $0.80 per unit. There has been no material change in the planned use of proceeds from our public offering as described in our final prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30, 2014 pursuant to Rule 424(b).

ITEM 6.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

We are not required to provide the information as to selected financial data as we are considered a smaller reporting company.

ITEM 7.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) is provided in addition to the accompanying financial statements and notes to assist readers in understanding our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows. MD&A is organized as follows:

Company Overview - Discussion of our business plan and strategy in order to provide context for the remainder of MD&A.

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates - Accounting policies that we believe are important to understanding the assumptions and judgments incorporated in our reported financial results and forecasts.

Results of Operations - Analysis of our financial results comparing the year ended December 31, 2015 to the year ended December 31, 2014.

Liquidity and Capital Resources - Analysis of changes in our cash flows, and discussion of our financial condition and potential sources of liquidity.

The various sections of this MD&A contain a number of forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on our current expectations and could be affected by the uncertainties and risk factors described throughout this filing and particularly in the Risk Factors section of this report. Our actual results may differ materially.

Company Overview

Business

Our major focus for the next twelve to eighteen months is the (i) ongoing Phase II clinical trial in patients with glioblastoma, (ii) development of a clinical protocol for our next clinical trial in glioblastoma, which we anticipate will be a randomized study, (iii) ongoing business development discussions with potential development partners, and (iv) prioritization of our next thapsigargin prodrug development candidate. We have deferred the development of mipsagargin in Phase II prostate clinical trials until early 2016, and have indefinitely postponed the planned Phase II renal cancer study of mipsagargin in order to focus our efforts in glioblastoma and liver cancer clinical studies. Our ability to execute our product development plan is dependent on the amount and timing of cash, if any, that we are able to raise. Should we not raise sufficient funds to execute our product development plan, our priority is the continuation and completion of our ongoing Phase II clinical study in glioblastoma patients.

In January 2015, we presented preliminary results from our Phase II study of mipsagargin in liver cancer patients, and these data were updated in May 2015 when we received a final clinical study report. We consider the study outcome as positive, with 63% of treated patients having stable disease at two (2) months, and with a median time to progression of 4.5 months. Additionally, the trial showed that mipsagargin is effective at destroying the vascularity of solid tumors thereby starving the tumor. These results support our plans to continue the development of mipsagargin for patients with liver cancer, as well as proceed with our clinical development strategy in other indications. We plan to develop subsequent randomized studies to further develop mipsagargin, preferably with a development partner, with a goal of seeking approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for marketing or licensing mipsagargin to a pharmaceutical company. Although data from our completed trials appear promising, the outcomes of our ongoing or future trials may ultimately be unsuccessful.

Recent Developments

In February 2015 we announced a strategic partnership with Phyton Biotech for the manufacture of thapsigargin, the key ingredient in mipsagargin. We believe that Phyton Biotech’s plant cell fermentation expertise in converting the thapsia plant into a preserved, fermentable cell line will provide us access to a sustainable source of high-quality thapsigargin to support the development of our drugs. In July the World Intellectual Property Organization published Phyton Biotech’s international patent application WO 2015/0892978 A1 "Production of Thapsigargins by Thapsia Cell Suspension Culture." The invention described in the patent application provides, for the first time, a suspension cell culture suitable for mass production of thapsigargin, offering a potential alternative route to commercial-scale production of this starting material for synthesis of mipsagargin.

In May the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Orphan Products Development issued an RO-1 grant to Santosh Kesari, M.D., Ph.D., one of the Principal Investigators of our glioblastoma study. The $1.6 million grant covers a four-year period for the study of PSMA and other biomarkers to better identify the subset of patients who will receive the most therapeutic benefit with mipsagargin treatment. Dr. Kesari, who is ranked in the top 1% of neuro-oncologists and neurologists in the U.S. by Castle Connolly Medical Ltd., joined our Scientific Advisory Board in October.

In May 2015 sufficiently encouraging data were observed in the first stage of the ongoing Phase II study of mipsagargin in glioblastoma (brain cancer) patients to warrant continuation of enrollment for an expansion phase of the trial. We have now treated twenty patients in our Phase II glioblastoma clinical trial.

In September 2015, we presented encouraging interim data from the ongoing Phase II clinical trial in glioblastoma which showed clear clinical benefit in a subset of patients.

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

On March 16, 2016, upon receipt of Dr. Dionne’s notice of termination, Dr. Russell Richerson assumed the duties of principal executive and principal accounting officer on an interim basis.

Financial

To date, we have devoted a substantial portion of our efforts and financial resources to the development of our proposed drug candidates. Mipsagargin is the only product candidate for which we have conducted clinical trials, and we have not marketed, distributed or sold any products. Since our inception in 2003, we have generated no revenue from product sales and have funded our operations principally through the private and public sales of our equity securities. We have never been profitable and, as of December 31, 2015, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $45.3 million. We expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue the development of our product candidates and advance them through clinical trials.

Our cash and cash equivalents balance at December 31, 2015 was approximately $2.5 million, representing 92% of total assets. Based on our current expected level of operating expenditures, we expect to be able to fund our operations for the next six to nine months. This period could be shortened if there are any significant increases in spending that were not anticipated or other unforeseen events.

We anticipate raising additional cash needed through the private or public sales of equity or debt securities, collaborative arrangements, or a combination thereof, to continue to fund our operations and the development of our product candidates. There is no assurance that any such collaborative arrangement will be entered into or that financing will be available to us when needed in order to allow us to continue our operations, or if available, on terms acceptable to us. If we do not raise sufficient funds in a timely manner, we may be forced to curtail operations, delay or stop our ongoing clinical trials, cease operations altogether, or file for bankruptcy. We currently do not have commitments for future funding from any source.

Going Concern

Product Development of Mipsagargin

Our ability to execute our product development plan is dependent on the amount and timing of cash, if any, that we are able to raise. Should we not raise sufficient funds to execute our product development plan, our priority is the initiation, continuation and completion of our ongoing and planned Phase II clinical studies in glioblastoma. We are actively involved in identifying a potential development and commercialization partner at both multi-national and regional levels to assist with the development of mipsagargin through clinical trials in liver cancer. Our current product development plan of mipsagargin contemplates the following major initiatives:

Development of a clinical protocol for our next clinical trial in glioblastoma, which we anticipate will be a randomized study.

Continue ongoing business development discussions with potential development partners.

Continue our Phase II clinical trial in patients with glioblastoma (a form of brain cancer) which is being conducted at the University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center.

Initiation of a Phase II clinical pilot study in patients with prostate cancer via a collaborative agreement with a single site in the U.S.

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

We have prepared our financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, which requires management to make significant judgments and estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting period. We base these significant judgments and estimates on historical experience and other applicable assumptions we believe to be reasonable based upon information presently available. These estimates may change as new events occur, as additional information is obtained and as our operating environment changes. These changes have historically been minor and have been included in the financial statements as soon as they became known. Actual results could materially differ from our estimates under different assumptions, judgments or conditions.

All of our significant accounting policies are discussed in Note 2, Summary of Critical Accounting Policies, to our financial statements, included elsewhere in this Annual Report. We have identified the following as our critical accounting policies and estimates, which are defined as those that are reflective of significant judgments and uncertainties, are the most pervasive and important to the presentation of our financial condition and results of operations and could potentially result in materially different results under different assumptions, judgments or conditions.

We believe the following critical accounting policies reflect our more significant estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of our financial statements:

Use of Estimates — The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying disclosures. Actual results may differ from those estimates.

Cash and Equivalents — Cash equivalents are comprised of certain highly liquid investments with maturity of three months or less when purchased. We maintain our cash in bank deposit accounts which, at times, may exceed federally insured limits. We have not experienced any losses in such accounts.

Research and Development Costs — Research and development costs are charged to expense as incurred. Our research and development expenses consist primarily of expenditures for toxicology and other studies, manufacturing, clinical trials, compensation and consulting costs.

Stock-based Compensation — The Company measures the cost of employee services received in exchange for an equity award based on the grant-date fair value of the award. All grants under our stock-based compensation programs are accounted for at fair value and that cost is recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award (the vesting period).

Compensation expense for options granted to non-employees is determined in accordance with the standard as the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instruments issued, whichever is more reliably measured. Compensation expense for awards granted to non-employees is re-measured each period. Determining the appropriate fair value of the stock-based compensation requires the input of subjective assumptions, including the expected life of the stock-based payment and stock price volatility. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing option model to value its stock option awards which incorporate the Company’s stock price, volatility, U.S. risk-free rate, dividend rate, and estimated life.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments — Our short-term financial instruments, including cash, accounts payable and other liabilities, consist primarily of instruments without extended maturities. We believe that the fair values of our current assets and current liabilities approximate their reported carrying amounts.

Warrant derivative liability consists of certain of our warrants with anti-dilution provisions, and are valued using option pricing models which incorporate the Company’s stock price, volatility, U.S. risk-free rate, dividend rate, and estimated life.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-01, Income Statement - Extraordinary and Unusual Items (Subtopic 225-20): Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the Concept of Extraordinary Items, simplifying the income statement presentation. The guidance does not change the requirement to disclose items that are unusual in nature and occur infrequently. ASU No. 2015-01 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015, including interim periods within that reporting period, although early adoption is permitted. Exclusive of a material transaction that would qualify for extraordinary item presentation in future periods, we do not expect the adoption of this standard to materially impact our financial statements.

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standard Board issued ASU No. 2015-03, Interest - Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs. The amendments in this ASU 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. This guidance is effective for annual and interim reporting periods of public entities beginning after December 15, 2015, and early adoption is permitted. We do not expect the adoption of this standard to materially impact our consolidated financial statements.

There are various other recently issued updates, most of which represented technical corrections to the accounting literature or application to specific industries, and are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Result of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2015 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

Our results of operations have varied significantly from year to year and quarter to quarter and may vary significantly in the future. We did not have revenue during the years ending December 31, 2015 and 2014. We do not anticipate generating any revenues during 2016. Net loss for 2015 and 2014 were $5.9 million and $7.0 million, respectively, resulting from the operational activities described below.

Operating Expenses

Operating expense totaled $6.1 million and $7.0 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decrease in operating expenses is the result of the following factors.

	Year Ended				Change in 2015
	December 31,				Versus 2014
	2015		2014		$			%
	(amount in thousands)
Operating Expenses
Research and development	$	2,303	$	3,691	$	(1,388	)		(38	)%
General and administrative		3,764		3,307		457			14	%
Total operating expense	$	6,067	$	6,998	$	(931	)		(13	)%

Research and Development

Research and development expenses totaled $2.3 million and $3.7 million for the year ended 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decrease of $1.4 million, or 38%, in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily attributable a decline in costs related to manufacturing of over $0.7 million from prior year due to process development projects incurred in the prior year. Additionally, clinical trial expense decreased over $0.6 million in the current year due to our Phase II clinical trial closing enrollment to new patients during the prior year.

Our research and development expenses consist primarily of expenditures related to toxicology and other studies, manufacturing, clinical trials, compensation and consulting costs.

General and Administrative

General and administrative expenses totaled $3.8 million and $3.3 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively. The increase of approximately $457,000, or 14%, in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily attributable to an increase in corporate communication and business development costs, as we engaged consultants and launched a comprehensive investor and public relations initiative for the company. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in stock compensation expense compared to prior year.

Our general and administrative expenses consist primarily of expenditures related to employee compensation, legal, accounting and tax, other professional services, and general operating expenses.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income totaled approximately $181,000 and $4,000 for 2015 and 2014, respectively.

