Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

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

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013

OR

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

For the transition period from             to             

Commission file number 001-33497

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

1 Cedar Brook Drive, Cranbury, NJ 08512

(Address of Principal Executive Offices and Zip Code)

Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (609) 662-2000

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

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

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 definition of “large accelerated filer,” accelerated filer” and “smaller-reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, $.01 par value per share, as of April 26, 2013 was 49,631,672 shares.

Table of Contents

AMICUS THERAPEUTICS,   INC

Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2013

We have registered or filed applications to register certain trademarks in the United States and abroad, including AMICUS THERAPEUTICS TM (and design), and CHART TM (and design).

2

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This quarterly report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties.  All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements.  The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “will,” “should”, “would” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

The forward-looking statements in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q include, among other things, statements about:

·                  the progress and results of our clinical trials of our drug candidates, including migalastat HCl;

·                  the continuation of our collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline PLC and GSK’s achievement of milestone payment thereunder;

·                  the scope, progress, results and costs of preclinical development, laboratory testing and clinical trials for our product candidates including those testing the use of pharmacological chaperones co-formulated and co-administered with ERT and for the treatment of diseases of neurodegeneration;

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

·                  the number and development requirements of other product candidates that we pursue;

·                  the costs of commercialization activities, including product marketing, sales and distribution;

·                  the emergence of competing technologies and other adverse market developments;

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

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

·                  our ability to establish collaborations and obtain milestone, royalty or other payments from any such collaborators.

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements.  Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make.  We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in Part I Item 1A — “Risk Factors” of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make.  Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures, collaborations or investments we may make.

You should read this quarterly report on Form 10-Q in conjunction with the documents that we reference herein.  We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

3

Table of Contents

PART I.          FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.             Financial Statements (unaudited)

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.

(a development stage company)

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

4

Table of Contents

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.

(a development stage company)

Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

5

Table of Contents

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.

(a development stage company)

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

(a) — Taxes have not been accrued on unrealized gain on securities as the Company is in a loss position for all periods presented.

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

6

Table of Contents

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.

(a development stage company)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

7

Table of Contents

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.

(a development stage company)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (continued)

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

8

Table of Contents

Note 1.   Description of Business and Significant Accounting Policies

Corporate Information, Status of Operations and Management Plans

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) was incorporated on February 4, 2002 in Delaware and is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of next-generation medicines for a range of rare and orphan diseases, with a focus on improved therapies for lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs). The Company’s lead program is migalastat HCl for Fabry disease.  Migalastat HCl is a novel, small molecule pharmacological chaperone in development as a monotherapy and in combination with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) for Fabry disease.  The Company is leveraging its Chaperone-Advanced Replacement Therapy, or (CHART tm) platform to develop next-generation therapies that combine pharmacological chaperones with enzyme therapies for Pompe, Gaucher and other LSDs.  Current CHART programs for Pompe disease include the pharmacological chaperone AT2220 (duvoglustat HCl) co-administered with currently marketed Pompe ERTs (Myozyme®/Lumizyme®), as well as AT2220 co-formulated with a proprietary Pompe ERT. The Company’s activities since inception have consisted principally of raising capital, establishing facilities, and performing research and development. Accordingly, the Company is considered to be in the development stage.

On July 17, 2012, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated License and Expanded Collaboration Agreement (the “Expanded Collaboration Agreement”) with an affiliate of GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) pursuant to which the Company and GSK continue to develop and commercialize migalastat HCl for the treatment of Fabry disease. The Expanded Collaboration Agreement amends and replaces in its entirety the License and Collaboration Agreement entered into between the Company and GSK on October 28, 2010 (the “Original Collaboration Agreement”) for the development and commercialization of migalastat HCl. Under the terms of the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, the Company and GSK will co-develop all formulations of migalastat HCl for Fabry disease, including migalastat HCl monotherapy, currently in Phase 3 development, as well as migalastat HCl co-formulated with an investigational ERT for Fabry disease (the “Co-formulated Product”). The Co-formulated Product is being developed by the Company and GSK in collaboration with JCR Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The Company will commercialize all migalastat HCl products for Fabry disease in the United States while GSK will commercialize all such products in the rest of the world.

