Whitehawk Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We are a preclinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We had a single product, FYARRO, approved for commercial sale by the FDA in November 2021 and launched commercially in the United Statesfor treatment ofadvanced malignant PEComa in February 2022. We generated net product sales for FYARRO of $7.1 million and$5.4 million for thethree months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. In March 2025, we divested FYARRO pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Divestiture Agreement”), dated December 19, 2024, with KAKEN INVESTMENTS INC., a Delaware corporation (“KAKEN”), KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, and Aadi Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware corporation and our former wholly owned subsidiary and the operating company for the FYARRO Business (“Aadi Subsidiary”). We recently entered into an intellectual property license agreement (the “License Agreement”) with WuXi Biologics (Shanghai FX) Co., Ltd. (“WuXi Biologics”) for the development and global commercialization of the ADC Therapies targeting clinically validated, broadly overexpressed tumor antigens in high potential cancer indications with significant unmet need. Accordingly, we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to such ongoing operations. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the biopharmaceutical area. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they would be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products.

Current wording

We are a preclinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We had a single product, FYARRO, approved for commercial sale by the FDA in November 2021 and launched commercially in the United Statesfor treatment ofadvanced malignant PEComa in February 2022. In March 2025, we divested FYARRO pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Divestiture Agreement”), dated December 19, 2024, with KAKEN INVESTMENTS INC., a Delaware corporation (“KAKEN”), KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, and Aadi Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware corporation and our former wholly owned subsidiary and the operating company for the FYARRO Business (“Aadi Subsidiary”). We recently entered into an intellectual property license agreement (the “License Agreement”) with WuXi Biologics (Shanghai FX) Co., Ltd. (“WuXi Biologics”) for the development and global commercialization of the ADC Therapies targeting clinically validated, broadly overexpressed tumor antigens in high potential cancer indications with significant unmet need. Accordingly, we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to such ongoing operations. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the biopharmaceutical area. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they would be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products.

Previous wording

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, have only generated revenue from product sales for a portion of our operating history (February 2022 through March 2025), and have financed our operations principally through private placements and public offerings of our securities, federal grants and proceeds from licenses. Our net income was $73.0 million and net loss of $18.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $259.6 million as of March 31, 2025, and $332.7 million as of December 31, 2024. These losses have resulted primarily from costs incurred in connection with research and development activities, costs incurred in connection with developing and commercializing FYARRO and general and administrative costs associated with our operations. As a result of our acquisition of the ADC Therapies, we expect to continue to incur significant selling, general and administrative expenses as well as research and development expenses related to our ongoing operations, including, identifying and designing additional product candidates, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, and navigating the regulatory approval process for the ADC Therapies and any future product candidates. Although we expect our expenses to decrease overall given the recent divestiture of FYARRO, including related commercial and clinical expenses, and headcount reductions, the amount of our future expenses and potential losses is uncertain.

Current wording

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, have only generated revenue from product sales for a portion of our operating history (February 2022 through March 2025), and have financed our operations principally through private placements and public offerings of our securities, federal grants and proceeds from licenses. Our net loss was $52.6 million and $14.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $312.3 million as of June 30, 2025, and $332.7 million as of December 31, 2024. These losses have resulted primarily from costs incurred in connection with research and development activities, costs incurred in connection with developing and commercializing FYARRO and general and administrative costs associated with our operations. As a result of our acquisition of the ADC Therapies, we expect to continue to incur significant selling, general and administrative expenses as well as research and development expenses related to our ongoing operations, including, identifying and designing additional product candidates, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, and navigating the regulatory approval process for the ADC Therapies and any future product candidates. Although we expect our expenses to decrease overall given the recent divestiture of FYARRO, including related commercial and clinical expenses, and headcount reductions, the amount of our future expenses and potential losses is uncertain.

