Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Investors should carefully consider all of the risk factors and uncertainties described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including the section of this report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated and combined financial statements and related notes, before investing in our common stock.

Current wording

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Investors should carefully consider all of the risk factors and uncertainties described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including the section of this report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes, before investing in our common stock.

Previous wording

We expect to continue devoting significant time and resources and to incur expenses in identifying and evaluating strategic alternatives for the company, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. A considerable portion of these expenses will be incurred regardless of whether a transaction is completed. Any such expenses will decrease the remaining cash available for use in our business. In addition, potential strategic transactions that require stockholder approval may not be approved by our stockholders or, if required, a counterparty’s stockholders. Further, any strategic transaction that is completed ultimately may not deliver the benefits we expect or enhance stockholder value.

Current wording

We expect to continue devoting significant time and resources and to incur expenses in identifying and evaluating strategic alternatives for the company, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. A considerable portion of these expenses will be incurred regardless of whether a transaction is completed. Any such expenses will decrease the remaining cash available for use in our business. In addition, potential strategic transactions that require

Previous wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that product candidates will fail to prove effective, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We have one product, Ebvallo, which is approved in the EEA, the UK and Switzerland and have generated limited revenues from commercialization, and have incurred significant research, development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations and expect to continue to incur such expenses. As a result, we have incurred significant operating losses in every annual reporting period since our inception, with the exception of the twelve months ended December 31, 2025. For the six months ended June 30, 2026, we reported a net loss of $9.0 million.

Current wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that product candidates will fail to prove effective, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We have one product, Ebvallo, which is approved in the EEA, the UK and Switzerland and have generated limited revenues from commercialization, and have incurred significant research, development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations and expect to continue to incur such expenses. As a result, we have incurred significant operating losses in every annual reporting period since our inception, with the exception of the twelve months ended December 31, 2025. For the nine months ended September 30, 2026, we reported a net loss of $11.2 million.

Previous wording

To date, we have generated only limited revenues from commercialization. We have obtained regulatory approval for one product, Ebvallo, in the EEA, Switzerland and the UK. We have out-licensed the commercialization rights to tab-cel (Ebvallo in the EEA, Switzerland and the UK) to Pierre Fabre under the A&R Commercialization Agreement and we have sold certain royalty and milestone interests for the Initial Territory, subject to a specified cap, to HCRx pursuant to the HCRx Agreement. Our ability to generate revenues from commercialization and achieve profitability will be subject to the A&R Commercialization Agreement, the HCRx Agreement and depend on our commercialization partners’ ability to successfully commercialize products, including any of our current product and product candidates, and other product candidates that we may develop, in-license or acquire in the future. Our ability to generate revenues from the sale of products and achieve profitability will also depend on a number of additional factors, including our ability, or our commercialization partner's ability, to:

Current wording

To date, we have generated only limited revenues from commercialization. We have obtained regulatory approval for one product, Ebvallo, in the EEA, Switzerland and the UK. We have out-licensed the commercialization rights to tab-cel (Ebvallo in the EEA, Switzerland and the UK) to Pierre Fabre under the A&R Commercialization Agreement and we have sold certain royalty and milestone interests for the Initial Territory, subject to a specified cap, to HCRx pursuant to the HCRx Agreement. Our ability to generate revenues from commercialization and achieve profitability will be subject to the A&R Commercialization Agreement, the HCRx Agreement and depend on our commercialization partners’ ability to successfully commercialize products, including any of our current product and product candidates, and other product candidates that we may develop, in-license or acquire in the future. Our ability to generate revenues

Previous wording

To alleviate the conditions that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, we plan to secure additional capital, potentially through a combination of public or private security offerings; use of our ATM facility; issuance of debt; and/or execution of strategic transactions. We may also need to raise additional funding as required based on the status of our development program and our projected cash flows. Although we have been successful in raising capital in the past, and expect to continue to raise capital as required, there is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining sufficient funding on terms acceptable to us to fund continuing operations, if at all, or identify and enter into any strategic transactions that will provide the capital that we will require. In addition, as of the date of the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, our public float was less than $75 million. As a result, we are subject to the limitations of General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3 until such time as our public float exceeds $75 million, which means we only have the capacity to sell shares up to one-third of our public float under shelf registration statements in any twelve-month period. We will remain constrained by the limitations of General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3 until such time as our public float exceeds $75 million, at which time the number of securities we may sell under a Form S-3 registration statement will no longer be limited by limitations of General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3. Further, our existing shelf registration statement on Form S-3 expires on November 11, 2026. If our public float remains below $75 million, any new or replacement registration statement on Form S-3 that we file will be subject to General Instruction I.B.6, which would limit the aggregate amount we may sell in primary offerings under that registration, including pursuant to the 2023 ATM Facility, in any 12-month period to one-third of our public float. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit, reduce or terminate ongoing activities of our product candidate, as well as our exploration of strategic alternatives, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Current wording

