Accounting for the Astellas Agreements

For each of the Astellas agreements, the Company has evaluated the deliverables within the respective arrangements and has separated them into various units of accounting.

Deliverables that did not provide standalone value have been combined with other deliverables to form a unit of accounting that collectively has standalone value, with revenue being recognized on the combined unit of accounting, rather than the individual deliverables. There are no right-of-return provisions for the delivered items in the Astellas agreements.

For the Astellas agreements, the Company allocated arrangement consideration to various units of accounting based on BESP of each deliverable within each unit of accounting using the relative selling price method as the Company did not have VSOE or TPE of selling price for such deliverables. Arrangement consideration includes non-contingent upfront payments of $360.1 million and cumulative co-development billings of $124.1 million (for Europe Agreement) as of December 31, 2015.

For the technology license under the Japan Agreement and Europe Agreement, BESP was determined primarily by using the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) method, which aggregates the present value of future cash flows to determine the valuation as of the effective date of each of the agreements. The DCF method involves the following key steps: 1) the determination of cash flow forecasts and 2) the selection of a range of comparative risk-adjusted discount rates to apply against the cash flow forecasts. The discount rates selected were based on expectations of the total rate of return, the rate at which capital would be attracted to the Company and the level of risk inherent within the Company. The discounts applied in the DCF analysis ranged from 17.5% to 20.0%. The Company’s cash flow forecasts were derived from probability-adjusted revenue and expense projections by territory. Such projections included consideration of taxes and cash flow adjustments. The probability adjustments were made after considering the likelihood of technical success at various stages of clinical trials and regulatory approval phases. BESP also considered certain future royalty payments associated with commercial performance of the Company’s compounds, transfer prices and expected gross margins.

The units of accounting that were analyzed, along with their general timing of delivery or performance of service and general timing of revenue recognition, are as follows:

License to the Company’s technology existing at the effective date of the agreements. For both of the Astellas agreements, the license was delivered at the beginning of the agreement terms, or when the agreements were signed, and any contingencies had been removed. In both cases, the Company concluded at the time of the agreement that its collaboration partner, Astellas, would have the knowledge and capabilities to exploit the licenses without the Company’s further involvement. However, the Japan Agreement with Astellas has contractual limitations that might affect Astellas’ ability to exploit the license and therefore, potentially, the conclusion as to whether the license provides stand-alone value. In the Japan agreement, Astellas does not have the right to manufacture commercial supplies of the drug. In order to determine whether this characteristic of the agreement should lead to a conclusion that the license did not have stand-alone value, the Company considered the intent of the parties and the substantive reasons that led to that feature of the agreement.

Manufacturing rights. In the case of the Japan Agreement, the Company retained manufacturing rights largely because of the way the parties chose for FibroGen to be compensated under the agreement. At the time the agreement was signed, the Company believed that it was more advantageous upon commercialization to have a transfer price revenue model in place as opposed to a traditional sales-based model. The Company and Astellas could have structured the arrangement with a transfer of manufacturing rights and compensated the Company through a royalty or other feature without significantly diminishing the prospects of the drug product. Therefore, the Company determined that the license in Japan provides stand-alone value to the customer despite the lack of manufacturing rights.

License to the Company’s technology developed during the term of the agreement and development (referred to as “when and if available”) and information sharing services. These deliverables are generally delivered throughout the term of the agreements and are recognized as revenue as the services are provided.

Co-development services (Europe Agreement). This deliverable relates to co-development services that were reasonably expected to be performed by the Company at the time the collaboration agreement was signed. Revenue is recognized as reimbursements for such co-development services are earned. The period related to this deliverable represented the Company’s determination of the non-contingent performance period, which was estimated to be 36 months for the Europe Agreement from the signing of the agreement. There was no provision for co-development services in the Japan agreement.

Manufacturing of clinical supplies of products. This deliverable is satisfied as supplies for clinical product are delivered for use in the Company’s clinical trial programs during the development period, or pre-commercialization period. Revenue is recognized based on the estimated proportion of the development services performed during the development period. These estimates are made at the beginning of each accounting period and will likely change throughout the course of the terms of both agreements. As new information related to these estimates becomes available, the Company may adjust the timing of revenue recognition related to this unit of accounting.