The Company and GSK jointly fund development costs for all formulations of migalastat HCl in accordance with agreed upon development plans pursuant to which the Company and GSK fund 40% and 60% of such costs, respectively.  Additionally, simultaneous with entry into the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, the Company and GSK entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) pursuant to which GSK purchased approximately 2.9 million shares of Amicus common stock at a price of $6.30 per share. The total value of this equity investment to the Company is approximately $18.6 million. As of March 31, 2013, GSK’s ownership position in the Company is 19.8%.

For further information, see “— Note 7. Collaborative Agreements.”

The Company had an accumulated deficit of approximately $336.3 million at March 31, 2013 and anticipates incurring losses through the year 2013 and beyond. The Company has not yet generated commercial sales revenue and has been able to fund its operating losses to date through the sale of its redeemable convertible preferred stock, issuance of convertible notes, net proceeds from its initial public offering (IPO) and subsequent stock offerings, payments from partners during the terms of the collaboration agreements and other financing arrangements. In March 2010, the Company sold 4.95 million shares of its common stock and warrants to purchase 1.9 million shares of common stock in a registered direct offering to a select group of institutional investors for net proceeds of $17.1 million. In October 2010, the Company sold 6.87 million shares of its common stock as part of the Original License and Collaboration Agreement with GSK for proceeds of $31 million. In March 2012, the Company sold 11.5 million shares of its common stock in a stock offering for net proceeds of $62.0 million. In July 2012, the Company sold 2.9 million shares of its common stock as part of the Expanded Collaboration Agreement with GSK for proceeds of $18.6 million. The Company believes that its existing cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to cover its cash flow requirements for 2013.

Basis of Presentation

The Company has prepared the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10-01 of Regulations S-X.  Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements.  In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited financial statements reflect all adjustments, which include only normal recurring adjustments, necessary to present fairly the Company’s interim financial information.

9

Table of Contents

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements and related notes should be read in conjunction with the Company’s financial statements and related notes as contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.  For a complete description of the Company’s accounting policies, please refer to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Revenue Recognition

The Company recognizes revenue when amounts are realized or realizable and earned. Revenue is considered realizable and earned when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; (3) the price is fixed or determinable; and (4) collection of the amounts due are reasonably assured.

In multiple element arrangements, revenue is allocated to each separate unit of accounting and each deliverable in an arrangement is evaluated to determine whether it represents separate units of accounting. A deliverable constitutes a separate unit of accounting when it has standalone value and there is no general right of return for the delivered elements. In instances when the aforementioned criteria are not met, the deliverable is combined with the undelivered elements and the allocation of the arrangement consideration and revenue recognition is determined for the combined unit as a single unit of accounting. Allocation of the consideration is determined at arrangement inception on the basis of each unit’s relative selling price. In instances where there is determined to be a single unit of accounting, the total consideration is applied as revenue for the single unit of accounting and is recognized over the period of inception through the date where the last deliverable within the single unit of accounting is expected to be delivered.

The Company’s current revenue recognition policies, which were applied in fiscal 2010, provide that, when a collaboration arrangement contains multiple deliverables, such as license and research and development services, the Company allocates revenue to each separate unit of accounting based on a selling price hierarchy. The selling price hierarchy for a deliverable is based on (i) its vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) if available, (ii) third party evidence (TPE) if VSOE is not available, or (iii) best estimated selling price (BESP) if neither VSOE nor TPE is available. The Company would establish the VSOE of selling price using the price charged for a deliverable when sold separately. The TPE of selling price would be established by evaluating largely similar and interchangeable competitor products or services in standalone sales to similarly situated customers. The BESP would be established considering internal factors such as an internal pricing analysis or an income approach using a discounted cash flow model.

The Company also considers the impact of potential future payments it makes in its role as a vendor to its customers and evaluates if these potential future payments could be a reduction of revenue from that customer. If the potential future payments to the customer are:

·                  a payment for an identifiable benefit; and

·                  the identifiable benefit is separable from the existing relationship between the Company and its customer; and

·                  the identifiable benefit can be obtained from a party other than the customer; and

·                  the Company can reasonably estimate the fair value of the identifiable benefit

then the payments are accounted for separate from the revenue received from that customer. If, however, all these criteria are not satisfied, then the payments are treated as a reduction of revenue from that customer.