To alleviate the conditions that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, we plan to secure additional capital, potentially through a combination of public or private security offerings; use of our ATM facility; issuance of debt; and/or execution of strategic transactions. We may also need to raise additional funding as required based on the status of our development program and our projected cash flows. Although we have been successful in raising capital in the past, and expect to continue to raise capital as required, there is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining sufficient funding on terms acceptable to us to fund continuing operations, if at all, or identify and enter into any strategic transactions that will provide the capital that we will require. In addition, as of the date of the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, our public float was less than $75 million. As a result, we are subject to the limitations of General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3 until such time as our public float exceeds $75 million, which means we only have the capacity to sell shares up to one-third of our public float under shelf registration statements in any twelve-month period. We will remain constrained by the limitations of General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3 until such time as our public float exceeds $75 million, at which time the number of securities we may sell under a Form S-3 registration statement will no longer be limited by the limitations of General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3. Further, our existing shelf registration statement on Form S-3 expires on November 13, 2026, and we intend to file a replacement registration statement on Form S-3 before that date. If we do so, we believe that we may be able to continue to sell under the 2023 ATM Facility pursuant to our existing shelf registration statement, without regard to the limitations of General Instruction I.B.6, until the earlier of the effectiveness of the replacement registration statement and May 12, 2027. If we do not file the replacement registration statement before November 13, 2026, we will not be able to sell under the 2023 ATM Facility until a new registration statement is declared effective. In any event, if our public float remains below $75 million when the replacement registration statement is filed, sales under it will be subject to General Instruction I.B.6, which would limit the aggregate amount we may sell in primary offerings under that registration statement, including pursuant to the 2023 ATM Facility, in any 12-month period to one-third of our public float. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit, reduce or terminate ongoing activities of our product candidate, as well as our exploration of strategic alternatives, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Previous wording

We only have one product, Ebvallo, that has gained marketing authorization, with approval currently in the EEA, the UK, and Switzerland. Tab-cel (tabelecleucel) is currently in Phase 3 development in the U.S. Our business is substantially dependent on our partner's ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, to successfully commercialize tab-cel in a timely manner.

Current wording

We only have one product, Ebvallo, that has gained marketing authorization, with approval currently in the EEA, the UK, and Switzerland. Tab-cel (tabelecleucel) is currently in Phase 3 development in the U.S. In September 2026, Pierre Fabre resubmitted the BLA for tab-cel, and in October 2026, the FDA accepted the resubmission for a Class 2 review with a target action date of March 31, 2027. The FDA may not act by that date, and there can be no assurance that the FDA will approve the BLA. Our business is substantially dependent on our partner’s ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, to successfully commercialize tab-cel in a timely manner.

Previous wording

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of preclinical and clinical studies and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. The novel nature of tab-cel may create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have limited experience with regulating the development and commercialization of T-cell immunotherapies, particularly allogeneic T-cell product candidates, and CAR T therapies, including assessing the comparability of different versions of such product candidates. In addition, approval policies, regulations, regulatory positions or the type and amount of clinical and other data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and throughout regulatory interactions, and may vary among jurisdictions, particularly for novel therapies. The EC has approved the MAA for Ebvallo as a monotherapy treatment for patients with EBV+ PTLD who have received at least one prior therapy under “exceptional circumstances,” which is a pathway under which marketing authorization is granted when “comprehensive data cannot be obtained even after authorization.” The MHRA and Swissmedic approved the marketing application for Ebvallo leveraging the EMA assessment. Under the exceptional circumstances marketing authorization, our commercial partner, Pierre Fabre, is subject to ongoing post-marketing obligations to continue confirmation of the benefits of Ebvallo. Continuation of the Ebvallo marketing authorization is subject to annual re-assessment. The annual re-assessment will determine whether the Ebvallo marketing authorization should be maintained, changed, or suspended, based on Pierre Fabre’s fulfillment of post-marketing obligations and the risk/benefit profile of Ebvallo. If we, or Pierre Fabre, do not satisfy the ongoing post-marketing obligations or the risk/benefit profile of Ebvallo is determined not to be acceptable based on new clinical or post-marketing data, the EC, MHRA, or Swissmedic may change or suspend the marketing approval for Ebvallo. It is possible Ebvallo (tabelecleucel) may not be approved in any other country other than those in which approval has been obtained.