Previous wording

Prior to initiating clinical trials of our product candidates, we will need to initiate or complete IND-enabling studies for each of our ADC Therapies and we will need to file an IND or similar application to the FDA or regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. We expect to submit an IND with respect to our lead product candidate HWK-007 in the second half of 2025 but we may not be able to file the INDs for our product candidates on the timelines we expect. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that result in the suspension or termination of clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. These considerations also apply to new clinical trials we may submit as amendments to existing INDs or to a new IND. Any failure to file INDs on the timelines we expect or to obtain regulatory clearance for our trials may prevent us from developing product candidates on a timely basis, if at all. A product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical and clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates is high due to risks relating to safety, efficacy, clinical execution, changing standards of medical care and other unpredictable variables. The results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not be predictive of the results that will be obtained in later stage clinical trials of the product candidate. If we experience failures, setbacks or delays in our preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing or regulatory efforts, our business may be materially harmed.

Current wording

Prior to initiating clinical trials of our product candidates, we will need to initiate or complete IND-enabling studies for each of the ADC Therapies and we will need to file an IND or similar application to the FDA or regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. We expect to submit INDs with respect to HWK-007 and HWK-016 in the fourth quarter of 2025 and HWK-206 in mid-2026 but we may not be able to file the INDs for our product candidates on the timelines we expect. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that result in the suspension or termination of clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. These considerations also apply to new clinical trials we may submit as amendments to existing INDs or to a new IND. Any failure to file INDs on the timelines we expect or to obtain regulatory clearance for our trials may prevent us from developing product candidates on a timely basis, if at all. A product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical and clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates is high due to risks relating to safety, efficacy, clinical execution, changing standards of medical care and other unpredictable variables. The results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not be predictive of the results that will be obtained in later stage clinical trials of the product candidate. If we experience failures, setbacks or delays in our preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing or regulatory efforts, our business may be materially harmed.

Previous wording

Our product candidates are next-generation ADC Therapies using the same linker-payload designed by Hangzhou DAC and new antibodies designed by WuXi Biologics. Though ADC-based product candidates have been or are currently being evaluated by others in clinical trials using similar targets or the same linker-payload architectures, our product candidates and their antibody components have never been evaluated in human clinical trials. If our product candidates encounter safety or efficacy problems, developmental delays or regulatory issues or other problems, such problems could impact the development plans for our other product candidates because all of our product candidates are currently use the same linker-payload architecture.

Current wording

Our product candidates are next-generation ADC Therapies using the same linker-payload designed by Hangzhou DAC and new antibodies designed by WuXi Biologics. Though ADC-based product candidates have been or are currently being evaluated by others in clinical trials using similar targets or the same linker-payload architectures, our product candidates and their antibody components have never been evaluated in human clinical trials. If our product candidates encounter safety or efficacy problems, developmental delays or regulatory issues or other problems, such problems could impact the development plans for our other product candidates because all of our product candidates currently use the same linker-payload architecture.

Previous wording

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to prescription drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “American Rescue Plan”), the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs was eliminated. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at increasing competition for prescription drugs. In August 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “Inflation Reduction Act”), which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) can qualify for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D drugs in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each drug has been announced. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, up to an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, up to 20 additional Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Infusion Center Association, the Global Colon Cancer Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act are unconstitutional. T…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to prescription drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “American Rescue Plan”), the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs was eliminated. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at increasing competition for prescription drugs. In August 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “Inflation Reduction Act”), which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) can qualify for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D drugs in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each drug has been announced. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, up to an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, up to 20 additional Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Infusion Center Association, the Global Colon Cancer Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act are unconstitutional. F…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

ADC Therapies or any future product candidates may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials we are conducting. Similarly, negative results reported by our competitors about their ADC drug candidates may negatively affect patient recruitment in our clinical trials. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for the ADC Therapies and any other product candidates that we may develop and jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, there is a risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion or, because they may be late-stage cancer patients, may not survive the full terms of the clinical trials. As a result, we may have difficulty maintaining participation in our clinical trials through the treatment and any follow-up periods. In addition, we rely on clinical trial sites to ensure timely conduct of our clinical trials and, while we have entered into agreements governing their services, we are limited in our ability to compel their actual performance.