If the Company determines that any potential future payments to its customers are to be considered as a reduction of revenue, it must evaluate if the total amount of revenue to be received under the arrangement is fixed and determinable. If the total amount of revenue is not fixed and determinable due to the uncertain nature of the potential future payments to the customer, then any customer payments cannot be recognized as revenue until the total arrangement consideration becomes fixed and determinable.

The reimbursements for research and development costs under collaboration agreements that meet the criteria for revenue recognition are included in Research Revenue and the costs associated with these reimbursable amounts are included in research and development expenses.

In order to determine the revenue recognition for contingent milestones, the Company evaluates the contingent milestones using the criteria as provided by the Financial Accounting Standards Boards (FASB) guidance on the milestone method of revenue recognition at the inception of a collaboration agreement. The criteria requires that (i) the Company determines if the milestone is commensurate with either its performance to achieve the milestone or the enhancement of value resulting from the Company’s activities to achieve the milestone, (ii) the milestone be related to past performance, and (iii) the milestone be reasonable relative to all deliverable and payment terms of the collaboration

10

Table of Contents

arrangement. If these criteria are met then the contingent milestones can be considered as substantive milestones and will be recognized as revenue in the period that the milestone is achieved.

Fair Value Measurements

The Company records certain asset and liability balances under the fair value measurements as defined by the FASB guidance.  Current FASB fair value guidance emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement.  Therefore, a fair value measurement should be determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.  As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, current FASB guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity (observable inputs that are classified within Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy) and the reporting entity’s own assumptions that market participants assumptions would use in pricing assets or liabilities (unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy).

Level 1 inputs utilize quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access at measurement date.  Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.  Level 2 inputs may include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, as well as inputs that are observable for the asset or liability (other than quoted prices), such as interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability, which is typically based on an entity’s own assumptions, as there is little, if any, related market activity.  In instances where the determination of the fair value measurement is based on inputs from different levels of the fair value hierarchy, the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the entire fair value measurement falls is based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.  The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the asset or liability.

New Accounting Standards

In February 2013, the FASB amended its guidance to require an entity to present the effect of certain significant reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the respective line items in net income. The new accounting guidance does not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income. The guidance is effective prospectively for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2012.  The Company adopted these new provisions for the quarter beginning January 1, 2013. As the guidance requires additional presentation only, there was no impact to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position.

11

Table of Contents

Note 2.  Cash, Money Market Funds and Marketable Securities

As of March 31, 2013, the Company held $26.7 million in cash and cash equivalents and $58.0 million of available-for-sale investment securities which are reported at fair value on the Company’s balance sheet.  Unrealized holding gains and losses are reported within comprehensive income/(loss) in the statements of comprehensive loss.  If a decline in the fair value of a marketable security below the Company’s cost basis is determined to be other than temporary, such marketable security is written down to its estimated fair value as a new cost basis and the amount of the write-down is included in earnings as an impairment charge.  To date, only temporary impairment adjustments have been recorded.

Consistent with the Company’s investment policy, the Company does not use derivative financial instruments in its investment portfolio.  The Company regularly invests excess operating cash in deposits with major financial institutions, money market funds, notes issued by the U.S. government, as well as fixed income investments and U.S. bond funds both of which can be readily purchased and sold using established markets.  The Company believes that the market risk arising from its holdings of these financial instruments is mitigated as many of these securities are either government backed or of the highest credit rating.

Cash and available-for-sale securities consisted of the following as of December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013 (in thousands):

Unrealized gains and losses are reported as a component of other comprehensive income/(loss) in the statements of comprehensive loss.  For the year ended December 31, 2012, and the three months ended March 31, 2013, unrealized holding gains of $10 thousand and $1 thousand were included in the statements of comprehensive loss, respectively.

For the year ended December 31, 2012 and the three months ended March 31, 2013, there were no realized gains or losses.  The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method.

12

Table of Contents

Unrealized loss positions in the available for sale securities as of December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013 reflect temporary impairments that have not been recognized and have been in a loss position for less than twelve months.  The fair value of these available for sale securities in unrealized loss positions was $33.1 million and $26.1 million as of December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013, respectively.