Current wording

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of preclinical and clinical studies and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. The novel nature of tab-cel may create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have limited experience with regulating the development and commercialization of T-cell immunotherapies, particularly allogeneic T-cell product candidates, and CAR T therapies, including assessing the comparability of different versions of such product candidates. In addition, approval policies, regulations, regulatory positions or the type and amount of clinical and other data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and throughout regulatory interactions, and may vary among jurisdictions, particularly for novel therapies. The EC has approved the MAA for Ebvallo as a monotherapy treatment for patients with EBV+ PTLD who have received at least one prior therapy under “exceptional circumstances,” which is a pathway under which marketing authorization is granted when “comprehensive data cannot be obtained even after authorization.” The MHRA and Swissmedic approved the marketing application for Ebvallo leveraging the EMA assessment. Under the exceptional circumstances marketing authorization, our commercial partner, Pierre Fabre, is subject to ongoing post-marketing obligations to continue confirmation of the benefits of Ebvallo. Continuation of the Ebvallo marketing authorization is subject to annual re-assessment. The annual re-assessment will determine whether the Ebvallo marketing authorization should be maintained, changed, or suspended, based on Pierre Fabre’s fulfillment of post-marketing obligations and the

Previous wording

The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may require information beyond what we plan to provide in or expect to be required for a marketing application, including additional CMC information, preclinical or clinical data to support approval. These requirements may delay or prevent approval and our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development program. Although the FDA designated tabelecleucel as a breakthrough therapy, a breakthrough designation (BTD) status is not considered in the FDA's decision to approve or not approve a product candidate. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is at the discretion of the FDA, and receipt of a BTD designation may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification and rescind the BTD designation or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, our CMOs for tab-cel will undergo pre-approval inspection in connection with our tab-cel BLA, and we cannot be certain that we will be able to adequately support them through such inspection nor that they will successfully pass any such inspection. For example, In January 2025, we received the Response Letter from the FDA relating solely to observations during pre-approval inspection of a third party manufacturing facility in connection with our tab-cel BLA. In addition, in January 2025, the FDA placed a clinical hold on Atara’s active Investigational New Drug (IND) applications. These INDs include the tab-cel program as monotherapy treatment for adult and pediatric patients two years of age and older with Epstein-Barr virus positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV+ PTLD) and ATA3219 for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and systemic lupus erythematosus. The clinical hold is directly linked to inadequately addressed GMP compliance issues identified during the pre-approval inspection of a third party manufacturing facility referenced in the Response Letter. In January 2025, we notified investigators of the clinical holds for the tab-cel program. In February 2025, the third party manufacturing facility referenced in the Response Letter was inspected and received an FDA Form 483. We worked with our partner, Pierre Fabre, to support this third party manufacturer in addressing the compliance issues and in May 2025, the FDA confirmed the clinical hold issues were satisfactorily addressed and the FDA lifted the clinical holds for tab-cel and ATA3219 programs. In January 2026, the FDA confirmed it completed a follow-up inspection of the third party manufacturing facility and determined the inspectional issues at such facility have been adequately addressed and the deficiency comment in the Response Letter has been satisfactorily resol…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

cel program as monotherapy treatment for adult and pediatric patients two years of age and older with Epstein-Barr virus positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV+ PTLD) and ATA3219 for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and systemic lupus erythematosus. The clinical hold is directly linked to inadequately addressed GMP compliance issues identified during the pre-approval inspection of a third party manufacturing facility referenced in the Response Letter. In January 2025, we notified investigators of the clinical holds for the tab-cel program. In February 2025, the third party manufacturing facility referenced in the Response Letter was inspected and received an FDA Form 483. We worked with our partner, Pierre Fabre, to support this third party manufacturer in addressing the compliance issues and in May 2025, the FDA confirmed the clinical hold issues were satisfactorily addressed and the FDA lifted the clinical holds for tab-cel and ATA3219 programs. In January 2026, the FDA confirmed it completed a follow-up inspection of the third party manufacturing facility and determined the inspectional issues at such facility have been adequately addressed and the deficiency comment in the Response Letter has been satisfactorily resolved. In January 2026, we received a second Complete Response Letter from the FDA (Second Complete Response Letter) claiming that the ALLELE trial, previously confirmed by the FDA as adequate to support the BLA filing, is no longer considered to be an adequate and well-controlled study due to deficiencies in study design, conduct and analysis, to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of tab-cel to treat relapsed or refractory EBV+ PTLD. Following the April 2026 Type A meeting, Pierre Fabre resubmitted the BLA in September 2026, and the FDA accepted the resubmission in October 2026. The resubmission may not resolve the deficiencies identified in the Second Complete Response Letter, and the FDA may raise new issues, extend the review period or issue another complete response letter.