Current wording

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials could result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Furthermore, any negative results we may report in clinical trials of the ADC Therapies or any future product candidates may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials we are conducting. Similarly, negative results reported by our competitors about their ADC drug candidates may negatively affect patient recruitment in our clinical trials. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for the ADC Therapies and any other product candidates that we may develop and jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, there is a risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion or, because they may be late-stage cancer patients, may not survive the full terms of the clinical trials. As a result, we may have difficulty maintaining participation in our clinical trials through the treatment and any follow-up periods. In addition, we rely on clinical trial sites to ensure timely conduct of our clinical trials and, while we have entered into agreements governing their services, we are limited in our ability to compel their actual performance.

Previous wording

Many companies are active in the oncology market and are developing or marketing products for the specific therapeutic markets that we target, including both antibody- and non-antibody-based therapies. Similarly, we also face competition from other companies and institutions that continue to invest in innovation in the ADC field, including new payload classes, new conjugation approaches and new targeting moieties. Specifically, we are aware of multiple companies with ADC technologies that may be competitive with our products and product candidates, including, but not limited to, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Kelun, Mersana, Sanofi, Roche, Pfizer and Zymeworks. There are hundreds of ADCs in development, the vast majority of which were being developed for the treatment of cancer.

Current wording

Many companies are active in the oncology market and are developing or marketing products for the specific therapeutic markets that we target, including both antibody- and non-antibody-based therapies. Similarly, we also face competition from other companies and institutions that continue to invest in innovation in the ADC field, including new payload classes, new conjugation approaches and new targeting moieties. Specifically, we are aware of multiple companies with ADC technologies that may be competitive with our products and product candidates, including, but not limited to, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Kelun, Mersana, Sanofi, Roche, Pfizer, Zymeworks, Ideaya, and Biocytogen. There are hundreds of ADCs in development, the vast majority of which were being developed for the treatment of cancer.

Previous wording

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure products are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market our prodrug products, if any, for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to a number of actions and penalties, including warning letters, cyber letters, or untitled letters, adverse publicity, the requirement for dear-health-care-provider letters or other corrective information, fines and other monetary penalties, civil or criminal prosecution, including False Claims Act liability, restrictions on our operations and other operating requirements through consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements, debarment, exclusion from participation in federal health care programs and refusal of government contracts or future orders under existing contracts, among other consequences.

Current wording

Violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to a number of actions and penalties, including warning letters, cyber letters, or untitled letters, adverse publicity, the requirement for dear-health-care-provider letters or other corrective information, fines and other monetary penalties, civil or criminal prosecution, including False Claims Act liability, restrictions on our operations and other operating requirements through consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements, debarment, exclusion from participation in federal health care programs and refusal of government contracts or future orders under existing contracts, among other consequences.

Previous wording

Even if orphan drug designation is granted, we may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. We may not be the first to obtain regulatory approval of any product candidate for which we have obtained orphan drug designation for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to ensure that we will be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, that the orphan drug exclusivity may not effectively protect an approved product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care or the manufacturer of the product with orphan exclusivity is unable to maintain sufficient product quantity. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process or entitles the product candidate to priority review. In view of the overturn of the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, this landmark Supreme Court decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, including market exclusivities, which could lead to uncertainties in the industry. Further, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the Trump administration may also lead to new policies and changes in the regulations and operations of the FDA, which may impact our clinical development plans. In April 2025, the President issued an executive order and an accompanying fact sheet focused on lowering drug prices, but it is unclear what actions will be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services, CMS, and FDA under the new leadership, and how those actions will impact our industry and our business.

Current wording

Even if orphan drug designation is granted, we may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. We may not be the first to obtain regulatory approval of any product candidate for which we have obtained orphan drug designation for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to ensure that we will be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, that the orphan drug exclusivity may not effectively protect an approved product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care or the manufacturer of the product with orphan exclusivity is unable to maintain sufficient product quantity. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process or entitles the product candidate to priority review. In view of the overturn of the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, this landmark Supreme Court decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, including market exclusivities, which could lead to uncertainties in the industry. Further, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the current administration may also lead to new policies and changes in the regulations and operations of the FDA, which may impact our clinical development plans. In April 2025, the President issued an executive order and an accompanying fact sheet focused on lowering drug prices, but it is unclear what actions will be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services, CMS, and FDA under the new leadership, and how those actions will impact our industry and our business.