The Company holds available-for-sale investment securities which are reported at fair value on the Company’s balance sheet. Unrealized holding gains and losses are reported within accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) in the statements of comprehensive loss.  The changes in AOCI associated with the unrealized holding gain on available-for-sale investments during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2013, were as follows (in thousands):

(a) — Taxes have not been accrued on the unrealized gain on securities as the Company is in a loss position for all periods presented.

Note 3.  Basic and Diluted Net Loss Attributable to Common Stockholders per Common Share

The Company calculates net loss per share as a measurement of the Company’s performance while giving effect to all dilutive potential common shares that were outstanding during the reporting period.  The Company has a net loss for all periods presented; accordingly, the inclusion of common stock options and warrants would be anti-dilutive.  Therefore, the weighted average shares used to calculate both basic and diluted earnings per share are the same.

The following table provides a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in computing basic and diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share:

Dilutive common stock equivalents would include the dilutive effect of common stock options and warrants for common stock equivalents.  Potentially dilutive common stock equivalents totaled approximately 9.2 million and 10.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2013, respectively.  Potentially dilutive common stock equivalents were excluded from the diluted earnings per share denominator for all periods because of their anti-dilutive effect.

Note 4.  Stockholders’ Equity

Common Stock and Warrants

As of March 31, 2013, the Company was authorized to issue 125,000,000 shares of common stock. Dividends on common stock will be paid when, and if declared by the board of directors. Each holder of common stock is entitled to vote on all matters and is entitled to one vote for each share held.

In July 2012, Amicus and GSK entered into the SPA pursuant to which GSK purchased 2.9 million unregistered shares of Amicus common stock at a price of $6.30 per share. The total purchase price for these shares was $18.6 million. The Company received all proceeds from the sale of such shares on July 26, 2012. As of March 31, 2013 GSK had a 19.8% ownership position in the Company.

In March 2012, the Company sold 11.5 million shares of its common stock at a public offering price of $5.70 through a Registration Statement on Form S-3 that was declared effective by the SEC on May 27, 2009. The aggregate offering proceeds were $65.6 million.

13

Table of Contents

In October 2010, GSK purchased approximately 6.9 million shares of the Company’s common stock at $4.56 per share, in connection with the Original Collaboration Agreement. The total value of this equity investment was approximately $31 million.

In March 2010, the Company sold 4.9 million shares of its common stock and warrants to purchase 1.9 million shares of common stock in a registered direct offering to a selected group of institutional investors through a Registration Statement on Form S-3 that was declared effective by the SEC on May 27, 2009. The shares of common stock and warrants were sold in units consisting of one share of common stock and one warrant to purchase 0.375 shares of common stock at a price of $3.74 per unit. The warrants have a term of four years and are exercisable any time on or after the six month anniversary of the date they were issued, at an exercise price of $4.43 per share. The gross offering proceeds were $18.5 million. There were approximately 1.4 million warrants outstanding at March 31, 2013.

Stock Option Plans

During the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense of approximately $1.6 million.  The stock-based compensation expense had no impact on the Company’s cash flows from operations and financing activities.  As of March 31, 2013, the total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock options granted was $11.3 million and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.6 years.  The following table summarizes information related to stock compensation expense recognized in the statements of operations (in thousands):

The fair value of the options granted is estimated on the date of grant using a Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted-average assumptions:

A summary of option activities related to the Company’s stock options for the three months ended March 31, 2013 is as follows:

14

Table of Contents

Note 5.  Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt

In August 2011, the Company entered into a loan and security agreement (the “2011 Loan Agreement”) with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), in order to finance certain capital expenditures anticipated to be made by the Company in connection with its move in March 2012 to new office and laboratory space in Cranbury, New Jersey. The 2011 Loan Agreement provides for up to $3 million of equipment financing through January 2014. Borrowings under the 2011 Loan Agreement are collateralized by equipment purchased with the proceeds of the loan and bear interest at a variable rate of SVB prime + 2.5%. The current SVB prime rate is 4.0%. In February 2012, the Company borrowed approximately $1.0 million from the 2011 Loan Agreement which will be repaid over the following 2.5 years. The 2011 Loan Agreement contains customary terms and conditions, including a financial covenant whereby the Company must maintain a minimum amount of liquidity measured at the end of each month where unrestricted cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, are greater than $20 million plus outstanding debt due to SVB. The Company has at all times been in compliance with these covenants during the term of the agreement.