	Year Ended				Change in 2015
	December 31,				Versus 2014
	2015		2014		$			%
	(amount in thousands)
(Loss) gain on change in fair value of derivative liability	$	181	$	—	$	181			100	%
Interest income (expense), net		—		4		(4	)		(100	)%
Total other income (expense)	$	181	$	4	$	177			2,200	%

(Loss) gain on change in fair value of derivative liability

There was a gain on change in fair value of our derivative liability of approximately $181,000 during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to no gain or loss during the year ended December 31, 2014. The change in the fair value of our derivative liability from the prior year was the result of our private placement in December 2015, where we issued convertible preferred stock with 18-month anti-dilutive features and warrants. Refer to Note 8 in our Financial Statements for further discussion on our derivative liability.

Interest income (expense)

We had no net interest income as interest income offset interest expense in 2015, compared to net interest income of approximately $4,000 for the year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decrease of $4,000 was attributable to an increase in interest earned on higher average outstanding cash balances in the prior year.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We have incurred losses since our inception in 2003 as a result of significant expenditures for operations and research and development and the lack of any approved products to generate revenue. We have a deficit accumulated of $45.3 million as of December 31, 2015 and anticipate that we will continue to incur additional losses for the foreseeable future. To date, we have funded our operations through the private sale of our equity securities and exercise of options and warrants, resulting in gross proceeds of $34.9 million. Cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2015 were $2.5 million.

Our auditors’ report on our December 31, 2015 financial statements expressed an opinion that our capital resources as of the date of their Audit Report were not sufficient to sustain operations or complete our planned activities for the upcoming year unless we raised additional funds. In 2015, we completed financings resulting in gross proceeds of approximately $5.0 million. Based on our current level of expected operating expenditures, we expect to be able to fund our operations through September 2016. This assumes that we spend minimally on general operations and only continue conducting our ongoing Phase II clinical trial, and that we do not encounter any unexpected events or other circumstances that could shorten this time period. If we do not obtain additional funds by such time, we may no longer be able to continue as a going concern and will cease operation which means that our shareholders will lose their entire investment.

We are actively seeking sources of financing to fund our continued operations and research and development programs. To raise additional capital, we may sell shares of equity or debt securities, or enter into collaborative, strategic and/or licensing transactions. There can be no assurance that we will be able to complete any financing transaction in a timely manner or on acceptable terms or otherwise. If we are not able to raise additional cash, we may be forced to further delay, curtail, or cease development of our product candidates, or cease operations altogether.

	Year Ended
	Ended December 31,
	2015			2014
	(amounts in thousands)
Cash at beginning of period	$	2,316		$	3,587
Net cash used in operating activities		(4,633	)		(5,044	)
Net cash used in investing activities		(4	)		(4	)
Net cash provided by financing activities		4,786			3,777
Cash at end of period	$	2,465		$	2,316

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $4.6 million and $5.0 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decrease of $0.4 million in cash used during 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily attributable to a decrease in our net loss of approximately $1.0 million, as well as an increase of $1.1 million in our change in accrued liabilities, partially offset by a decrease of $1.7 million in stock-based compensation.

Net Cash Used in Investing Activities

Cash used in investing activities was $4,000 for 2015 and 2014, respectively. The cash used in investing activities was due to purchases of office equipment in 2015 and 2014.

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities

During 2015, we received net proceeds of $4.8 million from the sales of our securities and the exercise of warrants, compared to $3.8 million during 2014 in net proceeds from the sales of our securities in a registered offering and a private placement. We are actively seeking sources of financing to fund our continued operations and research and development programs.

ITEM 7A.

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK

We are not required to provide the information as to selected financial data as we are considered a smaller reporting company.

ITEM 8.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

The information required by this Item is included in our Financial Statements and Supplementary Data listed in Item 15 (a) (1) of Part IV of this Annual Report.

ITEM 9.

CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None.

ITEM 9A.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our interim Principal Executive Officer and interim Principal Accounting Officer (who is also our interim Principal Executive Officer), has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2015. Based on that evaluation, management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2015 were ineffective in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

Inherent Limitations Over Internal Controls

The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The Company’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 Company’s assets;

(ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company’s receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of the Company’s management and directors; and

(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Management, including the Company’s interim Principal Executive Officer and interim Principal Accounting Officer (who is also our interim Principal Executive Officer), does not expect that the Company’s internal controls will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of internal controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. Also, any evaluation of the effectiveness of controls in future periods are subject to the risk that those internal controls may become inadequate because of changes in business conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

The Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Management conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria set forth in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013). Based on the Company’s assessment, management has concluded, that due to limited resources and limited number of employees, its internal control over financial reporting was ineffective as of December 31, 2015 to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. To mitigate the current limited resources and employees, we rely heavily on direct management oversight of transactions, along with the use of legal and accounting professionals. As we grow, we expect to increase the number of employees, which would enable us to implement adequate segregation of duties within the internal control framework.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2015, which were identified in connection with management’s evaluation required by paragraph (d) of rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act that has materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to the rules of the SEC that permit smaller reporting companies to provide only the management’s report in this annual report.

ITEM 9B.

OTHER INFORMATION

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. On March 16, 2016, upon receipt of Dr. Dionne’s notice of termination, Dr. Russell Richerson assumed the duties of principal executive and principal accounting officer on an interim basis.

PART III

ITEM 10.

DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Directors, Executive Officers and Significant Employees

The following sets forth the current members of our board of directors, as well as information with regard to our executive officers, and information concerning their ages and background. All directors hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders or until their respective successors are elected, except in the case of death, resignation or removal:

Name	Position	Age	Director Since
Executive Officers
Russell Richerson, PhD	Interim Principal Executive Officer, Interim Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Secretary	64	—
Non-employee Directors
Peter E. Grebow, PhD	Director	69	05/2012
Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD	Director	57	08/2010
Scott V. Ogilvie	Director	61	03/2008

Russell Richerson, PhD serves as our interim Principal Executive Officer, Interim Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Operations Officer and Secretary. Dr. Richerson has over 34 years of experience in the biotechnology/diagnostics industry, including 11 years at Abbott Laboratories in numerous management roles. Most recently, he has served as Vice President of Diagnostic Research and Development at Prometheus Laboratories (2001 - 2004) and then as Chief Operating Officer of the Molecular Profiling Institute (2005 - 2008). Dr. Richerson also served as Vice President of Operations of International Genomics Consortium (IGC) from 2005 to 2008. Between August of 2011 and March of 2015, Dr. Richerson served on the IGC board of directors. Dr. Richerson received his BS in 1974 from Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana and his PhD in 1983 from the University of Texas at Austin.

Peter E. Grebow, PhD joined our board in May of 2012. Dr. Grebow is President and founder of P.E. Grebow Consulting, Inc. which he formed in 2011. He also serves as Executive Vice President of Research and Development at Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since October, 2013. From 1991 to 2011, Dr. Grebow held several key positions with Cephalon, Inc. (now Teva Pharmaceuticals), a biopharmaceutical company, including Executive Vice President, Cephalon Ventures, Executive Vice President, Technical Operations, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Business Development and Senior Vice President, Drug Development. Prior to joining Cephalon, Dr. Grebow served as the Vice President, Drug Development for Rorer Central Research, a division of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company, from 1986 to 1990. Dr. Grebow served as a director of Optimer Pharmaceuticals from February 2009 until October, 2013. Dr. Grebow has also served as a director of Q Holdings, Inc. since December 2011 and Complexa, Inc. since 2011. Dr. Grebow is a member of the Investment Advisory Board of the Harrington Discovery Institute since April, 2014. Dr. Grebow received his undergraduate degree from Cornell University, an MS in chemistry from Rutgers University and a PhD in physical biochemistry from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Grebow's demonstrated leadership in his field, his knowledge of scientific matters affecting our business and his understanding of our industry contribute to our conclusion that he should serve as a director.

Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD joined our board in August of 2010. Dr. Hansen is currently the Executive Chairman of the Board of Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (NASDAQ OMX, STO: SOBI), an international growth company specializing in the development, registration, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs for rare and life-threatening diseases. Dr. Hansen has held the position since January 2010 as a result of the merger of Swedish Orphan International AB Group and Biovitrum. Prior to the merger, Dr. Hansen served in numerous positions with Swedish Orphan International AB Group, including, from 1998 to 2010, CEO, President and Director of the Board. Dr. Hansen’s responsibilities at the company include establishment, development and expansion of the company’s operations in Europe, Japan, the Americas and Australia. Dr. Hansen holds a Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Copenhagen with a specialty in urology. Dr. Hansen is Chairman of Karolinska Development AB (NASDAQ OMX, STO: KDEV) and also serves on the boards of CMC AB, Orphazyme ApS, Newron (SIX; NWRN), Hyperion Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: HPTX), and Ablynx NV (ABLX). Dr. Hansen previously served on the boards of Onxeo SA and TopoTarget A/S (EURONEXT, PA: ONXEONASDAQ OMX:TOPO) until August of 2014. In evaluating Dr. Hansen’s specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills in connection with his appointment to our board, we took into account his prior work with both public and private organizations, including his experience in building biopharmaceutical organizations, his strong business development background and experience with mergers and acquisitions and his past experience and relationships in the biopharma and biotech fields.

Scott V. Ogilvie has served as a director on our board since February 2008. Mr. Ogilvie is currently the President of AFIN International, Inc., a private equity/business advisory firm, which he founded in 2006. Prior to December 31, 2009, he was CEO of Gulf Enterprises International, Ltd, a company that brings strategic partners, expertise and investment capital to the Middle East and North Africa. He held this position since August 2006. Mr. Ogilvie previously served as Chief Operating Officer of CIC Group, Inc., an investment manager, a position he held from 2001 to 2007. He began his career as a corporate and securities lawyer with Hill, Farrer & Burrill, and has extensive public and private corporate management and board experience in finance, real estate, and technology companies. Mr. Ogilvie currently serves on the board of directors of Neuralstem, Inc. (NASDAQ: CUR) and Research Solutions, Inc. (OTCQB: RSSS). Mr. Ogilvie also served on the board of directors of Preferred Voice Inc. (OTCQB: PRFV), Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB: INVC) and National Healthcare Exchange, Inc. (OTCBB: NHXS). In evaluating Mr. Ogilvie’s specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills in connection with his appointment to our board, we took into account his prior work in both public and private organizations regarding corporate finance, securities and compliance and international business development.

Family Relationships

There are no family relationships between any director, executive officer, or person nominated or chosen by the registrant to become a director or executive officer.

Code of Ethics

We have adopted a “Code of Ethics” that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. A copy of our code can be viewed on our website at www.genspera.com.

Independent Directors

For purposes of determining independence, the Company has adopted the definition of independence as contained in NASDAQ Market Place Rules 4200. Pursuant to the definition, the Company has determined that Messrs. Ogilvie, Grebow and Hansen qualify as independent.

Committees

The board of directors has established three standing committees: (1) an Audit Committee, (2) a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and (3) a Leadership Development and Compensation Committee. Each of the committees operates under a written charter adopted by the board of directors. All of the committee charters are available on our web site at www.genspera.com. The committee membership and the function of each of the committees are described below.

Director	Audit Committee	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee	Leadership Development and Compensation Committee
Peter E. Grebow, PhD	Member	Chair	Member
Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD	Member	Member	Chair
Scott V. Ogilvie	Chair	Member	Member

Executive compensation is determined by the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee.

Audit Committee

The main function of our Audit Committee, which was established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act, is to oversee our accounting and financial reporting processes, internal systems of control, independent auditor relationships and the audits of our financial statements. This committee’s responsibilities include:

Selecting and hiring our independent auditors.

Evaluating the qualifications, independence and performance of our independent auditors.

Approving the audit and non-audit services to be performed by our independent auditors.

Reviewing the design, implementation, adequacy and effectiveness of our internal controls and our critical accounting policies.