Previous wording

If we do obtain approval for a product candidate marketing application, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request (including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications), may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical studies, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, EMA, MHRA, Swissmedic and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates, can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Approvals by the EC and FDA of autologous CAR T therapies, such as Novartis’ Kymriah® and Gilead’s Yescarta®, may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our therapies. If an adverse safety issue or other adverse finding occurs in one or more of our clinical trials, including those that could result in a clinical hold, such events could adversely affect our other clinical trials of the same or related product candidates. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical studies or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from those that have previously been approved, such as approved autologous CAR T therapies. For instance, exposure to allogeneic product candidates may result in adverse events not experienced with autologous products. Even if a product candidate is approved by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the approval might contain significant limitations related to use for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for one of our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding to continue the development of that product or generate revenues attributable to that product candidate. Also, any regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn in a region or country by the respective regulatory agency.

Current wording

Novartis’ Kymriah® and Gilead’s Yescarta®, may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our therapies. If an adverse safety issue or other adverse finding occurs in one or more of our clinical trials, including those that could result in a clinical hold, such events could adversely affect our other clinical trials of the same or related product candidates. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical studies or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from those that have previously been approved, such as approved autologous CAR T therapies. For instance, exposure to allogeneic product candidates may result in adverse events not experienced with autologous products. Even if a product candidate is approved by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the approval might contain significant limitations related to use for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for one of our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding to continue the development of that product or generate revenues attributable to that product candidate. Also, any regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn in a region or country by the respective regulatory agency.

Previous wording

Tab-cel has been predominantly evaluated in single-center studies under investigator-sponsored investigational new drug (IND) applications held by MSK and in our Expanded Access Programs, utilizing different response criteria and endpoints from those we have used or may utilize in later clinical studies. These Phase 2 clinical studies with tab-cel also enrolled a heterogeneous group of patients with a variety of EBV-driven malignancies, including EBV+ PTLD after HCT and EBV+ PTLD after SOT. These Phase 2 studies were not prospectively designed to evaluate the efficacy of tab-cel in the treatment of a single disease state for which we may later seek approval. Findings from early studies may not be reproducible in late phase studies we conduct. For instance, the current protocol for our ALLELE study in EBV+ PTLD is designed to rule out a 20% ORR as the null hypothesis. This means that if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval on ORR among patients receiving at least one dose of tab-cel exceeds 20% at the end of the study, then the study would be expected to meet the primary endpoint for the treatment of PTLD. Assuming enrollment of 33 patients in a cohort of ALLELE, an observed ORR above approximately 37% would be expected to meet the primary endpoint for that cohort. In addition, our amended ALLELE study protocol includes an interim analysis as well as a final study analysis. We have previously received feedback from the FDA that an interim analysis of the ALLELE study may not be sufficient to support approval of a BLA. Moreover, final study results may not be consistent with interim study results. Furthermore, modifications to the total sample size of the ALLELE study and the statistical approach may be necessary in connection with the review of the BLA by the FDA. For example, in January 2026 we received the Second Complete Response Letter claiming that the ALLELE trial, previously confirmed by the FDA as adequate to support the BLA filing, is no longer considered to be an adequate and well-controlled study due to deficiencies in study design, conduct and analysis, to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of tab-cel to treat relapsed or refractory EBV+ PTLD.