Manufacturing commercial supplies of products. This deliverable is satisfied and revenue is recognized as supplies are shipped for commercial use during the commercialization period. As this deliverable is considered a contingent deliverable, it is outside the scope of the initial allocation of upfront and other consideration.

·	Committee service. This deliverable is satisfied and revenue is recognized throughout the course of the various agreements as meetings are attended.

Any consideration received for each Astellas agreement after the initial proceeds on the agreement signing date were also (and will be also) allocated to the various units of accounting above per agreement using the relative selling price method under ASC 605-25.

Under the Japan Agreement, the Company is also eligible to receive from Astellas an aggregate of approximately $132.5 million in potential milestone payments, comprised of (i) up to $22.5 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified clinical and development milestone events, (ii) up to $95.0 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified regulatory milestone events, and (iii) up to approximately $15.0 million in milestone payments upon the achievement of specified commercial sales milestone.

Under the Europe Agreement, the Company is also eligible to receive from Astellas an aggregate of approximately $425.0 million in potential milestone payments, comprised of (i) up to $90.0 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified clinical and development milestone events, (ii) up to $335.0 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified regulatory milestone events, including up to $25.0 million in milestone payments in connection with receipt of marketing approval in Russia.

Accounting for the AstraZeneca Agreements

The Company evaluated whether the U.S./RoW and China Agreements should be accounted for as a single arrangement and concluded that the agreements should be accounted for as a single arrangement with the presumption that two or more agreements executed with a single customer at or around the same time should be presumed to be a single arrangement. Accordingly, upfront and other non-contingent arrangement consideration received and to be received has been and will be pooled together and allocated to each of the units of accounting in both the U.S./RoW and China Agreements based on their relative fair values.

The Company evaluated the deliverables within the arrangement and has separated them into various units of accounting. Deliverables that did not provide stand-alone value have been combined with other deliverables to form a unit of accounting that collectively has stand-alone value, with revenue being recognized on the combined unit of accounting, rather than the individual deliverables. There are no right-of-return provisions for the delivered items in the agreements.

For the technology license under the AstraZeneca U.S./RoW Agreement, BESP was determined based on a two-step process. The first step involved determining an implied royalty rate that would result in the net present value of future cash flows to equal to zero (i.e. where the implied royalty rate on the transaction would equal the target return for the investment). This results in an upper bound estimation of the magnitude of royalties that a hypothetical acquirer would reasonably pay for the forecasted cash flow stream. The Company’s cash flow forecasts were derived from probability-adjusted revenue and expense projections. Such projections included consideration of taxes and cash flow adjustments. The probability adjustments were made after considering the likelihood of technical success at various stages of clinical trials and regulatory approval phases. The second step involved applying the implied royalty rate, which was determined to be 40%, against the probability-adjusted projected net revenues by territory and determining the value of the license as the net present value of future cash flows after adjusting for taxes. The discount rate utilized was 17.5%.

U.S./RoW Agreement:

The units of accounting that were analyzed, along with their general timing of delivery or performance of service and general timing of revenue recognition, are as follows:

License to the Company’s technology existing at the effective date of the agreements. For the U.S./RoW Agreement, the license was delivered at the beginning of the agreement terms as all contingencies had been removed. The Company concluded that AstraZeneca has the knowledge and capabilities to exploit the U.S./RoW license without the Company’s further involvement.

Co-development services. This deliverable relates to co-development services which were reasonably expected to be performed by the Company at the time the Agreement was signed. Revenue is recognized as reimbursements for such co-development services are earned. The period related to this deliverable represented the Company’s determination of the non-contingent performance period, which was estimated to be 65 months from the signing of the U.S./RoW Agreement.

Manufacturing of clinical supplies of products. This deliverable is satisfied as supplies for clinical product are delivered for use in the Company’s clinical trial programs during the development period, or pre-commercialization period. Revenue is recognized based on the estimated proportion of the development services performed during the development period. These estimates are made at the beginning of each accounting period and will likely change throughout the course of the agreements. As new information related to these estimates becomes available, the Company may adjust the timing of revenue recognition related to this unit of accounting.