Overseeing and monitoring the integrity of our financial statements and our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements as they relate to financial statements or accounting matters.

Reviewing with management any earnings announcements and other public announcements regarding our results of operations.

Reviewing regulatory filings with management and our auditors.

Preparing any report the SEC requires for inclusion in our annual proxy statement.

The Audit Committee will review and approve all related party transactions.

Our Audit Committee is currently comprised of Peter E. Grebow, PhD, Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD and Scott V. Ogilvie, each of whom is a non-employee member of our board of directors. Our board of directors has determined that each of the directors serving on our Audit Committee is independent within the meaning of the rules of the SEC and rule 5605(a)(2) of the Marketplace Rules of NASDAQ. Additionally, our board has determined that Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD and Scott V. Ogilvie are audit committee financial experts as defined under the rules of the SEC. A copy of the charter is available on our website at www.genspera.com.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s purpose is to assist our board of directors in identifying individuals qualified to become members of our board of directors consistent with criteria set by our board of directors and to develop our corporate governance principles. This committee’s responsibilities include:

Evaluating the composition, size, organization and governance of our board of directors and its committees, determining future requirements, and making recommendations regarding future planning, the appointment of directors to our committees and selection of chairs of these committees.

Reviewing and recommending to our board of directors director independence determinations made with respect to continuing and prospective directors.

Establishing a policy for considering stockholder nominees for election to our board of directors.

Recommending ways to enhance communications and relations with our stockholders.

Evaluating and recommending candidates for election to our board of directors.

Overseeing our board of directors’ performance and self-evaluation process and developing continuing education programs for our directors.

Evaluating and recommending to the board of directors termination of service of individual members of the board of directors as appropriate, in accordance with governance principles, for cause or for other proper reasons.

Making regular written reports to the board of directors.

Reviewing and reexamining the committee’s charter and making recommendations to the board of directors regarding any proposed changes.

Reviewing annually the committee’s own performance against responsibilities outlined in its charter and as otherwise established by the board of directors.

Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is currently comprised of Peter E. Grebow, PhD, Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD and Scott V. Ogilvie, each of whom is a non-employee member of our board of directors. Our board of directors has determined that each of the directors serving on our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is independent as defined in rule 5605(a)(2) of the Marketplace Rules of NASDAQ. The charter of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is available on our website at www.genspera.com.

Leadership Development and Compensation Committee

The purpose of our Leadership Development and Compensation Committee is to oversee our compensation programs. The committee may form and delegate authority to subcommittees or, with respect to compensation for employees and consultants who are not executive officers for purposes of Section 16 of the Exchange Act, to our officers, in either instance as the committee determines appropriate. The committee’s responsibilities include:

Reviewing and approving our general compensation strategy.

Establishing annual and long-term performance goals for our CEO and other executive officers.

Conducting and reviewing with the board of directors an annual evaluation of the performance of the CEO and other executive officers.

Evaluating the competitiveness of the compensation of the CEO and the other executive officers.

Reviewing and making recommendations to the board of directors regarding the salary, bonuses, equity awards, perquisites and other compensation and benefit plans for the CEO.

Reviewing and approving all salaries, bonuses, equity awards, perquisites and other compensation and benefit plans for our other executive officers.

Reviewing and approving the terms of any offer letters, employment agreements, termination agreements or arrangements, change-in-control agreements, indemnification agreements and other material agreements between the company and our executive officers.

Acting as the administering committee for our stock and bonus plans and for any equity or cash compensation arrangements that we may adopt from time to time.

Providing oversight for our overall compensation plans and benefit programs, monitoring trends in executive and overall compensation and making recommendations to the board of directors with respect to improvements to such plans and programs or the adoption of new plans and programs.

Reviewing and approving compensation programs as well as salaries, fees, bonuses and equity awards for non-employee members of the board of directors.

Reviewing plans for the development, retention and succession of our executive officers.

Reviewing executive education and development programs.

Monitoring total equity usage for compensation and establishing appropriate equity dilution levels.

Reporting regularly to the board of directors on the committee’s activities.

Reviewing and discussing with management the required annual compensation discussion and analysis disclosure, if any, regarding named executive officer compensation and, based on this review and discussions, making a recommendation to include in our annual public filings.

Preparing and approving any required committee report to be included in our annual public filings.

Performing a review, at least annually, of the performance of the committee and its members and reporting to the board of directors on the results of this review.

Investigating any matter brought to its attention, with full access to all our books, records, facilities and employees and obtaining advice, reports or opinions from internal or external counsel and expert advisors in order to help it perform its responsibilities.

Our Leadership Development and Compensation Committee is currently comprised of Peter E. Grebow, PhD, Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD and Scott V. Ogilvie, each of whom is a non-employee member of our board of directors. Each member of our Leadership Development and Compensation Committee is an “outside” director as defined in Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and a “non-employee” director within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 of the Exchange Act. Our board of directors has determined that each of the directors serving on our Leadership Development and Compensation Committee is independent as defined in rule 5605(a)(2) of the Marketplace Rules of NASDAQ.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s officers and directors, and persons who own more than ten percent of a registered class of the Company’s equity securities, to file reports of securities ownership and changes in such ownership with the SEC. Officers, directors and greater than ten percent shareholders also are required by SEC rules to furnish the Company with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

Based solely upon a review of the copies of such forms furnished to the Company, and on written representations from the reporting persons, the Company believes that all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to the Company’s directors and officers were timely met during 2015.

Name of Reporting Person	Type of Report and Number Filed Late	No. of Transactions Reported Late

Craig A. Dionne, PhD*	Form 4 (1 filed late)	1
Peter E. Grebow, PhD	Form 4 (1 filed late)	1

* On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

ITEM 11.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Summary Compensation

The following table provides disclosure concerning all compensation paid for services to us in all capacities for our fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 provided by (i) each person serving as our principal executive officer, or PEO, or acting in a similar capacity during our fiscal year ended December 31, 2014; (ii) our most highly compensated executive officers other than our PEO who were serving as executive officers on December 31, 2015 and whose total compensation exceeded $100,000 (collectively with the PEO referred to as the “named executive officers” in this Executive Compensation section); and (iii) our Principal Financial Officer.

Name & Principal Position	Year	Salary ($)		Bonus ($)			Stock Awards ($)		Option Awards ($)			Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)		Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($)		All Other Compensation ($)		Total ($)
Craig Dionne, PhD	2015		381,150		‒	(1)		‒		‒	(1)		‒		‒		47,945		429,095
Chief Executive Officer
And Chief Financial Officer (2)	2014		381,150		‒	(1)		‒		‒	(1)		‒		‒		44,763		425,913

Russell Richerson, PhD	2015		324,685		‒	(1)		‒		‒	(1)		‒		‒		17,524		342,209
Chief Operating Officer
	2014		324,685		‒	(1)		‒		‒	(1)		‒		‒		17,160		341,845

(1)

As of March 11, 2016, the executive’s bonus for 2015 and 2014 have not yet been determined.

(2)

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

Outstanding Executive Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End 2015

The following table sets forth information concerning stock options held on December 31, 2015, the last day of our 2015 fiscal year, for each named executive officer.

	Number of Securities Underlying				Option		Option
	Unexercised Options (#)				Exercise		Expiration
Name and Principal Position	Exercisable		Unexercisable		Price ($)		Date

Craig Dionne, PhD		1,000,000		—		1.65	9/2/2016
Chief Executive Officer and		302,580		—		2.01	7/1/2018
Chief Financial Officer(1)		344,813		—		2.21	1/2/2019
		70,342		—		2.21	1/2/2019
		418,951		—		2.18	3/25/2020
		142,443		—		2.18	3/25/2020
		378,981		—		1.42	1/7/2021
		757,962		—		1.42	1/7/2021

Russell Richerson, PhD		775,000		—		1.50	9/2/2016
Chief Operating Officer		256,790		—		1.83	7/1/2018
		292,927		—		2.01	1/2/2019
		46,576		—		2.01	1/2/2019
		343,137		—		1.98	3/25/2020
		173,181		—		1.98	3/25/2020
		210,508		—		1.29	1/7/2021
		601,451		—		1.29	1/7/2021

(1)

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

Employment Agreements and Change in Control

Craig Dionne

In connection with Dr. Dionne’s employment, we entered into: (i) an employment agreement; (ii) a severance agreement; (iii) a proprietary information, inventions and competition agreement; and (iv) an indemnification agreement.

Employment Agreement

Craig Dionne was employed by the company until March 16, 2016, when he provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. During his employment as our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Dionne had a written employment contract that automatically extended for successive one year terms on September 2, of each year. As compensation for his services during 2015 and 2014, Dr. Dionne received an annual base salary of $381,150, respectively. Such base salary is reviewed yearly with regard to possible increase. In addition, Dr. Dionne was eligible to receive annual discretionary and long term incentive bonuses as determined by the board. For 2014, Dr. Dionne’s target bonus levels for annual discretionary bonus and long term incentive bonuses were: (i) 50%, and (ii) 100%, of base salary, respectively. Notwithstanding, the Board has broad discretion to make awards in excess of executive’s established targets. Commencing in 2014, the annual discretionary bonus was payable in cash and the long term incentive bonus was payable in common stock purchase options. Dr. Dionne was also entitled to receive certain payments and acceleration of outstanding equity awards in the event his employment was terminated. In the event that Dr. Dionne was terminated (not in connection with a change of control) without cause or if he resigned for good reason, he would have been entitled to thirty-six (36) months of salary continuation (payable in monthly installments), thirty-six (36) months of continued medical insurance coverage for Dr. Dionne and his family at a cost no less favorable than the premium co-pay charged to active employees, the acceleration of outstanding equity awards and any accrued obligations. In the event that Dr. Dionne was terminated as a result of his disability, he would have be entitled to twelve (12) months of salary continuation plus any accrued obligations. Any termination payments that may have become due to Dr. Dionne are contingent upon his execution of a timely separation agreement in a form acceptable to us, which shall include a release of claims against us and his resignation from the board.

Severance Agreement

Craig Dionne was employed until he tendered his notice of termination on March 16, 2016. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we entered into a severance agreement with Dr. Dionne. The severance agreement provided for certain payments, as described below, in the event Dr. Dionne’s employment was terminated in connection with a change in control. In the event that Dr. Dionne is terminated without cause or resigns for good reason within a period of two (2) months before or two (2) years following the consummation of a change of control, the Company would have be required to pay him (i) 100% of his then annual target bonus, pro-rated by the number of calendar days in which he was employed during that particular year, and (ii) a lump sum payment in an amount equal to three (3) times his then annual salary. These payments are subject to Dr. Dionne’s execution of a release of claims against us and shall be made on the tenth business day following the effective date of the release. If any payment under the severance agreement, when combined with any other payment, would constitute a “parachute payment” within the meaning of Code Section 280G then such payment shall be either the full amount or such lesser amount that would not result in an excise tax under Code Section 280G, based upon which interpretation yields the greater after-tax amount for Dr. Dionne.

Proprietary Information, Inventions and Competition Agreement

The proprietary information, inventions and competition agreement requires Dr. Dionne to maintain the confidentiality of the Company’s intellectual property as well as the assignment of any inventions made by Dr. Dionne during his employment. The agreement also limits Dr. Dionne’s ability to compete within certain fields of interest, as defined in the agreement, for a period of 18 months following the end of his employment.

Indemnification Agreement

The indemnification agreement provides for the indemnification and defense of Dr. Dionne, in the event of litigation, to the fullest extent permitted by law. The Company has also adopted the form of indemnification agreement for use with its other executive officers, employees and directors.

The foregoing summaries of Dr. Dionne’s: (i) employment agreement; (ii) severance agreement; (iii) proprietary information, inventions and competition agreement; and (iv) indemnification agreement are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of the agreements which have been filed with the SEC as exhibits to our public filings.