Previous wording

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “ACA”), was passed, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the United States pharmaceutical industry. Some of the provisions of the ACA have been subject to judicial and Congressional challenges, and in June 2021, the

Current wording

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “ACA”), was passed, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the United States pharmaceutical industry. Some of the provisions of the ACA have been subject to judicial and Congressional challenges, and in June 2021, the Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.

Previous wording

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the regulatory approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent regulatory approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements. Further, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, this landmark decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, including market exclusivities, which could lead to uncertainties in the industry. Further, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the Trump administration may also lead to new policies and changes in the regulations and operations of the FDA, which may impact our clinical development plans.

Current wording

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the regulatory approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent regulatory approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements. Further, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, this landmark decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, including market exclusivities, which could lead to uncertainties in the industry. Further, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the current administration may also lead to new policies and changes in the regulations and operations of the FDA, which may impact our clinical development plans.

Previous wording

Additionally, the collection and use of health data in the European Union is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which extends the geographical scope of European Union data protection law to non-European Union entities under certain conditions and imposes substantial obligations upon companies and new rights for individuals. Failure to comply with the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of European Union member states may result in fines up to €20.0 million or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. Additionally, the UK has implemented legislation that substantially implements the GDPR, the UK GDPR, which provides for similar obligations and provides for penalties for noncompliance of up to the greater of £17.5 million or four percent of worldwide revenues. The European Union also has enacted numerous laws and regulations addressing cybersecurity. Similar laws have been proposed, and in certain cases enacted, in other foreign jurisdictions. For example, on August 20, 2021, the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) of the People’s Republic of China was adopted and went into effect on November 1, 2021. The PIPL shares similarities with the GDPR, including extraterritorial application, data minimization, data localization, and purpose limitation requirements, and limitations on cross-border data transfers. The PIPL allows for fines of up to 50 million renminbi or 5% of a covered company’s revenue in the prior year.

Current wording

Additionally, the collection and use of health data in the European Union is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which extends the geographical scope of European Union data protection law to non-European Union entities under certain conditions and imposes substantial obligations upon companies and new rights for individuals. Failure to comply with the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of European Union member states may result in fines up to €20.0 million or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. Additionally, the UK has implemented legislation that substantially implements the GDPR, the UK GDPR, which provides for similar obligations and provides for penalties for noncompliance of up to the greater of £17.5 million or four percent of worldwide revenues. The UK enacted the UK Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 on June 19, 2025, which made targeted amendments to the UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act. The European Union also has enacted numerous laws and regulations addressing cybersecurity. Similar laws have been proposed, and in certain cases enacted, in other foreign jurisdictions. For example, on August 20, 2021, the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) of the People’s Republic of China was adopted and went into effect on November 1, 2021. The PIPL allows for fines of up to 50 million renminbi or 5% of a covered company’s revenue in the prior year.

Previous wording

More generally, state and foreign laws addressing privacy, data protection and cybersecurity may apply to the privacy and security of information we maintain, and may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which took effect on January 1, 2020, and subsequently was amended and supplemented by the CPRA, gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. In addition, the CCPA (a) allows enforcement by the California Attorney General, with fines set at $2,500 per violation (i.e., per person) or $7,500 per intentional violation and (b) authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. Numerous other states in the U.S. have proposed or enacted similar legislation. While the CCPA and many other similar state laws exempt some data regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and certain clinical trials data, the CCPA and such other laws, to the extent applicable to our business and operations, may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Further, some states have enacted more specific legislation, such as Washington’s enactment of the My Health, My Data Act, which includes a private right of action. The U.S. federal government is also contemplating federal privacy legislation, and the U.S. Department of Justice has issued rules regarding certain bulk sensitive personal data transfers. The evolving trend toward more stringent laws and regulations in the United States relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, including the foregoing laws and regulations and the potential for future laws and regulations, could increase our compliance costs and potential liability and adversely affect our business.