At March 31, 2013, the total amount due under the 2011 Loan Agreement was $0.6 million.  The carrying amount of the Company’s borrowings approximates fair value at March 31, 2013.

Note 6.  Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value

The Company’s financial assets and liabilities are measured at fair value and classified within the fair value hierarchy which is defined as follows:

Level 1 — Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access at the measurement date.

Level 2 — Inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3 — Inputs that are unobservable for the asset or liability.

Cash, Money Market Funds and Marketable Securities

The Company classifies its cash and money market funds within the fair value hierarchy as Level 1 as these assets are valued using quoted prices in active market for identical assets at the measurement date.  The Company considers its investments in marketable securities as available-for-sale and classifies these assets within the fair value hierarchy as Level 2 primarily utilizing broker quotes in a non-active market for valuation of these securities. No changes in valuation techniques or inputs occurred during the three months ended March 31, 2013.  No transfers of assets between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value measurement hierarchy occurred during the three months ended March 31, 2013.

Secured Debt

As disclosed in Note 5, the Company has a loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank.  The carrying amount of the Company’s borrowings approximates fair value at March 31, 2013.  The Company’s secured debt is classified as Level 2 and the fair value is estimated using quoted prices for similar liabilities in active markets, as well as inputs that are observable for the liability (other than quoted prices), such as interest rates that are observable at commonly quoted intervals.

Warrants

The Company allocated $3.3 million of proceeds from its March 2010 registered direct offering to warrants issued in connection with the offering that was classified as a liability. The valuation of the warrants is determined using the Black-Scholes model. This model uses inputs such as the underlying price of the shares issued when the warrant is exercised, volatility, risk free interest rate and expected life of the instrument. The Company has determined that the warrant liability should be classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy by evaluating each input for the Black-Scholes model against the fair value hierarchy criteria and using the lowest level of input as the basis for the fair value classification. There are six inputs: closing price of Amicus stock on the day of evaluation; the exercise price of the warrants; the remaining term of the warrants; the volatility of Amicus’ stock over that term; annual rate of dividends; and the riskless rate of return. Of those inputs, the exercise price of the warrants and the remaining term are readily observable in the warrant agreements. The annual rate of dividends is based on the Company’s historical practice of not granting dividends. The closing price of Amicus stock would fall under Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy as it is a quoted price in an active market. The riskless rate of return is a Level 2 input, while the historical volatility is a Level 3 input in accordance with the fair value accounting guidance. Since the lowest level input is a Level 3, the Company determined the warrant liability is most appropriately classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. This liability is subject to fair value mark-to-market adjustment each

15

Table of Contents

period and approximately 0.5 million warrants were exercised in 2012. The Company recognized the change in the fair value of the warrant liability as non-operating expense of $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and the resulting fair value of the warrant liability at March 31, 2013 was $1.2 million. The weighted average assumptions used in the Black-Scholes valuation model for the warrants are as follows:

A summary of the fair value of the Company’s assets and liabilities aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those measurements fall as of December 31, 2012, are identified in the following table (in thousands):

A summary of the fair value of the Company’s assets and liabilities aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those measurements fall as of March 31, 2013, are identified in the following table (in thousands):

The change in the fair value of the Level 3 liability was an increase of $2.4 million and $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012, and 2013 respectively.

16

Table of Contents

Note 7.  Collaborative Agreements

GSK

On October 28, 2010, the Company entered into the Original Collaboration Agreement with Glaxo Group Limited, an affiliate of GSK, to develop and commercialize migalastat HCl. Under the terms of the Original Collaboration Agreement, GSK received an exclusive worldwide license to develop, manufacture and commercialize migalastat HCl. In consideration of the license grant, the Company received an upfront, license payment of $30 million from GSK and was eligible to receive further payments of approximately $173.5 million upon the successful achievement of development, regulatory and commercialization milestones, as well as tiered double-digit royalties on global sales of migalastat HCl. Potential payments included up to (i) $13.5 million related to the attainment of certain clinical development objectives and the acceptance of regulatory filings in select worldwide markets, (ii) $80 million related to market approvals for migalastat HCl in selected territories throughout the world, and (iii) $80 million associated with the achievement of certain sales thresholds. GSK and the Company were jointly funding development costs in accordance with an agreed upon development plan. Additionally, GSK purchased approximately 6.9 million shares of the Company’s common stock at $4.56 per share, a 30% premium on the average price per share of the Company’s stock over a 60 day period preceding the closing date of the transaction. The total value of this equity investment to the Company was approximately $31 million.