Russell Richerson

In connection with Dr. Richerson’s employment, we have entered into: (i) an employment agreement; (ii) a proprietary information, inventions and competition agreement; and (iii) an indemnification agreement.

Employment Agreement

We employ Russell Richerson as our Chief Operating Officer pursuant to a written contract that automatically extended for successive one year term on September 2, of each year. Such base salary is reviewed yearly with regard to possible increase. In addition, Dr. Richerson is eligible to receive annual discretionary and long term incentive bonuses as determined by the board. In connection with our board of directors and Leadership Development and Compensation Committee’s review of Dr. Richerson’s compensation in June of 2014, his target bonus levels for annual discretionary bonus and long term incentive bonuses were adjusted to: (i) 40% and (ii) 100%, of base salary, for 2014. Commencing in 2014, the annual discretionary bonus is payable in cash and the long term incentive bonus is payable in common stock purchase options. Dr. Richerson is also entitled to receive certain payments and acceleration of outstanding equity awards in the event his employment is terminated. In the event that Dr. Richerson is terminated without cause or if he resigns for good reason, he will be entitled to eighteen (18) months of salary continuation (payable in monthly installments), eighteen (18) months of continued medical insurance coverage for Dr. Richerson and his family at a cost no less favorable than the premium co-pay charged to active employees, the acceleration of outstanding equity awards and any accrued obligations. In the event that Dr. Richerson is terminated as a result of his disability, he will be entitled to twelve (12) months of salary continuation plus any accrued obligations. Any termination payments that may become due to Dr. Richerson are contingent upon his execution of a timely separation agreement in a form acceptable to us, which shall include a release of claims against us and his resignation from the board, if applicable.

Proprietary Information, Inventions and Competition Agreement

The proprietary information, inventions and competition agreement requires Dr. Richerson to maintain the confidentiality of the Company’s intellectual property as well as the assignment of any inventions made by Dr. Richerson during his employment. The agreement also limits Dr. Richerson’s ability to compete within certain fields of interest, as defined in the agreement, for a period of 18 months following end of his employment.

Indemnification Agreement

The indemnification agreement provides for the indemnification and defense of Dr. Richerson, in the event of litigation, to the fullest extent permitted by law.

The foregoing summaries of Mr. Richerson’s: (i) employment agreement; (ii) proprietary information, inventions and competition agreement; and (iv) indemnification agreement are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of the agreements which have been filed with the SEC as exhibits to our public filings.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change- in-Control

The following table sets forth the payments that would be made to our named executive officers if his employment in accordance with his employment agreement had been terminated by us without cause, termination as a result of disability on December 31, 2015 or in the event a change in control of our Company occurred on December 31, 2015, as applicable. On March 16, 2016, Dr. Dionne provided us his notice of termination as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The notice claims that such termination was for “Good Cause.” Additionally, Dr. Dionne resigned from the Company’s board of directors and as chairman on March 21, 2016. The Company currently disputes Dr. Dionne’s claim that the termination was for “Good Reason” as provided for in his employment agreement.

Name	Terminated without cause		Terminated, change of control		Termination as a result of Disability
Craig Dionne, PhD
Salary	$	1,143,450	$	1,143,450	$	381,150
Bonus (1)		571,725		571,725		—
Health		83,100		83,100		—
Total:	$	1,798,275	$	1,798,275	$	381,150

Russell Richerson, PhD
Salary		487,027	$	—	$	324,685
Bonus (1)		454,559		—		—
Health		29,100		—		—
Total:	$	970,686	$	—	$	324,685

(1)

Assumes all annual bonus milestones have been attained prior to termination.

Director Compensation

Name	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)		Stock Awards ($)		Option Awards ($)			Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)		Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($)		All Other Compensation ($)		Total ($)
Peter E. Grebow, PhD		40,002		—		13,680	(1)		—		—		—		53,682

Bo Jesper Hansen		40,002		—		16,163	(2)		—		—		—		56,165

Scott Ogilvie		40,002		—		18,435	(3)		—		—		—		58,437

(1)

Represents an option to purchase 53,000 common shares with a fair market value on May 26, 2015, the grant date, of $0.258 per share. The option vests quarterly over a one-year period.

(2)

Represents an option to purchase 53,000 common shares with a fair market value on August 13, 2015, the grant date, of $0.305 per share. The option vests quarterly over a one-year period.

(3)

Represents an option to purchase 53,000 common shares with a fair market value on March 2, 2015, the grant date, of $0.348 per share. The option vests quarterly over a one-year period.

Director Compensation Plan

Our non-employee directors are entitled to the following compensation for service on our Board:

Inducement/First Year Grant. Upon joining the board, board members receive options to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock. The options vest as follows: (i) 25,000 immediately upon appointment to the board; and (ii) 25,000 quarterly over the following 12 months.

Annual Grant. Subject to the shareholder’s rights to elect any individual director, starting on the first year anniversary of service, and each subsequent anniversary thereafter, each eligible director will be granted options to purchase 40,000 shares of common stock or restricted stock units of equivalent value. The annual grants vest quarterly during the grant year.

Committee and Committee Chairperson Grant. Each director will receive options to purchase an additional 4,000 shares of common stock, or restricted stock units of equivalent value, for each committee on which he or she serves. Chairpersons of each committee will receive options to purchase an additional 1,000 share of common stock, or restricted stock units of equivalent value. The committee grants vest quarterly during the grant year.

Special Committee Grants. From time to time, individual directors may be requested by the board of directors to provide extraordinary services. These services may include such items as the negotiation of key contracts, assistance with scientific issues, or such other items as the board deems necessary and in the best interest of our company and our shareholders. In such instances, the board shall have the flexibility to issue special committee grants. The amount of such grants and terms will vary commensurate with the function and tasks of the special committee.

Exercise Price and Term. All options issued pursuant to the amended non-executive board compensation policy will have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock at close of market on the grant date. The term of the options shall be for a period of 5 years from the grant date.

The determination with regard to whether awards will be made in options or restricted stock units will be at the sole discretion of the director.

Cash Compensation. Directors will also receive cash compensation equal to: (i) an annual cash retainer of $30,000, and (ii) a per committee cash award of $3,334.

ITEM 12.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans

Information regarding shares authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans approved and not approved by stockholders required by this Item are incorporated by reference from Item 5 of this Annual Report from the section entitled “Equity Compensation Plan Information.”

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

The following table sets forth, as of March 18, 2016, information regarding beneficial ownership of our capital stock by:

each person, or group of affiliated persons, known by us to be the beneficial owner of 5% or more of any class of our voting securities;

each of our current directors and nominees;

each of our current named executive officers; and

all current directors and named executive officers as a group.

Beneficial ownership is determined according to the rules of the SEC. Beneficial ownership means that a person has or shares voting or investment power of a security and includes any securities that person or group has the right to acquire within 60 days after the measurement date. This table is based on information supplied by officers, directors and principal stockholders. Except as otherwise indicated, we believe that each of the beneficial owners of the common stock listed below, based on the information such beneficial owner has given to us, has sole investment and voting power with respect to such beneficial owner’s shares, except where community property laws may apply.

				Common Stock
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner(1)	Shares			Shares Underlying Convertible Securities (2)		Total		Percent of Class (2)
Directors and named Executive Officers
Craig Dionne, PhD(9)		2,227,249	(3)		3,416,072		5,643,321		12.5	%
Russell B. Richerson, PhD		942,392			2,699,570		3,641,962		8.2	%
Bo Jesper Hansen, MD, PhD		—			193,500		193,500		*
Scott Ogilvie		—			298,000		298,000		*
Peter E. Grebow, PhD		—			193,750		193,750		*

All directors and executive officers as a group (5 persons)		3,169,641			6,800,892		9,970,533		20.5	%

Beneficial Owners of 5% or more
Kihong Kwon, MD(4)		2,456,567			-		2,456,567		5.9	%
Alpha Capital Anstalt (5)(8)		1,788,166			337,099		2,125,265		5.0	%
Sabby Healthcare Master Fund, Ltd. (6)(8)		2,363,629			-		2,363,629		5.7	%
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. (7)(8)		1,640,731			484,534		2,125,265		5.0	%

Less than one percent.

(1)

Except as otherwise indicated, the persons named in this table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to community property laws where applicable and to the information contained in the footnotes to this table. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of the beneficial owner is GenSpera, Inc., 2511 N Loop 1604 W, Suite 204, San Antonio, TX 78258.

(2)

Pursuant to Rules 13d-3 and 13d-5 of the Exchange Act, beneficial ownership includes any shares as to which a shareholder has sole or shared voting power or investment power, and also any shares which the shareholder has the right to acquire within 60 days, including upon exercise of common shares purchase options or warrants. There were 41,762,356 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of March 18, 2016.

(3)

Includes 18,002 shares owned by Craig A. Dionne & Bonnie Camille Dionne TTEES The Dionne Annuity Trust of 2011, 981,998 shares owned by Craig A. Dionne & Bonnie Camille Dionne JTWROS, and 500,000 shares owned by Craig A. Dionne 2015 GRAT #2, where Dr. Dionne is trustee and beneficiary.

(4)

Does not include 1,804,455 warrants or convertible securities subject to exercise conditions based on percentage ownership.

(5)

Does not include 10,325,848 warrants or preferred stock convertible into common stock securities subject to exercise conditions based on percentage ownership.

(6)

Does not include 17,388,356 warrants or preferred stock convertible into common stock subject to exercise conditions based on percentage ownership.

(7)

Does not include 12,764,754 warrants or preferred stock convertible into common stock subject to exercise conditions based on percentage ownership.

(8)

Share ownership and percentage calculations made pursuant to disclosure made to the Company by reporting person on or about January 1, 2016.

(9)

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Dionne provided the Company notice of termination as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Pursuant to the terms of the Company’s equity compensation plans, any unvested options shall terminate one (1) month from the date of Dr. Dionne’s termination and any vested options will terminate three (3) months from the date of Dr. Dionne’s termination. All shares underlying such options will revert back to the respective equity compensation plans from which they were granted and be available for future grants.

ITEM 13.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Information regarding disclosure of an employment relationship or transaction involving an executive officer and any related compensation solely resulting from that employment relationship or transaction is incorporated by reference from the section of this annual report entitled “Executive Compensation.”

Information regarding disclosure of compensation to a director is incorporated by reference from the section of this annual report entitled “Independent Directors.”

Related Party Transactions

On January 7, 2014, we granted each of Drs. Isaacs and Denmeade, in their respective capacities as our Scientific Advisors, common stock purchase options to purchase 20,000 shares, as compensation for serving on the Company’s scientific advisory board. The options have an exercise price of $1.29 per share. The options vest quarterly beginning on March 31, 2014 and lapse if unexercised on January 7, 2019.

On January 8, 2014, we issued Dr. Dionne, our former CEO, options to purchase an aggregate of 1,136,943 in connection with his 2013 long term and annual bonus. The options have a term of seven years, an exercise price of $1.42 and are fully vested on the grant date.

On January 8, 2014, we issued Dr. Richerson, or COO, options to purchase an aggregate of 811,959 in connection with his 2013 long term and annual bonus. The options have a term of seven years, an exercise price of $1.29 and are fully vested on the grant date.

On March 1, 2014, we granted Scott V. Ogilvie, one of our outside directors, options to purchase 38,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our legacy director compensation plan as compensation for Mr. Ogilvie’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $1.36 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

On May 24, 2014, we granted Peter E. Grebow, PhD, one of our outside directors, options to purchase 38,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our legacy director compensation plan as compensation for Dr. Grebow’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $1.20 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

In June of 2014, our Leadership Development and Compensation Committee recommended, and our board of directors approved, an amendment to non-executive director compensation policy. The amendment was made effective January 1, 2014. For a further discussion of the amended plan, see the section of this report entitled “Director Compensation.”