Current wording

More generally, state and foreign laws addressing privacy, data protection and cybersecurity may apply to the privacy, protection, security, and collection, use, transfer, retention, and other processing of information we maintain, and may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which took effect on January 1, 2020, and subsequently was amended and supplemented by the CPRA, gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. In addition, the CCPA (a) allows enforcement by the California Attorney General, with fines set at $2,500 per violation (i.e., per person) or $7,500 per intentional violation and (b) authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. Numerous other states in the U.S. have proposed or enacted similar legislation. While the CCPA and many other similar state laws exempt some data regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and certain clinical trials data, the CCPA and such other laws, to the extent applicable to our business and operations, may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Further, some states have enacted more specific legislation, such as Washington’s enactment of the My Health, My Data Act, which includes a private right of action. The U.S. federal government is also contemplating federal privacy legislation, and the U.S. Department of Justice has issued rules regarding certain bulk sensitive personal data transfers. The evolving trend toward more stringent laws and regulations in the United States relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, including the foregoing laws and regulations and the potential for future laws and regulations, could increase our compliance costs and potential liability and adversely affect our business.

Previous wording

It is possible that the GDPR, UK GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, or other laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or inconsistent with our policies and practices. We cannot guarantee that we are in compliance with all such laws and regulations, and we cannot be sure how these laws and regulations will be interpreted, enforced or applied to our operations. Furthermore, various jurisdictions are introducing or enhancing laws, rules, and regulations relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, which could increase our compliance costs and the risks associated with noncompliance. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices, and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. Our actual or alleged non-compliance could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, which could adversely affect our business. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures, and systems. The GDPR, UK GDPR, and other laws and regulations addressing privacy, data protection and cybersecurity may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we may process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms in an effort to comply with them.

Current wording

Furthermore, various jurisdictions are introducing or enhancing laws, rules, and regulations relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, which could increase our compliance costs and the risks associated with noncompliance. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices, and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. Our actual or alleged non-compliance could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, which could adversely affect our business. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level in various jurisdictions may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures, and systems. The GDPR, UK GDPR, and other laws and regulations addressing privacy, data protection and cybersecurity may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we may process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms in an effort to comply with them.

Previous wording

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the Trump administration, including return-to-office policy, hiring freeze, layoffs, and other policies implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency, may lead to changes in the operations of the FDA and other agencies, which may have a material impact on the industry and our clinical development plans. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Current wording

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the current administration, including return-to-office policy, hiring freeze, layoffs, and other policies implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency, may lead to changes in the operations of the FDA and other agencies, which may have a material impact on the industry and our clinical development plans. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Previous wording

Following the FYARRO Divestiture, we have 19 full-time or part-time employees as of May 7, 2025. In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, from time to time we may need additional managerial, operational, development, financial and other personnel. In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, from time to time we may need additional managerial, operational, development, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

As of August 4, 2025, we have 21 full-time or part-time employees. In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, from time to time we may need additional managerial, operational, development, financial and other personnel. In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, from time to time we may need additional managerial, operational, development, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Previous wording