On July 17, 2012, the Company entered into the Expanded Collaboration Agreement with GSK pursuant to which the Company and GSK continue to develop and commercialize migalastat HCl, currently in Phase 3 development for the treatment of Fabry disease. The Expanded Collaboration Agreement amends and replaces in its entirety the Original Collaboration Agreement. Under the terms of the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, the Company and GSK will co-develop all formulations of migalastat HCl for Fabry disease, including the development of migalastat HCl co-formulated with an investigational ERT for Fabry disease in collaboration with another GSK collaborator JCR Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The Company will commercialize all migalastat HCl products for Fabry disease in the United States while GSK will commercialize all such products in the rest of the world.

The exclusive license granted to GSK under the Original Collaboration Agreement to commercialize migalastat HCl worldwide was replaced under the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, which grants two exclusive licenses: (i) an exclusive license from GSK to the Company to commercialize migalastat HCl in the United States, and (ii) an exclusive license from the Company to GSK to commercialize migalastat HCl in the rest of world. Amicus and GSK each have a license to manufacture migalastat HCl for commercialization of monotherapy and chaperone-ERT co-administration migalastat HCl products while GSK maintains an exclusive license to manufacture such products for development purposes (subject to limited exceptions) and to manufacture the Co-formulated Product. In the event of a change of control in the Company during the term of the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, GSK has the option to purchase an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize migalastat HCl in the United States.

GSK is eligible to receive U.S. regulatory approval milestones totaling $20 million for migalastat HCl monotherapy and migalastat HCl-ERT co-administration, and additional regulatory approval and product launch milestone payments totaling up to $35 million within seven years following the launch of the Co-formulated Product. The Company will also be responsible for certain pass-through milestone payments and single-digit royalties on the net U.S. sales of the Co-formulated Product that GSK must pay to a third party. In addition, the Company is no longer eligible to receive any milestones or royalties it would have been eligible to receive under the Original Collaboration Agreement other than a $3.5 million clinical development milestone achieved in the second quarter of 2012 and paid by GSK to Amicus in the third quarter of 2012.

The Company and GSK will continue to jointly fund development costs for all formulations of migalastat HCl in accordance with agreed upon development plans pursuant to which the Company and GSK funded 25% and 75% of such costs, respectively, for the monotherapy and co-administration programs during 2012 and 40% and 60%, respectively, in 2013 and beyond. Effective upon entry into the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, costs for the development of the Co-formulated Product are also funded 40% and 60% between Amicus and GSK, respectively.

Additionally, simultaneous with entry into the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, Amicus and GSK entered into an SPA pursuant to which GSK purchased approximately 2.9 million shares of Amicus common stock at a price of $6.30 per share. The SPA provides GSK with customary registration rights for the shares purchased and includes a six-month lock-up provision. The total purchase price was $18.6 million and the Company received all proceeds from the sale of such shares on July 26, 2012. As of March 31, 2013, GSK had a 19.8% ownership position in the Company as a result of the Original and Expanded Collaboration Agreements.

Under the Original Collaboration Agreement, the upfront license fee, together with the premium received on the stock purchase, was being recognized as Collaboration Revenue over the original development period. In addition, the Company was receiving reimbursements of research expenditures under the cost sharing arrangement which was being accounted for as research revenue on the statement of operations.

17

Table of Contents

Under the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, the Company will continue to receive research expense reimbursements for the development of migalastat HCl but may be required to pay contingent milestones to GSK in the future related to the US commercial rights to migalastat HCl.