On June 27, 2014, we granted Scott V. Ogilvie, one of our outside directors, options to purchase 15,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our amended director compensation plan as compensation for Mr. Ogilvie’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $0.94 per share. The options have a term of five years, and 3,750 shares are fully vested on the grant date, with the balance vesting quarterly over the year.

On June 27, 2014, we granted Peter E. Grebow, PhD, one of our outside directors, options to purchase 15,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our amended director compensation plan as compensation for Dr. Grebow’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $0.94 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

On August 13, 2014, we granted Bo Jesper Hansen, M.D., one of our outside directors, options to purchase 53,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our amended director compensation plan as compensation for Dr. Hansen’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $0.70 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

On January 30, 2015, we granted each of Drs. Isaacs and Denmeade, in their respective capacities as our Scientific Advisors, common stock purchase options to purchase 20,000 shares, as compensation for serving on the Company’s scientific advisory board. The options have an exercise price of $0.87 per share. The options vest quarterly beginning on March 31, 2015 and lapse if unexercised on January 30, 2020.

On March 2, 2015 we granted Scott V. Ogilvie, one of our outside directors, options to purchase 53,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our legacy director compensation plan as compensation for Mr. Ogilvie’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $0.95 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

On May 26, 2015, we granted Peter E. Grebow, PhD, one of our outside directors, options to purchase 53,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our amended director compensation plan as compensation for Dr. Grebow’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $0.65 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

On July 5, 2015, we entered into securities purchase agreements with certain institutional accredited investors. One such investor, Alpha Capital Anstalt was determined to be a related party by virtue of its greater than 5% ownership of the Company’s securities. Alpha Capital Anstalt purchased $425,000 worth of our securities at a price per unit of $0.70 with each unit consisting of (i) one share of the Company’s common stock (ii) one Series D common stock purchase warrant and (iii) one Series E common stock purchase warrant. The Series D and Series E warrants both have exercise prices of $0.70 per share. The Series D warrants have a term of five years and the Series E warrants have a term of eighteen months.

On August 13, 2015, we granted Bo Jesper Hansen, M.D., one of our outside directors, options to purchase 53,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our amended director compensation plan as compensation for Dr. Hansen’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $0.75 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

In November 2015, Dr. Dionne, our former chief executive officer, converted three promissory notes with an aggregate balance of $105,000 into 262,500 shares of common stock. Dr. Dionne waived all interest under the notes in exchange for a reduction from the conversion price of $0.50 per share to $0.40 per share.

In December 2015, we entered into securities purchase agreements with certain institutional accredited investors who are also the Selling Shareholders. Each of the investors was determined to be a related party by virtue of their greater than 5% ownership of the Company’s securities. The investors purchased and exercised an aggregate of $2,492,500 worth of our securities at a price per share of Series A 0% Convertible Preferred Stock of $1,000. The investors additionally received (i) 1,853 shares of Series A 0% Convertible Preferred Stock convertible into 12,354,167 common shares at a conversion price of $0.15 per share, subject to adjustment, (ii) 6,177,084 Series F common stock purchase warrants with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of five years from the date in which the shares underlying the warrants are registered, (ii) 6,177,084 Series G common stock purchase warrants with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of eighteen months from the date in which the shares underlying the warrants are registered, (iii) 3,571,430 Series H common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant to a contractually obligated exercise of prior outstanding warrants, with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of five years from the issuance date, and (iv) 3,571,430 Series I common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant to a contractually obligated exercise of prior outstanding warrants, with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of eighteen months from the issuance date.

On January 11, 2016, we granted each of Drs. Isaacs and Denmeade, in their respective capacities as our Scientific Advisors, common stock purchase options to purchase 40,000 shares, as compensation for serving on the Company’s scientific advisory board. The options have an exercise price of $0.16 per share. The options vest quarterly beginning on March 31, 2016 and lapse if unexercised on January 11, 2021.

On March 1, 2016 we granted Scott V. Ogilvie, one of our outside directors, options to purchase 53,000 shares of common stock. The options were granted pursuant to our amended director compensation plan as compensation for Mr. Ogilvie’s service on our board and related committees. The options have an exercise price of $0.14 per share. The options vest quarterly over the year and have a term of five years.

ITEM 14.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

The following table summarizes the approximate aggregate fees billed to us or expected to be billed to us by our independent auditors for our 2015 and 2014 fiscal years:

Type of Fees	2015		2014

Audit Fees
Liggett & Webb, P.A.	$	50,000	$	50,000
Audit Related Fees
Liggett & Webb, P.A.		3,500		7,000
RBSM, LLP		5,000		20,000
Tax Fees		4,500		4,500
All Other Fees		‒		‒
Total Fees	$	63,000	$	81,500

Pre-Approval of Independent Auditor Services and Fees

Our board of directors reviewed and pre-approved all audit and non-audit fees for services provided by independent registered accounting firm and has determined that the provision of such services to us during fiscal 2015 is compatible with and did not impair independence. It is the practice of the audit committee to consider and approve in advance all auditing and non-auditing services provided to us by our independent auditors in accordance with the applicable requirements of the SEC. Neither of the firms which we engaged during 2015 provided any services, other than those listed above.

PART IV

ITEM 15.

EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

Financial Statements: See “Index to Financial Statements” in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Exhibits: The exhibits listed in the accompanying index to exhibits are filed or incorporated by reference as part of this Form 10-K.

Certain of the agreements filed as exhibits to this Form 10-K contain representations and warranties by the parties to the agreements that have been made solely for the benefit of the parties to the agreement. These representations and warranties:

may have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other parties in connection with the negotiation of the agreements, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreements;

may apply standards of materiality that differ from those of a reasonable investor;

and were made only as of specified dates contained in the agreements and are subject to later developments.

Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time, and investors should not rely on them as statements of fact.

SIGNATURES

In accordance with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has caused this report to be signed by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

	GENSPERA, INC.

Date: March 30, 2016	/s/ Russell Richerson
	Interim Chief Executive 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 following capacities and on the dates indicated.

Name	Title	Date

/s/ Russell Richerson	Interim Principal Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer	March 30, 2016
Russell Richerson	(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

/s/ Peter E. Grebow, PhD	Director	March 30, 2016
Peter E. Grebow, PhD

/s/ Bo Jesper Hansen MD PhD	Director	March 30, 2016
Bo Jesper Hansen MD PhD

/s/ Scott Ogilvie	Director	March 30, 2016
Scott Ogilvie

Supplemental Information to be Furnished With Reports Filed Pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act by Registrants which have Not Registered Securities Pursuant to Section 12 of the Act.

GENSPERA, INC.

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


		Page

Report of Liggett & Webb, P.A., Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		F‒1

Balance Sheets		F‒2

Statements of Losses		F‒3

Statements of Stockholders’ (Deficit) Equity		F‒4

Statements of Cash Flows		F‒5

Notes to Financial Statements		F‒6

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

GenSpera, Inc.

San Antonio, TX

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of GenSpera, Inc. as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related statements of losses, statement of stockholders' (deficit) equity, and cash flows for each of the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based upon our audits

We conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States of America). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatements. 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 includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of GenSpera, Inc. at December 31, 2015 and 2014 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $45.4 million as of December 31, 2015, and will require additional cash to fund and continue operations, which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans concerning these matters are also described in Note 2. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

	/s/ Liggett & Webb, P.A.
	Liggett & Webb, P.A.

March 30, 2016

New York, New York

F-1

GENSPERA, INC.

BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share and per share data)

	December 31,
	2015			2014
ASSETS

Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	2,465		$	2,316
Prepaid expenses		114			197
Total current assets		2,579			2,513
Office equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $27 and $23		12			12
Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization of $128 and $111		84			101
Other assets		3			3
Total assets	$	2,678		$	2,629

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ (DEFICIT) EQUITY

Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	977		$	989
Accrued expenses		2,432			1,438
Derivative liability		1,177			—
Convertible notes – stockholder		—			105
Total current liabilities		4,586			2,532
Total liabilities		4,586			2,532

Commitments and contingencies (Note 9)

Stockholders' (deficit) equity:
Convertible preferred stock, par value $.0001 per share; 30,000,000 shares authorized, 1,853 and no shares issued and outstanding, respectively		—			—
Common stock, par value $.0001 per share; 150,000,000 shares authorized, 41,762,356 and 33,181,197 shares issued and outstanding, respectively		4			3
Additional paid-in capital		43,353			39,473
Accumulated deficit		(45,265	)		(39,379	)

Total stockholders' (deficit) equity		(1,908	)		97

Total liabilities and stockholders' (deficit) equity	$	2,678		$	2,629

See accompanying notes to audited financial statements.

F-2

GENSPERA, INC.

STATEMENTS OF LOSSES

(in thousands, except share and per share data)

	Years Ended December 31,
	2015			2014

Operating expenses:
Research and development	$	2,303		$	3,691
General and administrative		3,764			3,307
Total operating expenses		6,067			6,998

Loss from operations		(6,067	)		(6,998	)

Other income (expense):
Gain on change in fair value of derivative liability		181			—
Interest income (expense), net		—			4

Loss before provision for income taxes		(5,886	)		(6,994	)

Provision for income taxes		—			—

Net loss	$	(5,886	)	$	(6,994	)

Net loss per common share, basic and diluted	$	(0.17	)	$	(0.23	)

Weighted average shares outstanding		35,378,329			30,413,042

See accompanying notes to audited financial statements.

F-3

GENSPERA, INC.

STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (DEFICIT)

(in thousands, except share and per share data)

												Accumulated
	Convertible								Additional			During the			Stockholders'
	Preferred Stock				Common Stock				Paid-in			Development			Equity
	Shares		Amount		Shares		Amount		Capital			Stage			(Deficit)

Balance, December 31, 2013		—	$	—		27,252,966		3	$	33,642		$	(32,385	)	$	1,260

Stock-based compensation		—		—		—		—		1,319			—			1,319

Common stock and warrants issued as payment of services and consulting fees		—		—		798,020		—		735			—			735

Sale of common stock and warrants at $0.80 per share (Registered Offering)		—		—		4,163,961		—		3,331			—			3,331

Sale of common stock and warrants at $0.80 per share (Private Placement)		—		—		966,250		—		773			—			773

Issuance cost of sales of common stock and warrants		—		—		—		—		(327	)		—			(327	)

Net loss		—		—		—		—		—			(6,994	)		(6,994	)

Balance, December 31, 2014		—	$	—		33,181,197	$	3	$	39,473		$	(39,379	)	$	97

Stock-based compensation		—		—		—		—		138			—			138

Common stock and warrants issued as payment of services and consulting fees		—		—		127,712		—		175			—			175

Common stock issued upon conversion of note payable		—		—		262,500		—		139			—			139

Sale of common stock and warrants at $0.70 per share		—		—		3,591,278		—		2,514			—			2,514

Exercise of warrants		—		—		4,599,669		1		925			—			926

Sale of preferred stock and warrants at $0.15 per share		1,853		—		—		—		1,853			—			1,853

Issuance cost of sales of common stock and warrants		—		—		—		—		(506	)		—			(506	)

Derivative liability		—		—		—		—		(1,358	)		—			(1,358	)

Net loss		—		—		—		—		—			(5,886	)		(5,886	)

Balance, December 31, 2015		1,853	$	—		41,762,356	$	4	$	43,353		$	(45,265	)	$	(1,908	)

See accompanying notes to audited financial statements.

F-4

GENSPERA, INC.