Despite the implementation of security measures in an effort to protect systems that store our information, given their size and complexity and the increasing amounts of information maintained on our internal information technology systems, and those of our third-party CROs, other contractors (including sites performing our clinical trials) and consultants, these systems are potentially vulnerable to breakdown or other damage or interruption from service interruptions, system malfunction, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, as well as security breaches and incidents from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties (including the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of systems and information), which may compromise our system infrastructure or lead to the loss, destruction, alteration or dissemination of, or damage to, our data. As the cyber-threat landscape evolves, these attacks are growing in frequency, sophistication and intensity, and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. These risks may be heightened due to the increasing number of our and our vendors’ and contractors’ personnel working remotely. Further geopolitical events such as wars and conflicts may increase the cybersecurity threats we and the third parties we work with face. Any disruption or security breach or incident resulting in a loss, destruction, unavailability, or unauthorized alteration, dissemination, or other processing of, or damage to, our data or applications, or for it to be believed or reported that any of these occurred, we could incur liability and reputational damage and the development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed. We cannot assure you that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology, or the efforts or investments of CROs, consultants or other third parties, have prevented or will prevent significant breakdowns or breaches in systems or other cyber incidents that cause loss, destruction, unavailability, or unauthorized alteration, dissemination, or other processing of, or damage to, our data that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations or financial condition. For example, any such event that were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption of our programs and the development of our product candidates could be delayed. In addition, the loss, unauthorized alteration, or unavailability of clinical trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Furthermore, interrupti…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Despite the implementation of security measures in an effort to protect systems that store our information, given their size and complexity and the increasing amounts of information maintained on and processed by our internal information technology systems, and those of our third-party CROs, other contractors (including sites performing our clinical trials) and consultants, these systems are potentially vulnerable to breakdown or other damage or interruption from service interruptions, system malfunction, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, as well as security breaches and incidents from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties (including the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of systems and information), which may compromise our system infrastructure or lead to the loss, destruction, alteration or dissemination of, or damage to, our data. As the cyber-threat landscape evolves, these attacks are growing in frequency, sophistication and intensity, and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. These risks may be heightened due to the increasing number of our and our vendors’ and contractors’ personnel working remotely. Further geopolitical events such as wars and conflicts may increase the cybersecurity threats we and the third parties we work with face. Any disruption or security breach or incident resulting in a loss, destruction, unavailability, or unauthorized alteration, dissemination, or other processing of, or damage to, our data or applications, or for it to be believed or reported that any of these occurred, we could incur liability and reputational damage and the development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed. We cannot assure you that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology, or the efforts or investments of CROs, consultants or other third parties, have prevented or will prevent significant breakdowns or breaches in systems or other cyber incidents that cause loss, destruction, unavailability, or unauthorized alteration, dissemination, or other processing of, or damage to, our data that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations or financial condition. For example, any such event that were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption of our programs and the development of our product candidates could be delayed. In addition, the loss, unauthorized alteration, or unavailability of clinical trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Furthe…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We expect that the portion of our consolidated NOLs and other tax attributes that are allocable to Aadi Subsidiary will generally remain with Aadi Subsidiary and will no longer constitute tax attributes of Whitehawk following the FYARRO Divestiture.

Current wording

Following the FYARRO Divestiture, the portion of our consolidated NOLs and other tax attributes that were allocable to Aadi Subsidiary generally remain with Aadi Subsidiary and no longer constitute our tax attributes.

Previous wording

Legislation or other changes in United States and international tax laws could increase our tax liability and adversely affect after-tax profitability. For example, beginning in 2022, the legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, requires U.S. research and experimental expenditures to be capitalized and amortized ratably over a five-year period. Any such expenditures attributable to research conducted outside of the United States must be capitalized and amortized over a 15-year period. Further, in August 2022, the United States enacted the Inflation Reduction Act, which implemented a number of changes, including a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks and an alternative minimum tax on adjusted financial statement income. Such enacted and other proposed changes, as well as regulations and legal decisions interpreting and applying these changes, may have significant impacts on our effective tax rate, cash tax expenses and net deferred tax assets in future periods.

Current wording

Legislation or other changes in United States and international tax laws could increase our tax liability and adversely affect after-tax profitability. For example, beginning in 2022, the legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, requires U.S. research and experimental expenditures to be capitalized and amortized ratably over a five-year period. Any such expenditures attributable to research conducted outside of the United States must be capitalized and amortized over a 15-year period. Legislation commonly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” enacted in July 2025 eliminates capitalization of domestic research and experimental expenditures for taxable years beginning January 1, 2025, but retains the requirement to amortize foreign research and experimental expenditure over 15 years. Further, in August 2022, the United States enacted the Inflation Reduction Act, which implemented a number of changes, including a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks and an alternative minimum tax on adjusted financial statement income. Such enacted and other proposed changes, as well as regulations and legal decisions interpreting and applying these changes, may have significant impacts on our effective tax rate, cash tax expenses and net deferred tax assets in future periods.

Previous wording

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”), was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we may not be certain that we or our licensors are the first to either file any patent application related to our product or product candidates or invent any of the inventions claimed in the patents or patent applications.

Current wording

United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we may not be certain that we or our licensors are the first to either file any patent application related to our product or product candidates or invent any of the inventions claimed in the patents or patent applications.