Current wording

endpoints from those we have used or may utilize in later clinical studies. These Phase 2 clinical studies with tab-cel also enrolled a heterogeneous group of patients with a variety of EBV-driven malignancies, including EBV+ PTLD after HCT and EBV+ PTLD after SOT. These Phase 2 studies were not prospectively designed to evaluate the efficacy of tab-cel in the treatment of a single disease state for which we may later seek approval. Findings from early studies may not be reproducible in late phase studies we conduct. For instance, the current protocol for our ALLELE study in EBV+ PTLD is designed to rule out a 20% ORR as the null hypothesis. This means that if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval on ORR among patients receiving at least one dose of tab-cel exceeds 20% at the end of the study, then the study would be expected to meet the primary endpoint for the treatment of PTLD. Assuming enrollment of 33 patients in a cohort of ALLELE, an observed ORR above approximately 37% would be expected to meet the primary endpoint for that cohort. In addition, our amended ALLELE study protocol includes an interim analysis as well as a final study analysis. We have previously received feedback from the FDA that an interim analysis of the ALLELE study may not be sufficient to support approval of a BLA. Moreover, final study results may not be consistent with interim study results. Furthermore, modifications to the total sample size of the ALLELE study and the statistical approach may be necessary in connection with the review of the BLA by the FDA. For example, in January 2026 we received the Second Complete Response Letter claiming that the ALLELE trial, previously confirmed by the FDA as adequate to support the BLA filing, is no longer considered to be an adequate and well-controlled study due to deficiencies in study design, conduct and analysis, to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of tab-cel to treat relapsed or refractory EBV+ PTLD.

Previous wording

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical studies and we do not know whether clinical studies will begin or enroll subjects on time, will need to be redesigned or will be completed on schedule, if at all. There can be no assurance that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will not put clinical studies of any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. In January 2025, we received the Response Letter from the FDA relating solely to observations during pre-approval inspection of a third party manufacturing facility in connection with our tab-cel BLA. The FDA placed a clinical hold on our active IND applications which include the tab-cel program and product candidate ATA3219. The clinical hold was directly linked to inadequately addressed GMP compliance issues identified during the pre-approval inspection of a third party manufacturing facility referenced in the Response Letter. Our ATA3219 product candidate is manufactured at a separate, fully compliant GMP-certified facility, the starting material used in its production are affected by the compliance issues at the same third party facility referenced in the Response Letter. In January 2025, we notified investigators of the clinical holds for the tab-cel program. In February 2025, the third party facility referenced in the Response Letter was inspected and received an FDA Form 483. We worked with our partner, Pierre Fabre, to support this third party manufacturer in addressing the compliance issues and in May 2025, the FDA confirmed the clinical hold issues were satisfactorily addressed and the FDA lifted the clinical holds for the tab-cel and ATA3219 programs. In January 2026, the FDA confirmed it completed a follow-up inspection of the third party manufacturing facility and determined the inspectional issues at such facility have been adequately addressed and the deficiency comment in the Response Letter has been satisfactorily resolved. In January 2026, we received the Second Complete Response Letter claiming that the ALLELE trial, previously confirmed by the FDA as adequate to support the BLA filing, is no longer considered to be an adequate and well-controlled study due to deficiencies in study design, conduct and analysis, to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of tab-cel to treat relapsed or refractory EBV+ PTLD.

Current wording

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical studies and we do not know whether clinical studies will begin or enroll subjects on time, will need to be redesigned or will be completed on schedule, if at all. There can be no assurance that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will not put clinical studies of any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. In January 2025, we received the Response Letter from the FDA relating solely to observations during pre-approval inspection of a third party manufacturing facility in connection with our tab-cel BLA. The FDA placed a clinical hold on our active IND applications which include the tab-cel program and product candidate ATA3219. The clinical hold was directly linked to inadequately addressed GMP compliance issues identified during the pre-approval inspection of a third party manufacturing facility referenced in the Response Letter. Our ATA3219 product candidate is manufactured at a separate, fully compliant GMP-certified facility, the starting material used in its production are affected by the compliance issues at the same third party facility referenced in the Response Letter. In January 2025, we notified investigators of the clinical holds for the tab-cel program. In February 2025, the third party facility referenced in the Response Letter was inspected and received an FDA Form 483. We worked with our partner, Pierre Fabre, to support this third party manufacturer in addressing the compliance issues and in May 2025, the FDA confirmed the clinical hold issues were satisfactorily addressed and the FDA lifted the clinical holds for the tab-cel and ATA3219 programs. In January 2026, the FDA confirmed it completed a follow-up inspection of the third party manufacturing facility and determined the inspectional issues at such facility have been adequately addressed and the deficiency comment in the Response Letter has been satisfactorily resolved. In January 2026, we received the Second Complete Response Letter claiming that the ALLELE trial, previously confirmed by the FDA as adequate to support the BLA filing, is no longer considered to be an adequate and well-controlled study due to deficiencies in study design,

Previous wording

Recent and potential further turnover in FDA leadership, particularly at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), could adversely affect the regulatory review of the tab-cel BLA and the outcome of Pierre Fabre’s recent Type A meeting. Tab-cel is regulated by the FDA as a biological product and is subject to review by CBER. CBER has experienced publicly reported leadership turnover and uncertainty during the past twelve months, including reported changes in, and potential further changes to, the position of CBER Director. Changes in CBER leadership, and related changes in reviewing staff, review priorities, practices, or interpretive positions, could result in changes in the scientific or regulatory standards applied to tab-cel, in the positions taken on key issues raised in the second Complete Response Letter (including the adequacy of the ALLELE study’s design, conduct, and analysis to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness), in the composition or pace of subsequent regulatory interactions, or in the FDA’s willingness to accept proposals developed at or following the Type A meeting that had been previously discussed with prior CBER leadership.