In accordance with the revenue recognition guidance related to multiple-element arrangements, the Company identified all of the deliverables at the inception of the Expanded Collaboration Agreement. The significant deliverables were determined to be the rest of world licensing rights to migalastat HCl, the research services to continue and complete the development of migalastat HCl and the delivery of the Company’s common stock. The Company determined that the rest of world licensing rights and the research services represent one unit of accounting as none of these deliverables on its own has standalone value separate from the other. The Company also determined that the delivery of the Company’s common stock does have standalone value separate from the rest of world licensing rights and the research services. As a result, the Company’s common stock was considered a separate unit of accounting and was accounted for as an issuance of common stock. However, as the Company’s common stock was sold at a premium to the market closing price, the premium amount paid over the market closing price was determined to be additional consideration paid to the Company for the collaboration agreement and was included as consideration for the single unit of accounting (rest of world licensing rights and research services) identified above.

In evaluating the impact of the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, the Company applied the accounting guidance regarding the impact of potential future payments it may make in its role as a vendor (Amicus) to its customer (GSK) and evaluated if these potential future payments could be a reduction of revenue from GSK. If the potential future payments to GSK are:

·                                          a payment for an identifiable benefit, and

·                                          the identifiable benefit is separable from the existing relationship between the Company and GSK, and

·                                          the identifiable benefit can be obtained from a party other than GSK, and

·                                          the Company can reasonably estimate the fair value of the identifiable benefit,

then the potential future payments would be treated separately from the collaboration and research revenue. However, if all these criteria are not satisfied, then the potential future payments are treated as a reduction of revenue.

Accordingly, the Company does not believe that, for accounting purposes, the new US licensing rights to migalastat HCl obtained from GSK represent a separate, identifiable benefit from the licenses in the Original Collaboration Agreement. The contingent amounts payable to GSK are not sufficiently separable from GSK’s original license and the research and development reimbursements such that Amicus could not have entered into a similar exchange transaction with another party. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the fair value of the US licensing rights to migalastat HCl.

The Company determined that the potential future payments to GSK would be treated as a reduction of revenue and that the total amount of revenue to be received under the arrangement is no longer fixed or determinable as the contingent milestone payments are subject to significant uncertainty.

As a result, the Company no longer recognizes any of the upfront license fee and premium on the equity purchase from GSK until such time as the arrangement consideration becomes fixed or determinable, because an indeterminable amount may ultimately be payable back to GSK. These amounts (the balance of the unrecognized upfront license fee and the premium on the equity purchases) are classified as deferred reimbursements on the balance sheet.

The recognition of Research Revenue is also affected by the determination that the overall total arrangement consideration is no longer fixed and determinable, despite the fact that the research activities will continue and that the research expense reimbursements by GSK to Amicus will be received as the research activities related to the reimbursement would have already been completed. Therefore any research reimbursements from GSK are recorded as deferred reimbursements on the balance sheet and not recognized until the total arrangement consideration becomes fixed and determinable.

As a result, all revenue recognition was suspended until the total arrangement consideration becomes fixed and determinable. In addition, future milestone payments made by the Company will be applied against the balance of this deferred reimbursements account. Revenue recognition for research expense reimbursements, the original upfront license fee, and the equity premiums will resume once the total arrangement consideration becomes fixed and determinable which will occur when the balance of the deferred reimbursements account is sufficient to cover all the remaining contingent milestone payments.

Under the Original Collaboration Agreement, the Company evaluated the contingent milestones and determined that they were substantive milestones and would be recognized as revenue in the period that the milestone is achieved. The Company determined that the research based milestones were commensurate with the enhanced value of each delivered item as a result of the Company’s specific performance to achieve the milestones. The research based milestones would have related to past performances when achieved and were reasonable relative to the other payment terms within the Original Collaboration Agreement. In June 2012, the Company achieved a clinical development milestone and recognized $3.5 million of milestone revenue. Under the terms of the Expanded Collaboration Agreement, the Company is no longer entitled to receive any milestone payments from GSK.

18

Table of Contents

Note 8.  Subsequent Events

The Company evaluated events that occurred subsequent to March 31, 2013 and there were no material recognized or non-recognized subsequent events during this period.