Previous wording

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United

Current wording

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. In addition, the statutory deadlines for pursuing patent protection in individual foreign jurisdictions are based on the priority date of each of our patent applications and we may not timely file foreign patent applications.

Previous wording

As described in Note 12 (Commitments and contingencies) to theconsolidated financial statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have been, are, and may in the future become, party to lawsuits and legal proceedings including, without limitation, actions and proceedings in the ordinary course of business relating to our collaboration partners, directors, officers, stockholders, intellectual property rights, employment matters and the safety or efficacy of our products, which will cause us to incur legal fees and other costs related thereto, including potential expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of officers and directors under indemnification obligations. For example, in June 2022, EOC filed a Request for Arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration against us. In the Request for Arbitration, EOC claimed that we breached certain provisions of the EOC License Agreement, including failing to provide certain manufacturing information to EOC. As a result, we became party to a lengthy arbitration process and, although we were found not liable for any damages to EOC in the arbitration panel’s final award in September 2024, we nevertheless experienced management distraction and incurred significant legal fees to defend ourselves.

Current wording

As described in Note 12 (Commitments and contingencies) to the financial statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we have been, are, and may in the future become, party to lawsuits and legal proceedings including, without limitation, actions and proceedings in the ordinary course of business relating to our collaboration partners, directors, officers, stockholders, intellectual property rights, employment matters and the safety or efficacy of our products, which will cause us to incur legal fees and other costs related thereto, including potential expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of officers and directors under indemnification obligations. For example, in June 2022, EOC filed a Request for Arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration against us. In the Request for Arbitration, EOC claimed that we breached certain provisions of the EOC License Agreement, including failing to provide certain manufacturing information to EOC. As a result, we became party to a lengthy arbitration process and, although we were found not liable for any damages to EOC in the arbitration panel’s final award in September 2024, we nevertheless experienced management distraction and incurred significant legal fees to defend ourselves.

Previous wording

The expense of defending against litigation and legal proceedings may be significant and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. Further, the amount of time that may be required to resolve such lawsuits or legal proceedings is unpredictable, and these actions may divert management’s attention from the day-to-day operations of our business, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and cash flows. Our insurance carriers may deny coverage, may be inadequately capitalized to pay on valid claims, or our policy limits may be inadequate to fully satisfy any damage awards or settlements. If this were to happen, the payment of any such awards could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operations, cash flows and financial position. Additionally, any such claims, whether or not successful, could damage our reputation and business. Litigation and legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in such matters that may arise from time to time could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Current wording

The expense of defending against litigation and legal proceedings may be significant and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. Further, the amount of time that may be required to resolve such lawsuits or legal proceedings is unpredictable, and these actions may divert management’s attention from the day-to-day operations of our business, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and cash flows. Our insurance carriers may deny coverage, may be inadequately capitalized to pay on valid claims, or our policy limits may be inadequate to fully satisfy any damage awards or settlements. If this were to happen, the payment of any such awards could have a material adverse effect on our operations, cash flows and financial position. Additionally, any such claims, whether or not successful, could damage our reputation and business. Litigation and legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in such matters that may arise from time to time could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Previous wording

additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that these sales and others may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

Current wording

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that these sales and others may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

Previous wording

Additionally, there is ongoing uncertainty regarding the federal budget and federal spending levels, including the possible impacts of a failure to increase the “debt ceiling.” Any U.S. government default on its debt could have broad macroeconomic effects that could, among other things, disrupt access to capital markets and deepen recessionary conditions. Further, as of March 31, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $231.1 million, consisting of U.S. government treasury bills, commercial paper, and corporate debt securities. Any default by the U.S. government or credit downgrade of the securities we hold could impact the liquidity or valuation of our investments.

Current wording

Additionally, there is ongoing uncertainty regarding the federal budget and federal spending levels, including the possible impacts of a failure to increase the “debt ceiling.” Any U.S. government default on its debt could have broad macroeconomic effects that could, among other things, disrupt access to capital markets and deepen recessionary conditions. Further, as of June 30, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $177.2 million, consisting of U.S. government treasury bills, commercial paper, and corporate debt securities. Any default by the U.S. government or credit downgrade of the securities we hold could impact the liquidity or valuation of our investments.