Current wording

Recent and potential further turnover in FDA leadership, particularly at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), could adversely affect the regulatory review of the resubmitted tab-cel BLA. Tab-cel is regulated by the FDA as a biological product and is subject to review by CBER. CBER has experienced publicly reported leadership turnover and uncertainty during the past twelve months, including reported changes in, and potential further changes to, the position of CBER Director. Changes in CBER leadership, and related changes in reviewing staff, review priorities, practices, or interpretive positions, could result in changes in the scientific or regulatory standards applied to tab-cel, in the positions taken on key issues raised in the second Complete Response Letter (including the adequacy of the ALLELE study’s design, conduct, and analysis to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness), in the composition or pace of subsequent regulatory interactions, or in the FDA’s willingness to accept proposals developed at or following the Type A meeting that had been previously discussed with prior CBER leadership.

Previous wording

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan, study protocols for the trial, statistical analysis plan and other study-specific documents (for example, monitoring and blinding plans). Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practice (GCP), International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH, guidelines, and regulations regarding the informed consent process, safety reporting requirements, data collection guidelines, and other regulations for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. The EMA also requires us to comply with similar standards. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP and other applicable regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under applicable current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) and current Good Tissue Practices (cGTP) regulations. Our, or our third party vendors', failure to comply with these regulations may require us to conduct new clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process. We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on government-sponsored databases, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Current wording

International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH, guidelines, and regulations regarding the informed consent process, safety reporting requirements, data collection guidelines, and other regulations for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. The EMA also requires us to comply with similar standards. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP and other applicable regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under applicable current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) and current Good Tissue Practices (cGTP) regulations. Our, or our third party vendors’, failure to comply with these regulations may require us to conduct new clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process. We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on government-sponsored databases, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Previous wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S., EU and the UK, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S. The FDA, the EMA, and the MHRA have granted us orphan drug designation for tab-cel for EBV+ PTLD.

Current wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S., EU and the UK, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of

Previous wording

In the EU, the EMA may offer PRIME designation to support the development and accelerated review by the EMA of new therapies that are expected to be of major public health interest to treat patients with unmet medical needs. With the new EU Pharmaceutical Regulation, applicable from the end of 2028, PRIME becomes subject to formal regulation. Despite PRIME designation and the associated opportunity for accelerated assessment, the EMA may decide that additional time is needed for the MAA review and convert the MAA to a standard review timeline. For example, the EMA converted the tab-cel MAA review timeline from accelerated to standard, despite tab-cel's PRIME designation.

Current wording

In the EU, the EMA may offer PRIME designation to support the development and accelerated review by the EMA of new therapies that are expected to be of major public health interest to treat patients with unmet medical needs. With the new EU Pharmaceutical Regulation, expected to apply generally 24 months after its entry into force, PRIME becomes subject to formal regulation. Despite PRIME designation and the associated opportunity for accelerated assessment, the EMA may decide that additional time is needed for the MAA review and convert the MAA to a standard review timeline. For example, the EMA converted the tab-cel MAA review timeline from accelerated to standard, despite tab-cel’s PRIME designation.

Previous wording

A Fast Track designation by the FDA or other priority review program may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review, licensure process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing licensure.

Current wording

A Fast Track designation by the FDA or other priority review program may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or licensure process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing licensure.

Previous wording

In December 2025, the EU legislators reached a political agreement to adopt two new pieces of legislation, which will amend and/or repeal and replace the existing legislation concerning medicinal products for human use in the EU, including legislation concerning orphan medicinal products and medicinal products for pediatric use. The new EU Pharmaceutical Regulation and EU Pharmaceutical Directive remain subject to formal adoption by the European Parliament and Council and publication in the Official Journal, which is expected to by end 2026. Amongst other changes, this new legislation will have a significant impact on the designation of and incentives offered to orphan medicinal products in the EU. The new EU Pharmaceutical Regulation restructures orphan market exclusivity (OME) in several key ways. The baseline OME drops from 10 to 9 years for standard orphan products, while “breakthrough” products benefit from 11 years; the protection threshold also shifts from MA application acceptance to MA grant, effectively trimming about a year of real-world protection. The pediatric two-year OME extension is replaced by a six-month SPC extension. Most significantly, the current system allowing separate 10-year OME periods per orphan indication is replaced by a single “global” OME period (GOMA) for the product as a whole, with only up to two one-year extensions available for additional indications.