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Overview

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (Amicus) is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of small molecule drugs known as pharmacological chaperones. We are developing pharmacological chaperones as next-generation medicines for a range of rare and orphan diseases, with a focus on improved therapies for lysosomal storage disorders. Our development programs include novel small molecules as monotherapy treatments and in combination with the current standard treatment for Fabry and other lysosomal storage diseases, enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). Our Chaperone-Advanced Replacement Therapy, or CHART, programs include chaperones co-administered with currently marketed ERTs, as well as proprietary therapeutic enzymes co-formulated with our pharmacological chaperones as next-generation ERTs. We believe that our pharmacological chaperone and CHART platform technologies, our advanced product pipeline, a strong balance sheet and our strategic collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) uniquely position us at the forefront of developing therapies for rare and orphan diseases.

We are developing our lead product candidate, migalastat HCl for Fabry disease, in collaboration with GSK as a monotherapy and in combination with ERT. Current development within our Fabry program includes two monotherapy Phase 3 global registration studies for patients with genetic mutations identified as amenable to this pharmacological chaperone in a cell-based assay (Study 011 and Study 012), a recently completed Phase 2 study investigating migalastat HCl co-administered with currently marketed ERTs (Study 013), and the preclinical development of migalastat HCl co-formulated with a proprietary investigational ERT.

Our current CHART programs for Pompe disease are investigating the pharmacological chaperone AT2220 (duvoglustat HCl) in combination with human recombinant GAA (rhGAA) enzymes.  AT2220 co-administered with currently marketed rhGAA (Myzoyme®/Lumizyme®) is in Phase 2 and AT2220 co-formulated with a proprietary rhGAA enzyme is in preclinical studies.

Program Status

Migalastat HCl for Fabry Disease as a Monotherapy: Phase 3 Global Registration Program

In Study 011, we are comparing migalastat HCl to placebo to potentially support the submission of a New Drug Application, or NDA, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval in the United States as well as to other regulatory agencies. Study 011 randomized 67 patients (24 males and 43 females) diagnosed with Fabry disease who had genetic mutations considered amenable to chaperone monotherapy in a cell-based assay. For the 6-month, double-blind period (Stage 1) patients were randomized to migalastat HCl 150 mg or placebo on an every-other-day (QOD) oral dosing schedule. During the 6-12 month period of Study 011 (Stage 2) patients continued treatment with migalastat HCl or switched from placebo to migalastat HCl.

The primary analysis compared the number of responders in the migalastat HCl versus placebo groups in Stage 1, based on a 50% or greater reduction in interstitial capillary globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) as measured in kidney biopsies. Pathologists blinded to biopsy sequence are using the published, quantitative Barisoni Lipid Inclusion Scoring System with virtual microscopy (BLISS-VM)2 for the histological evaluation of interstitial capillary GL-3 in kidney biopsies from baseline to month 6 Stage 1 and from baseline to month 12 Stage 2. Secondary endpoints for Study 011 include safety and tolerability, urine GL-3 and kidney function.

In December 2012, Amicus and GSK announced top-line six-month Stage 1 results from Study 011. In the primary responder analysis, 13/32 (41%) in the migalastat HCl group versus 9/32 (28%) in the placebo group demonstrated a 50% or greater reduction in kidney interstitial capillary GL-3 from baseline to month 6 which was not statistically significant (p=0.3). Taken alone a pre-specified secondary analysis of the absolute percent change in kidney interstitial capillary GL-3 from baseline to month 6 showed a median reduction of 41% in the migalastat HCl group versus a median reduction of 6% in the placebo group (p=0.093). Data from Stage 2 are anticipated in the third quarter of 2013. A meeting with the FDA is anticipated in mid-2013 to discuss a U.S. marketing application for migalastat HCl.

Study 012 is a randomized, open-label 18-month study investigating the safety and efficacy of migalastat HCl (150 mg, every-other-day) to current standard of care ERTs (Fabrazyme® and Replagal®) to support global registration. In December 2012, this study achieved full enrollment of 60 patients, who were randomized 1.5:1 to switch from ERT to migalastat HCl or remain on ERT. The study recruited males and females with Fabry disease and genetic mutations shown to be amenable to migalastat HCl monotherapy in a cell-based assay. All subjects had been receiving ERT infusions for a minimum of 12 months (at least 3 months at the labeled dose). Data is anticipated in the second half of 2014 on the primary outcome measure, which is renal function assessed by iohexol Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) at 18 months.