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands, except share and per share data)

	December 31,
	2015			2014
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$	(5,886	)	$	(6,994	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		21			23
Stock-based compensation		313			2,054
Gain on change in fair value of derivative liability		(181	)		—
Increase in operating assets:
Prepaid expenses		83			(34	)
Increase in operating liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses		1,017			(93	)
Cash used in operating activities		(4,633	)		(5,044	)

Cash flows from investing activities:
Acquisition of office equipment		(4	)		(4	)
Cash used in investing activities		(4	)		(4	)

Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from sale of common stock and warrants		4,367			4,104
Proceeds from exercise of warrants		925			—
Cost of common stock and warrants sold		(506	)		(327	)
Cash provided by financing activities		4,786			3,777

Net increase (decrease) in cash		149			(1,271	)
Cash, beginning of period		2,316			3,587

Cash, end of period	$	2,465		$	2,316

See accompanying notes to audited financial statements.

F-5

GENSPERA, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1 — BACKGROUND

GenSpera, Inc. (“we”, “us”, “our company”, “our”, “GenSpera” or the “Company”) was formed under the laws of the State of Delaware in November 2003, and has its principal office in San Antonio, Texas. We are an early-stage, pre-revenue, pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of prodrug cancer therapeutics for the treatment of solid tumors, including liver, brain, prostate and other cancers. We plan to develop a series of therapies based on our target-activated prodrug technology platform.

Our primary focus at the present time is the clinical development of our lead compound, mipsagargin (formerly referred to as G-202), a novel therapeutic agent with a unique mechanism of action. We have completed a Phase Ia/Ib dose escalation, safety, tolerability and dose refinement study of mipsagargin, in which we treated a total of 44 patients (includes Phase Ia and Ib), including two patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), or liver cancer, who experienced prolonged stabilization of disease up to eleven months after initiation of treatment. We have completed a Phase II clinical trial of mipsagargin in patients with liver cancer, in which twenty-five patients were treated. In May 2015, we received a final clinical study report. We consider the study outcome achieved positive results, with 63% of treated patients having stable disease at two (2) months, and with a median time to progression of 4.5 months. These results support our plans to continue the development of mipsagargin for patients with liver cancer, as well as proceed with our clinical development strategy in other indications including glioblastoma and prostate cancer trials. Although the data from our completed trials appear promising, the outcome of our ongoing or future trials may ultimately be unsuccessful.

We are currently conducting a Phase II clinical trial in glioblastoma (a type of brain cancer), in which twenty patients have been treated as of March 11, 2016. We have elected to defer opening enrollment for our Phase II prostate clinical trial with mispsagargin until the second quarter of 2016.

Note 2 — Management’s Plans to Continue as a Going Concern

Basis of Presentation

The opinion of our independent registered accounting firm on our financial statements contains explanatory going concern language. We have prepared our financial statements on the basis that we will continue as a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. Certain information and note disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations, although we believe that the disclosures made are adequate to make the information not misleading. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for fair presentation have been included. As of December 31, 2015, we have incurred losses since inception and have a deficit accumulated of $45.3 million. We anticipate incurring additional losses for the foreseeable future until such time, if ever, that we can generate significant sales from our product candidates currently in development or we enter into cash flow positive business development transactions.

To date, we have generated no sales or revenues, have incurred significant losses and expect to incur significant additional losses as we advance mipsagargin through clinical studies. Consequently, our operations are subject to all the risks inherent in the establishment of a pre-revenue business enterprise as well as those risks associated with a company engaged in the research and development of pharmaceutical compounds.

Our cash and cash equivalents balance at December 31, 2015 was $2.5 million, representing 92% of our total assets. Based upon our current expected level of operating expenditures, we expect to be able to fund our operations for the next six to nine months. We will require additional cash to fund and continue our operations beyond that point. This period could be shortened if there are any unanticipated increases in planned spending on development programs or other unforeseen events. We anticipate raising additional funds through collaborative arrangements, public or private sales of debt or equity securities, or some combination thereof. There is no assurance that any such collaborative arrangement will be entered into or that financing will be available when needed in order to allow us to continue our operations, or if available, on terms acceptable to us.

In the event financing is not obtained, we may pursue cost cutting measures as well as explore the sale of selected assets to generate additional funds. If we are required to significantly reduce operating expenses and delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate any of our development programs or clinical trials, these events could have a material adverse effect on: our business, results of operations, and financial condition. These factors raise significant doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or the amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern.

F-6

NOTE 3 — Summary of Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying disclosures. Significant estimates include the fair value of derivative instruments, stock-based compensation, recognition of clinical trial costs and other accrued liabilities. Actual results may differ from those estimates.

Research and Development

Research and development costs are charged to expense as incurred. Our research and development expenses consist primarily of expenditures for toxicology and other studies, manufacturing, clinical trials, compensation and consulting costs.

We incurred research and development expenses of $2.3 and $3.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Cash Equivalents

For purposes of the statements of cash flows, we consider all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with a maturity date of three months or less to be cash equivalents. We maintain our cash in bank deposit accounts which, at times, may exceed applicable government mandate insurance limits. We have not experienced any losses in our accounts.

Concentrations of Credit Risk

Financial instruments and related items, which potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk, consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents. The Company places its cash and temporary cash investments with credit quality institutions. At times, such investments may exceed applicable government mandated insurance limits. Cash and cash equivalents were $2.5 million and $2.3 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, there was approximately $2.1 million and $1.9 million in cash over the federally insured limit, respectively.

We currently outsource all manufacturing of our clinical supplies to single source manufactures. We also have a single source supplier for the active ingredient in our prodrug compounds, including mipsagargin. A change in these suppliers could cause a delay in manufacturing and/or clinical trials, which would adversely affect our Company.

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets consist of licensed technology, patents, and patent applications (see Note 5). The assets associated with licensed technology are recorded at cost and are being amortized on the straight line basis over their estimated useful lives of twelve to seventeen years.

Office Equipment

Office equipment is stated at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is calculated on the straight line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets of three to five years. Expenditures for repair and maintenance which do not materially extend the useful lives of property and equipment are charged to expense. When property or equipment is sold or otherwise disposed of, the cost and related accumulated depreciation are removed from the respective accounts with the resulting gain or loss reflected in operations. Management periodically reviews the carrying value of its office equipment for impairment.

Depreciation expense was approximately $4,000 and $7,000 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Loss per Share

Basic loss per share is calculated by dividing net loss and net loss attributable to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Basic and diluted loss per share are the same, in that any potential common stock equivalents would have the effect of being anti-dilutive in the computation of net loss per share.

F-7

The following potentially dilutive securities have been excluded from the computations of weighted average shares outstanding as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, as they would be anti-dilutive:

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015		2014
Shares underlying options outstanding		8,764,195		8,685,095
Shares underlying warrants outstanding		42,277,445		19,897,928
Shares underlying convertible preferred stock outstanding		12,354,167		—
Shares underlying convertible notes outstanding		—		270,339
		63,395,807		28,853,362

Derivative Liability

The Company has financial instruments that are considered derivatives or contain embedded features subject to derivative accounting. Embedded derivatives are valued separately from the host instrument and are recognized as derivative liabilities in the Company’s balance sheet. The Company measures these instruments at their estimated fair value and recognizes changes in their estimated fair value in results of operations during the period of change. Based upon ASC 840-15-25 (EITF Issue 00-19, paragraph 11) the Company has adopted a sequencing approach regarding the application of ASC 815-40 to its outstanding preferred stock. Pursuant to the sequencing approach, the Company evaluates its contracts based upon earliest issuance date wherein instruments with the earliest issuance date would be settled first. The sequencing policy also considers contingently issuable additional shares, such as those issuable upon a stock split, to have an issuance date to coincide with the event giving rise to the additional shares. Using this sequencing policy, all instruments convertible into common stock, including warrants and the conversion feature of notes payable, issued subsequent to December 25, 2015 are derivative liabilities. The Company values these derivative liabilities using the Black-Scholes option valuation model. The resulting liability is valued at each reporting date and the change in the liability is reflected as change in derivative liability in the statement of operations.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Our short-term financial instruments, including cash, accounts payable and other liabilities, consist primarily of instruments with maturities of three months or less when acquired. We believe that the fair values of our current assets and current liabilities approximate their reported carrying amounts.

The derivative liability consists of our convertible preferred stock with anti-dilution provisions, and related warrants. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to value its derivative liability which incorporate the Company’s stock price, volatility, U.S. risk-free interest rate, dividend rate, and estimated life.

Fair Value Measurements

The U.S. GAAP Valuation Hierarchy establishes a valuation hierarchy for disclosure of the inputs to valuation used to measure fair value. This hierarchy prioritizes the inputs into three broad levels as follows. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets or inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly through market corroboration, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs based on our own assumptions used to measure assets and liabilities at fair value. A financial asset or liability’s classification within the hierarchy is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

The Company has recorded a derivative liability for convertible preferred stock with anti-dilution provisions, and related warrants, as of December 31, 2015. The table below summarizes the fair values of our financial liabilities as of December 31, 2015 (in thousands):

	Fair Value at December 31,		Fair Value Measurement Using
	2015		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3

Derivative liability	$	1,177	$	—	$	—	$	1,177

The reconciliation of the derivative liability measured at fair value on a recurring basis using unobservable inputs (Level 3) is as follows (in thousands):

	2015
Balance at beginning of year	$	—
Additions to derivative instruments		1,358
Loss (gain) on change in fair value of derivative liability		(181	)
Balance at end of year	$	1,177

F-8

Income Taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in operations in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance is provided when it is more likely than not that some portion or all of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income and the reversal of deferred tax liabilities during the period in which the related temporary difference becomes deductible.

Stock-Based Compensation

We measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for equity awards based on the grant-date fair value of the awards. All awards under our stock-based compensation programs are accounted for at fair value and that cost is recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award (the vesting period).

Compensation expense for options granted to non-employees is determined in accordance with the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instruments issued, whichever is a more reliable measurement. Compensation expense for awards granted to non-employees is re-measured on each accounting period.

Determining the appropriate fair value of stock-based compensation requires the input of subjective assumptions, including the expected life of the stock-based compensation and the volatility of our stock price. We use the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to value our stock option awards which incorporates our stock price, volatility, U.S. risk-free interest rate, dividend rate, and estimated life.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In August 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update “ASU” 2014-15 on “Presentation of Financial Statements Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40) – Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern”. This update provides guidance 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. The amendments require 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. The amendments contained in this update are effective for public and nonpublic entities for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016. We are currently assessing the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-15, and we have not yet determined the effect of the standard on our ongoing financial reporting.

F-9

NOTE 4 – SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION

The following table contains additional information for the periods reported (in thousands).

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015		2014
Non-cash financial activities:
Common stock options issued as payment of accrued compensation	$	—	$	962
Common stock and warrants issued for consulting fees		175		735
Common stock issued on conversion of notes payable		139		—

There was no cash paid for interest and income taxes for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

NOTE 5 – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

We solely own or have exclusive licenses to all of our patents and patent applications. Between 2008 and 2011, we entered into license and assignment agreements with Johns Hopkins University (JHU), the University of Copenhagen (UC) and certain co-inventors (Assignee Co-Founders), in which we paid $212,000 in cash and common stock. As a result of these payments and pursuant to the agreements, we acquired worldwide, exclusive, fully paid up rights in know-how, pre-clinical data, development data and certain patent portfolios that relate to, and form the basis of, our technology. Under these agreements, we are not required to make any other future payments, including fees or other reimbursements, milestones, or royalties, to JHU, UC, or the Assignee Co-Founders.

Amortization expense recorded during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 was approximately $17,000 for both years. Amortization expense is estimated to be approximately $17,000 for each one of the next five fiscal years.