Current wording

In December 2025, the EU legislators reached a political agreement to adopt two new pieces of legislation, which will amend and/or repeal and replace the existing legislation concerning medicinal products for human use in the EU, including legislation concerning orphan medicinal products and medicinal products for pediatric use. In September 2026, the Council adopted its position on the new EU Pharmaceutical Regulation and EU Pharmaceutical Directive, which remain subject to approval by the European Parliament and publication in the Official Journal. Amongst other changes, this new legislation will have a significant impact on the designation of and incentives offered to orphan medicinal products in the EU. The new EU Pharmaceutical Regulation restructures orphan market exclusivity (OME) in several key ways. The baseline OME drops from 10 to 9 years for standard orphan products, while “breakthrough” products benefit from 11 years; the protection threshold also shifts from MA application acceptance to MA grant, effectively trimming about a year of real-world protection. The pediatric two-year OME extension is replaced by a six-month SPC extension. Most significantly, the current system allowing separate 10-year OME periods per orphan indication is replaced by a single “global” OME period (GOMA) for the product as a whole, with only up to two one-year extensions available for additional indications.

Previous wording

Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the U.S. will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), state attorneys general, members of the U.S. Congress and the public. Additionally, advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the U.S. will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign entities and stakeholders. For example, a company may not promote “off-label” uses for its drug products. An off-label use is the use of a product for an indication that is not described in the product’s FDA-approved label in the U.S. or for uses in other jurisdictions that differ from those approved by the applicable regulatory agencies. Physicians, on the other hand, may prescribe products for off-label uses. Although the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, they do restrict promotional communications from companies or their sales force with respect to off-label uses of products for which marketing clearance has not been issued. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling. Violations, including actual or alleged promotion of our products for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or comparable foreign bodies. The FDA has increased scrutiny of product claims and, in 2025, issued a significant number of enforcement actions to companies. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with labeling and promotion requirements may result in fines, warning letters, mandates to corrective information to healthcare practitioners, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties. Further, promotion of products is currently an area of government scrutiny, and the applicable statutes, regulations and guidance and policies are complex, subject to changing interpretation, and subject to amendment.

Current wording

Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the U.S. will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), state attorneys general, members of the U.S. Congress and the public. Additionally, advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the U.S. will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign entities and stakeholders. For example, a company may not promote “off-label” uses for its drug products. An off-label use is the use of a product for an indication that is not described in the product’s FDA-approved label in the U.S. or for uses in other jurisdictions that differ from those approved by the applicable regulatory agencies. Physicians, on the other hand, may prescribe products for off-label uses. Although the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, they do restrict promotional communications from companies or their sales force with respect to off-label uses of products for which marketing clearance has not been issued. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling. Violations, including actual or alleged promotion of our products for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or comparable foreign bodies. The FDA has increased scrutiny of product claims and, in 2025, issued a significant number of enforcement actions to companies. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with labeling and promotion requirements may result in fines, warning letters, mandates to provide corrective information to healthcare practitioners, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties. Further, promotion of products is currently an area of government scrutiny, and the applicable statutes, regulations and guidance and policies are complex, subject to changing interpretation, and subject to amendment.

Previous wording

Concurrently with the in-license of our existing product and product candidates, we acquired manufacturing process know-how and, in some cases, inventory of process intermediates and clinical materials from our partners. Transferring manufacturing processes, testing and associated know-how is complex and involves review and incorporation of both documented and undocumented processes that may have evolved over time. In addition, transferring production to different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes and/or equipment to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. Each stage is retroactively and concurrently verified to be compliant with appropriate regulations. As a result, there is a risk that all relevant know-how was not adequately transferred to us from our partners or that previous execution was not compliant with applicable regulations.

Current wording

different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes and/or equipment to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. Each stage is retroactively and concurrently verified to be compliant with appropriate regulations. As a result, there is a risk that all relevant know-how was not adequately transferred to us from our partners or that previous execution was not compliant with applicable regulations.