·	Committee service. This deliverable is satisfied and revenue is recognized throughout the course of the various agreements as meetings are attended.

Under the terms of the U.S./RoW Agreement, AstraZeneca has agreed to pay upfront, non-contingent and time-based payments totaling $374.0 million, which we expect to receive in various amounts through June 2016, of which $82.0 million was received as of December 31, 2013 and was determined to be fixed and determinable upon the execution of the collaboration agreement. Out of the remaining payments of $292.0 million, which are contractually due, $230.0 million have extended payment terms and, accordingly, were not considered to be fixed or determinable upon the execution of the agreement. As such, for these remaining payments, the amount of revenue recognized is limited to the amount of cash consideration received; additionally, for each of the amounts received, the amount of revenue recognized is determined on the basis of applying the relative selling price method to each of the units of accounting underlying the agreement. Further, $62.0 million of the remaining payment is contingent upon the occurrence of a specified event and accordingly is also not considered fixed or determinable.

Under the U.S./RoW Agreement, the Company is also eligible to receive from AstraZeneca an aggregate of approximately $875.0 million in potential milestone payments, comprised of (i) up to $65.0 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified clinical and development milestone events, (ii) up to $325.0 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified regulatory milestone events, (iii) up to $160.0 million in non-substantive deferred approval milestone, which would be paid if certain competitors do not launch an HIF compound in the U.S. on or before January 1, 2023 and (iv) up to approximately $325.0 million in milestone payments upon the achievement of specified commercial sales events.

China Agreement:

The units of accounting that were analyzed, along with their general timing of delivery or performance of service and general timing of revenue recognition, are as follows:

License to the Company’s technology existing at the effective date of the agreement. The license was delivered at the beginning of the agreement term as all contingencies had been removed. However, the China Agreement with AstraZeneca has contractual limitations that might affect AstraZeneca’s ability to exploit the license and therefore, potentially, the conclusion as to whether the license provides stand-alone value. In the China Agreement, AstraZeneca does not have the right to manufacture commercial supplies of the drug. In order to determine whether this characteristic of the arrangement should lead to a conclusion that the license did not have stand-alone value, the Company considered the intent of the parties and the substantive reasons that led to that feature of the agreement.

For the China Agreement, the Company retained manufacturing rights as an essential part of a strategy to pursue domestic regulatory pathway for product approval which requires the regulatory licensure of the manufacturing facility in order to commence commercial shipment. The prospects for the collaboration as a whole would have been substantially different had manufacturing rights been provided to AstraZeneca. Because the retention of manufacturing rights by the Company was a significant factor in the collaboration strategy, rather than simply a mechanism to properly compensate FibroGen, management concluded that the license and development services do not have stand-alone value apart from the manufacturing rights. Accordingly, all the deliverables identified, including co-development services, under the China Agreement have been treated as a single unit of account and all revenue allocable to this unit of account is deferred until delivery of commercial drug product has begun. Upon commencement of delivery of commercial drug product, revenue would be recognized in a pattern consistent with estimated deliveries of the commercial drug product.

Under the terms of the China Agreement, AstraZeneca agreed to pay upfront consideration totaling $28.2 million, of which $16.2 million was received as of December 31, 2013 and was determined to be fixed and determinable upon the execution of the collaboration agreement. The remainder of the upfront payments of $12.0 million had extended payment terms and, accordingly, is not considered to be fixed or determinable upon the execution of the agreement. This payment of $12.0 million was received as of March 31, 2014.

Under the China Agreement, the Company is also eligible to receive from AstraZeneca an aggregate of approximately $328.5 million in potential milestone payments, comprised of (i) up to $15.0 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified clinical and development milestone events, (ii) up to $146.0 million in substantive milestone payments upon achievement of specified regulatory milestone events, and (iii) up to approximately $167.5 million in milestone payments upon the achievement of specified commercial sales events.

As the Company is accounting for both the U.S./RoW and China Agreements as one arrangement, any consideration received after the initial proceeds on the agreement signing date were also (and will be also) allocated to the various units of accounting above using the relative selling price method under ASC 605-25.