NOTE 6 – ACCRUED EXPENSES

Accrued expenses consist of the following (in thousands):

	December 31,
	2015		2014

Accrued compensation and benefits	$	2,134	$	1,108
Accrued research and development		152		163
Accrued other		146		167
Total accrued expenses	$	2,432	$	1,438

NOTE 7 — CONVERTIBLE NOTES PAYABLE

We issued convertible notes to our former chief executive officer pursuant to which we borrowed an aggregate of $0.2 million, with an interest rate of 4.2%, and maturities at various dates through December 6, 2011. The notes and accrued interest were convertible, at the option of the holder, into shares of our common stock at a conversion price of $0.50 per share.

In October 2015, the board of directors approved amending the conversion price of the convertible notes from a price of $0.50 per share to $0.40 per share, in exchange for our chief executive officer waiving approximately $33,000 of outstanding accrued interest. Accordingly, our chief executive elected to convert the outstanding notes into 262,500 shares of common stock. Accrued interest at December 31, 2014 was approximately $30,000.

NOTE 8 — DERIVATIVE LIABILITY

We account for equity-linked financial instruments, such as our convertible preferred stock, and our common stock warrants as either equity instruments or derivative liabilities depending on the specific terms of the respective agreement. Equity-linked financial instruments are accounted for as derivative liabilities, in accordance with ASC Topic 815 – Derivatives and Hedging, if the instrument allows for cash settlement or provide for modification of the exercise price in the event subsequent sales of common stock are at a lower price per share than the then-current warrant exercise price. Additionally, financial instruments are classified as derivative liabilities if, as a result of the anti-dilution protection, there is no limit on the number of shares that may be subsequently issued and we conclude there are not adequate authorized shares available to provide for subsequent issuances. We classify derivative liabilities on the balance sheet at fair value, and changes in fair value during the periods presented in the statement of operations, which is revalued at each balance sheet date subsequent to the initial issuance of the stock warrant.

In December 2015, we issued shares of convertible preferred stock which contain anti-dilution protection for subsequent equity sales for a period of 18 months, and related warrants. As a result, the Company assessed its outstanding equity-linked financial instruments and concluded that this series of preferred stock, and related warrants, is subject to derivative accounting. The fair value of these shares are classified as a liability in the financial statements, with the change in fair value during the periods presented recorded in the statement of operations.

F-10

During the year ended December 31, 2015, we recorded a gain of $0.2 million related to the change in fair value of the derivative liability during the period. For purpose of determining the fair market value of the derivative liability, the Company used Black Scholes option valuation model. The significant assumptions used in the Black Scholes valuation of the derivative are as follows:

		2015
Volatility		84%-85%
Expected term (years)		18 months
Risk-free interest rate		0.75%
Dividend yield		None

As of December 31, 2015, the derivative liability recognized in the financial statements as of December 31, 2015 was approximately $1.2 million.

NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

The Company leases its corporate offices under an operating lease that expires on October 14, 2018. Rent expense for office space amounted to approximately $57,000 and $56,000 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The following table summarizes future minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2015 (in thousands):

2016	$	58
2017		60
2018		48
Thereafter		—
Total minimum lease payments	$	166

Employment Agreements

We employed our Chief Executive Officer and employ our Chief Operating Officer (who is also our principal executive and accounting officer) pursuant to written employment agreements. On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (See Legal Matters below). The employment agreements contain severance provisions and indemnification clauses. The indemnification agreement provides for the indemnification and defense of the executive officers, in the event of litigation, to the fullest extent permitted by law. As part of the agreements, the executives potentially shall be entitled to the following (in thousands):

	Chief Executive Officer		Chief Operating Officer
Terminated without cause	$	1,798	$	971
Terminated, change of control without good reason		1,798		—
Terminated for cause, death, disability and by executive without good reason		381		325

Legal Matters

F-11

NOTE 10 — CAPITAL STOCK AND STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY

Preferred Stock

In December 2015, we issued 1,853 shares of our Series A 0% Convertible Preferred Stock, with a stated value of $1,000 per share and the common shares are issuable pursuant to conversion of the preferred stock at a conversion price of $0.15 per share, subject to a 9.99% beneficial ownership limitation and subject to adjustment pursuant to stock splits and dividends, and subject to adjustment pursuant to customary anti-dilution protection for subsequent equity sales for a period of 18 months from the effective date of this registration statement. See “December 2015 Offering” below for further discussion.

Common Stock

In September 2015, the board of directors approved amending the Company’s certificate of incorporation to effect a reverse stock split, subject to shareholder approval, of the Company’s issued and outstanding common stock at a ratio of not less than one-for-two (1 for 2), and not more than one-for thirty (1 for 30). Accordingly, the company was given the authority to take the action necessary to obtain shareholder approval at the shareholder meeting scheduled to be held on November 13, 2015. At the meeting, the shareholders approved the amendment. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had not determined the degree, if any, of a potential stock split.

In July 2015, we granted an aggregate of 125,000 shares of common stock, valued at approximately $95,000, to a consultant for business advisory services to be provided to the Company. In March 2015, we granted an aggregate of 30,000 shares of common stock, valued at approximately $27,000, to a consultant for business advisory services to be provided to the Company. In August 2015, we cancelled and retired an aggregate of 27,288 shares of common stock, with a value of approximately $25,000, upon the termination of an agreement for business advisory services.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, 337,169 warrants were exercised into an equivalent number of common shares for which we received approximately $287,000 in proceeds. During the year ended December 31, 2014, no warrants were exercised into common shares.

Equity Financing

December 2015 Offering

In December 2015, we offered and sold 1,853 shares of our Series A 0% Convertible Preferred Stock and 19,497,028 common stock purchase warrants to certain accredited investors with whom we had a prior relationship or who were shareholders. From this sale and the exercise of 4,599,669 outstanding warrants, we received gross proceeds of approximately $2.5 million. The warrants include (i) 6,177,084 Series F common stock purchase warrants with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of five years from the date in which the shares underlying the warrants are registered, (ii) 6,177,084 Series G common stock purchase warrants with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of eighteen months from the date in which the shares underlying the warrants are registered, (iii) 3,571,430 Series H common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant to a contractually obligated exercise of prior outstanding warrants, with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of five years from the issuance date, and (iv) 3,571,430 Series I common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant to a contractually obligated exercise of prior outstanding warrants, with a price per share of $0.30 and a term of eighteen months from the issuance date. The preferred stock has a stated value of $1,000 per share and the common shares are issuable pursuant to conversion of the preferred stock at a conversion price of $0.15 per share, subject to a 9.99% beneficial ownership limitation and subject to adjustment pursuant to stock splits and dividends, and subject to adjustment pursuant to customary anti-dilution protection for subsequent equity sales for a period of 18 months from the effective date of this registration statement. In connection with the offering, we issued our placement agent 988,334 common stock purchase warrants with substantially the same terms as our Series F warrants, except that they have an expiration date of December 29, 2020.

July 2015 Offering

F-12

NOTE 11 — STOCK OPTIONS

Deferred Compensation Plan

In July of 2011, we adopted Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the Deferred Plan). The Deferred Plan is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). The Deferred Plan is intended to be an unfunded “top hat” plan which is maintained primarily to provide deferred compensation benefits for a select group of our “management or highly compensated employees” within the meaning of Sections 201, 301, and 401 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and to therefore be exempt from the provisions of Parts 2, 3, and 4 of Title I of ERISA. The Deferred Plan is intended to help build a supplemental source of savings and retirement income through pre-tax deferrals of eligible compensation, which may include cash, option and stock bonus awards, discretionary cash, option and stock awards and/or any other payments which may be designated by the Deferred Plan administrator, as eligible, for deferral under the Deferred Plan from time to time. As administered, the Deferred Plan is used to defer compensation of stock awards granted under our other equity compensation plans and does not by its terms approve any grants or awards.

GenSpera’s Compensation Plans

The Company’s 2007 Equity Compensation Plan (2007 Plan) and 2009 Executive Compensation Plan (2009 Plan) (together, the Plans) provide for the awarding of stock grants, nonqualified and incentive stock options, restricted stock units, performance units or other stock-based awards to officers, directors, employees and consultants of the Company. The purpose of the Plans is to advance the interests of GenSpera and our stockholders by attracting, retaining and rewarding persons performing services for us and to motivate such persons to contribute to our growth and profitability. Our Plans are administered by a committee of non-employee directors (the Committee). The Committee determines: who shall be granted awards; the vesting periods; the exercise price; and any other terms deemed appropriate for any award.

As of December 31, 2015, our 2009 Plan authorized up to 6,000,000 shares of common stock to be reserved for issuance upon exercise of stock options or other stock-based awards, and the Company has awarded 4,945,874 stock options, and 1,054,126 shares of common stock were available for future grants under the 2009 Plan. All option awards granted under the 2009 Plan are fully vested.

Our 2007 Plan authorizes up to 6,000,000 shares of common stock to be reserved for the issuance upon exercise of stock options or other stock-based awards, subject to an annual award limitation of 1,500,000 shares. Under the 2007 Plan, vesting schedules for stock options vary, but generally vest for a period of not more than five years and at a rate of not less than 20% per year. The maximum term of an option granted under the 2007 Plan is ten years. As of December 31, 2015, the Company has awarded 4,550,821 stock options, and 2,011,679 shares of common stock were available for future grants under the 2007 Plan. The Company has recorded aggregate stock-based compensation expense related to the issuance of stock option awards in the following line items in the accompanying consolidated statement of losses (in thousands):

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015		2014
Research and development	$	45	$	891
General and administrative		93		1,164
Total stock-based compensation expense	$	138	$	2,055

As of December 31, 2015, there was $36,000 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock options which vest over time, and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 0.7 of a year. As of December 31, 2014, there was $43,000 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock options which vest over time, and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.2 years.

F-13

The following table summarizes stock option activity under the Plans:

	Number of shares			Weighted- average exercise price		Weighted- average remaining contractual term (in years)		Aggregate intrinsic value (in thousands)

Outstanding at December 31, 2013		6,050,623		$	1.82
Granted		2,759,472		$	1.26
Exercised		—			—
Forfeited		(125,000	)	$	1.50		4.0	$	46

Outstanding at December 31, 2014		8,685,095		$	1.62
Granted		376,600		$	0.79
Forfeited		(297,500	)	$	2.08
Outstanding at December 31, 2015		8,764,195		$	1.60		3.2	$	—

Exercisable at December 31, 2015		8,657,195		$	1.61		3.2	$	—

During 2015 and 2014, the Company issued options to purchase 159,000 and 2,107,902 shares of common stock, respectively, to employees, and non-employee directors under the Plans. The weighted-average fair value of the options granted to employees and non-employee directors during 2015 and 2014 was estimated at $0.30 and $0.48 per share, respectively, on the date of grant.

During 2015 and 2014, the Company issued options to purchase 217,600 and 651,570 shares of common stock, respectively, to consultants under the Plan. The per-share weighted-average fair value of the options granted to consultants during 2015 and 2014 was estimated at $0.34 and $0.38, respectively, on the date of grant.

