Aligos Therapeutics, Inc. New Standards Disclosure
Recently adopted accounting pronouncements
In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-07, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting (ASU 2018-07). ASU 2018-07 amends the FASB ASC to expand the scope of FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation, to include accounting for share-based payment transactions for acquiring goods and services from non-employees. The amendments in ASU 2018-07 are effective for all entities for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption was permitted. The Company early adopted this guidance at inception.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (ASU 2014-09), which supersedes existing revenue recognition guidance under U.S. GAAP. The standard’s core principle is that a company will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the Company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The standard defines a five-step process to achieve this principle and requires companies to use more judgment and make more estimates than under the current guidance. These judgments and estimates include identifying performance obligations in the customer contract, estimating the amount of variable consideration to include in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to each separate performance obligation. ASU 2014-09 also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts. The Company early adopted ASU 2014-09 at inception. The adoption of ASU 2014-09 did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as the Company does not currently have any revenue-generating arrangements.
In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-18, Collaborative Arrangements (Topic 808)—Clarifying the Interaction between Topic 808 and Topic 606 (ASU 2018-18). The amendments in ASU 2018-18 clarify that certain transactions between collaborative arrangement participants should be accounted for as revenue under ASC 606 when the collaborative arrangement participant is a customer in the context of a unit of account. The amendments under ASU 2018-18 are effective for interim and annual fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2019, with early adoption permitted. The amendments in ASU 2018-18 should be applied retrospectively to the date of initial application of ASC 606. The Company early adopted ASU 2018-18 at inception.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business (ASU 2017-01). ASU 2017-01 provides guidance to evaluate whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. If substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single asset or a group of similar assets, the assets acquired (or disposed of) are not considered a business. The Company adopted this standard at inception.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (ASU 2016-02), which sets out the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both parties to a contract (i.e., lessees and lessors). The new standard requires lessees to apply a dual approach, classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether or not the lease is effectively a financed purchase by the lessee. This classification determines whether lease expense is recognized based on an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. A lessee is also required to record a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases with a term of greater than 12 months regardless of their classification. Leases with a term of 12 months or less may be accounted for similar to existing guidance for operating leases. The standard is effective for all entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted. The Company adopted this standard at inception.
In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) Restricted Cash (ASU 2016-18), which requires that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash. Therefore, amounts described as restricted cash should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning of period and end of period amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. The standard is effective for all entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. The Company early adopted this guidance at inception. The cash, cash equivalent and restricted cash balances as of December 31, 2019 and 2020 are presented in the Company’s consolidated statements of cash flows.
In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-07, Compensation-Retirement Benefits (ASC Topic 715) (ASU 2017-07), which requires employers to disaggregate the service cost component from other components of net periodic benefit costs and to disclose the amounts of net periodic benefit costs that are included in each income statement line item. The standard requires employers to report the service cost component in the same line item as other compensation costs and to report the other components of net periodic benefit costs separately and outside a subtotal of operating income. The Company adopted this standard at inception and has recognized its net periodic benefit costs, excluding service costs, in interest and other income (expense), net on its consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-14, Compensation—Retirement Benefits—Defined Benefit Plans—General (Subtopic 715-20) (ASU 2018-14). The guidance eliminates requirements for certain disclosures that are no longer considered cost beneficial and requires new ones that the FASB considers pertinent. The standard is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2021 for all entities. Early adoption is permitted. The Company adopted this standard at inception.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Disclosure Framework— Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement (ASU 2018-13). The amendments eliminate, add, and modify certain disclosure requirements for fair value measurements. The amendments are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019, with early adoption permitted for either the entire ASU or only the provisions that eliminate or modify requirements. The amendments with respect to changes in unrealized gains and losses, the range and weighted-average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements, and the narrative description of measurement uncertainty are to be applied prospectively. All other amendments are to be applied retrospectively to all periods presented. The Company adopted this standard in the year ended December 31, 2020.
About New Standards Disclosures
New accounting standards disclosures describe recently adopted pronouncements and those not yet effective, along with management's assessment of their expected impact. This section provides an early warning system for upcoming changes to how a company reports its financial results, often years before the new rules take effect.
Key signals: when management describes a not-yet-adopted standard's impact as "material" or "still being evaluated," it signals potential significant changes to reported metrics upon adoption. Watch for standards that affect a company's core operations — for example, revenue recognition changes for software companies or lease accounting changes for retailers with large store footprints. The transition method chosen (full retrospective versus modified retrospective) affects comparability with prior periods. Companies that delay adoption to the latest permitted date may be struggling with implementation complexity. Compare the disclosed impact assessments against peers in the same industry to gauge whether management's expectations are reasonable.