The following table summarizes weighted-average assumptions using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model used on the date of the grants issued for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014:

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015		2014
Volatility		58.4%		55.8%
Expected term (years)		3.4		3.5
Risk-free interest rate		1.0%		0.7%
Dividend yield		None		None

No options were exercised during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

NOTE 12 — WARRANTS

Transactions involving our warrants are summarized as follows:

	Number of shares			Weighted- average exercise price		Weighted- average remaining contractual term (in years)		Aggregate intrinsic value (in thousands)

Outstanding at December 31, 2013		10,216,597		$	2.56
Granted		11,467,847		$	0.95
Forfeited		(1,786,516	)	$	2.85		2.8	$	8.4

Outstanding at December 31, 2014		19,897,928		$	1.61
Granted		28,255,221		$	0.27
Exercised		(4,599,669	)	$	0.19
Forfeited		(1,276,035	)	$	3.12
Outstanding at December 31, 2015		42,277,445		$	0.79		2.7	$	14.6

Exercisable at December 31, 2015		42,277,445		$	0.79		2.7	$	14.6

F-14

During the year ended December 31, 2015, 4,599,669 warrants were exercised into an equivalent number of common shares for which we received approximately $926,000 in proceeds. During the year ended December 31, 2014, no warrants were exercised into common shares.

The following table summarizes outstanding warrants to purchase common stock as of December 31, 2015:

	Number of shares		Weighted Average Exercise price		Expiration
Issued to consultants		1,092,667	$	1.80	March 2016 through November 2020
Issued pursuant to 2011 financings		1,936,785	$	3.24	January 2016 through April 2016
Issued pursuant to 2012 financings		296,366	$	3.00	December 2017
Issued pursuant to 2013 financings		4,376,228	$	1.97	December 2017 through August 2018
Issued pursuant to 2014 financings		10,882,678	$	0.93	December 2016 through June 2019
Issued pursuant to 2015 financings		23,692,721	$	0.29	January 2017 through December 2020
		42,277,445

During 2015, the Company issued warrants to consultants to purchase 300,000 at a weighted-average fair value of $0.26 per share on the date of grant. The common stock purchase warrants have exercise prices of between $0.35 and $0.65 per share, are immediately exercisable and expire on the five-year anniversary of the date of issuance. During 2015, total stock-based compensation expense of approximately $78,000, was recognized using the straight-line method in the statement of losses for warrants issued to consultants.

During 2014, the Company issued warrants to consultants to purchase 248,000 at a weighted-average fair value of $0.36 per share on the date of grant. During 2014, total stock-based compensation expense of approximately $89,000, was recognized using the straight-line method in the statement of losses for warrants issued to consultants. The following table summarizes weighted-average assumptions using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model used on the date of the equity-classified warrants issued for services:

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015		2014
Volatility		72.6%		51.1%
Expected term (years)		1.8		2.0
Risk-free interest rate		0.6%		0.5%
Dividend yield		None		None

In December 2015, in connection with a private placement, we issued an aggregate of 20,485,362 common stock purchase warrants, including 19,497,028 to investors; and 988,334 to placement agents. The warrants were issued with an exercise price of $0.30 per share. The Company assessed these outstanding equity-linked financial instruments and concluded that the warrants are subject to derivative accounting (see Note 8).

In July 2015, also in connection with a private placement, we issued an aggregate of 7,469,859 common stock purchase warrants, including 7,182,556 to investors; and 287,303 to placement agents. The warrants were issued with exercise prices between $0.70 and $0.80 per share.

In June 2014, in connection with a registered offering, we issued an aggregate of 10,736,722 common stock purchase warrants, including 10,409,905 issued to investors and 326,817 issued to the placement agents. The warrants were issued with exercise prices between $0.85 and $1.15 per share. In 2015, we amended 3,826,792 of the Series B and 4,163,961 of the Series C warrants in order to extend their respective term to December 31, 2016, and reduce their exercise price to $0.70 per share. Additionally, we issued 483,125 common stock purchase warrants to investors in a June 2014 private placement. The warrants have an exercise price of $1.15 per share.

In June 2014, in connection with our registered offering, we issued an aggregate of 10,736,722 common stock purchase warrants, including 10,409,905 issued to investors and 326,817 issued to the placement agents. The warrants were issued with exercise prices between $0.85 and $1.15 per share. Additionally, we also issued 483,125 common stock purchase warrants to investors in our June 2014 private placement. The warrants have an exercise price of $1.15 per share.

F-15

NOTE 13 — INCOME TAXES

The Company had, subject to limitation, $32.5 million of net operating loss carryforwards at December 31, 2015, which will expire at various dates beginning in 2016 through 2026. In addition, the Company has research and development tax credits of approximately $456,000 at December 31, 2015 available to offset future taxable income, which will expire from 2028 through 2036. We have provided a 100% valuation allowance for the deferred tax benefits resulting from the net operating loss carryover and our tax credits due to our lack of earnings history. In addressing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences are deductible. The valuation allowance increased by $2.0 and $2.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Significant components of deferred tax assets and liabilities are as follows (in thousands):

	2015			2014
Deferred tax assets:
Net operating loss carryover	$	11,066		$	9,466
Stock-based compensation		3,768			3,372
Other		(60	)		—
Tax credits		456			443
Total deferred tax assets		15,230			13,281
Less: valuation allowance		(15,230	)		(13,281	)
Net deferred tax assets	$	—		$	—

The actual tax benefit differs from the expected tax benefit for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 (computed by applying the U.S. Federal Corporate tax rate of 34% to income before taxes) are as follows:

	2015			2014
Statutory federal income tax rate		-34.0	%		-34.0	%
Non-deductible items		0.1	%		0.0	%
Adjustment for R&D Credit		-0.2	%		0.2	%
Valuation allowance		34.1	%		33.8	%
Effective income tax rate		—	%		—	%

The Company’s tax returns for the previous three years remain open for audit by the respective tax jurisdictions.

NOTE 14 ‒ SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

On March 16, 2016, Dr. Craig Dionne provided us his notice of termination as the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (See Note 9).

F-16

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

			Incorporated by Reference
Exhibit No.	Description	Filed Herewith	Form	Exhibit No.	File No.	Filing Date

3.01	Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation dated September 4, 2013		8-K	3.01	333-153829	9/6/13

3.02	Certificate of Designation of Preferences, Rights and Limitations of Series A 0% Convertible Preferred Stock		S-1	3.02	333-208918	1/8/16

3.03	Amended and Restated Bylaws		8-K	3.02	333-153829	1/11/10

4.01	Specimen of Common Stock Certificate		S-1	4.01	333-153829	10/03/08

4.02	Form of Series A Preferred Stock Certificate		8-K	3.01	000-55331	12/23/15

4.03**	Amended and Restated GenSpera 2007 Equity Compensation Plan amended January 2010		8-K	4.01	333-153829	1/11/10

4.04**	GenSpera Form of 2007 Equity Compensation Plan Grant and 2009 Executive Compensation Plan Grant		8-K	4.02	333-153829	9/09/09

4.05	Form of 4.0% convertible note issued to shareholder		S-1	4.05	333-153829	10/03/08

4.06	Form of 4.0% convertible debenture modification between GenSpera, Inc. and shareholder		8-K	10.02	333-153829	2/20/09

4.07	Form of 4.0% convertible debenture modification between GenSpera, Inc. and shareholder		8-K	10.02	333-153829	2/20/09

4.08**	Amended and Restated 2009 Executive		10-K	4.11	333-153829	3/29/13
	Compensation Plan amended on March 25, 2013

4.09	Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant issued Jan - Mar 2010	10-K	4.28	333-153829	3/31/10

4.10	Form of Consultant Warrants issued in May 2010	10-Q	4.29	333-153829	5/14/10

4.11	Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant - May 18, 2010 offering, and June 2010 Consultant Warrants	8-K	10.02	333-153829	5/25/10

4.12**	Form of 2007 Equity Compensation Plan Restricted Stock Grant and 2009 Executive Compensation Plan Restricted Stock Grant	S-8	4.03	333-171783	1/20/11

4.13	Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant dated January and February of 2011	8-K	10.02	333-153829	1/27/11

4.14**	Form of 2007 Equity Compensation Plan Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and 2009 Executive Compensation Plan Restricted Stock Unit Agreement	10-K	4.22	333-153829	3/30/11

4.15	Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant dated April 2011	8-K	10.02	333-153829	5/03/11

4.16**	Form of Executive Deferred Compensation Plan	8-K	99.01	333-153829	7/08/11

4.17	Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant issued to consultants in December of 2011	10-K	4.26	333-153829	3/06/12

4.18	Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant issued to LifeTech on January 12, 2012	10-K	4.27	333-153829	3/06/12

4.19	Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant for December 2012 through March 2013 Offering	8-K	4.01	333-153829	3/28/13

4.20	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement for August 2013 Offering	8-K	10.02	333-153829	8/16/13

4.21	Form of Warrant from August 2013 Offering	8-K	10.04	333-153829	8/16/13

4.22	Form of Series A, B and C Common Stock Purchase Warrant for May 2014 Registered Offering	S-1/A	4.34	333-194687	5/22/14

4.23	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement for May 2014 Registered Offering	S-1/A	10.12	333-194687	5/22/14

4.24	Form of Series D Common Stock Purchase Warrant for June 2014 Private Placement	10-Q	4.36	333-153829	8/8/14

4.25	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement for June 2014 Private Placement	10-Q	4.37	333-153829	8/8/14

4.26	Form of Consultant Common Stock Purchase Warrant issued February, August 2014, January 2015 and May 2015	10-Q	4.38	333-153829	8/8/14

4.27	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement for July 2015 Private Placement	8-K	10.01	000-55331	7/6/15

4.28	Form of Registration Rights Agreement for July 2015 Private Placement	8-K	10.02	000-55331	7/6/15

4.29	Form of Series D and E Common Stock Purchase Warrants for July 2015 Private Placement	8-K	10.03	000-55331	7/6/15

4.30	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement for December 2015 Private Placement	8-K	10.01	000-55331	12/23/15

4.31

Form of Registration Rights Agreement for December 2015 Private Placement

8-K

10.02

000-55331

12/23/15

4.32

Form of Series F and Series G Common Stock Purchase Warrants for December 2015 Private Placement

8-K

10.03

000-55331

12/23/15

4.33

Form of Series H and I Common Stock Purchase Warrants for December 2015 Private Placement

8-K

10.05

000-55331

12/23/15

4.34

Form of Amendment Agreement from December 2015 Private Placement

8-K

10.04

000-55331

12/23/15

10.01

Exclusive Supply Agreement between GenSpera and Thapsibiza dated April 2012

10-K

10.01

333-153829

3/29/13

10.02**

Craig Dionne Employment Agreement

8-K

10.04

333-153829

9/09/09

10.03**

Amendment dated May 14, 2010 to the Employment Agreement of Craig Dionne

10-Q

10.03

333-153829

8/13/10

10.04**

Craig Dionne Severance Agreement

8-K

10.05

333-153829

9/09/09

10.05**

Craig Dionne Proprietary Information, Inventions And Competition Agreement

8-K

10.06

333-153829

9/09/09

10.06**

Form of Indemnification Agreement

8-K

10.07

333-153829

9/09/09

10.07**

Russell Richerson Employment Agreement

8-K

10.08

333-153829

9/09/09

10.08**

Amendment dated May 14, 2010 to the Employment Agreement of Russell Richerson

10-Q

10.08

333-153829

8/13/10

10.09**

Russell Richerson Proprietary Information, Inventions And Competition Agreement

8-K

10.09

333-153829

9/09/09

10.10**

Independent Director Agreement

8-K

10.01

333-153892

06/1/12

10.11

Engagement Letter with H.C. Wainwright for May 2014 Registered Offering

S-1/A

10.11

333-194687

5/22/14

23.01

Consent of Liggett & Webb, P.A.

31.1

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 3.02 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2

Certification of the Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350.

***

32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350.

***

101.INS

XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema

101.CAL

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase

101.DEF

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase

101.LAB

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase

101.PRE

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase

Filed herein

Management contracts or compensation plans or arrangements in which directors or executive officers are eligible to participate.

Furnished herein

Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc. - FORM 10-K - March 30, 2016

Attached files

Inspyr Therapeutics, Inc. Reports