Previous wording

The process of manufacturing cellular therapies is susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, or vendor or operator error. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing and distribution processes for any of our product and product candidates could result in reduced production yields, impact to key product quality attributes, and other supply disruptions. Product defects can also occur unexpectedly. If microbial, viral or other contamination is discovered in reagents or in our product and product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product or product candidates are made, these manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to allow us to investigate and remedy the contamination. For example, we have been informed by a CMO of mold and other contamination in certain manufacturing suites related to the manufacture of finished Ebvallo and tab-cel product and intermediates at the CMO’s facility. We have had to, and may in the future need to, pause certain manufacturing activities at this CMO. We, through our commercialization partner, worked with the CMO to investigate and remediate contamination issues but can make no assurance regarding such remediation efforts. The FDA confirmed in the Second Complete Response Letter that it completed a follow-up inspection of the CMO facility and determined the inspectional issues at such facility have been adequately addressed and the deficiency comment in the Response Letter has been satisfactorily resolved. Because our T-cell immunotherapy product and product candidates are manufactured from cells collected from the blood of third party donors, the process of manufacturing is susceptible to the availability of the third party donor material. The process of developing products that can be commercialized may be particularly challenging, even if they otherwise prove to be safe and effective. The manufacture of these products and product candidates involves complex processes. Some of these processes require specialized equipment and highly skilled and trained personnel. The process of manufacturing these products and product candidates will be susceptible to additional risks, given the need to maintain aseptic conditions throughout the manufacturing process, which can be weeks. Contamination with viruses or other pathogens in either the donor material or materials utilized in the manufacturing process or ingress of microbiological material at any point in the process may result in contaminated or unusable product. Viral contaminants may also arise in recombinant viral reagent production systems used to manufacture viral reagents which are used to manufacture product and product candidates. These types of contamination could result in delays in the manufacture of products which could result in delays in the development of our product candidates. Contamination could also increase the ris…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

The process of manufacturing cellular therapies is susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, or vendor or operator error. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing and distribution processes for any of our product and product candidates could result in reduced production yields, impact to key product quality attributes, and other supply disruptions. Product defects can also occur unexpectedly. If microbial, viral or other contamination is discovered in reagents or in our product and product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product or product candidates are made, these manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to allow us to investigate and remedy the contamination. For example, we have been informed by a CMO of mold and other contamination in certain manufacturing suites related to the manufacture of finished Ebvallo and tab-cel product and intermediates at the CMO’s facility. We have had to, and may in the future need to, pause certain manufacturing activities at this CMO. We, through our commercialization partner, worked with the CMO to investigate and remediate contamination issues but can make no assurance regarding such remediation efforts. The FDA confirmed in the Second Complete Response Letter that it completed a follow-up inspection of the CMO facility and determined the inspectional issues at such facility have been adequately addressed and the deficiency comment in the Response Letter has been satisfactorily resolved. Because our T-cell immunotherapy product and product candidates are manufactured from cells collected from the blood of third party donors, the process of manufacturing is susceptible to the availability of the third party donor material. The process of developing products that can be commercialized may be particularly challenging, even if they otherwise prove to be safe and effective. The manufacture of these products and product candidates involves complex processes. Some of these processes require specialized equipment and highly skilled and trained personnel. The process of manufacturing these products and product candidates will be susceptible to additional risks, given the need to maintain aseptic conditions throughout the manufacturing process, which can be weeks. Contamination with viruses or other pathogens in either the donor material or materials utilized in the manufacturing process or ingress of microbiological material at any point in the process may result in contaminated or unusable product. Viral contaminants may also arise in recombinant viral reagent production

Previous wording

If any of our partner's CMOs’ manufacturing facilities, or the equipment in any such facilities, is either damaged or destroyed, we or our partner's may not be able to quickly or inexpensively replace such manufacturing capacity or replace it at all. In the event of a temporary or protracted disruption in operations or loss of a facility or its equipment, we or our partner's may not be able to transfer manufacturing to another third party in the time required to maintain supply. Even if we or our partner could transfer manufacturing to another third party, the shift would likely be expensive and time-consuming, particularly since the new facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements or may require regulatory approval before selling any products manufactured at that facility. Such an event could delay our clinical studies or reduce our commercial product revenues.

Current wording

If any of our partner’s CMOs’ manufacturing facilities, or the equipment in any such facilities, is either damaged or destroyed, we or our partner may not be able to quickly or inexpensively replace such manufacturing capacity or replace it at all. In the event of a temporary or protracted disruption in operations or loss of a facility or its equipment, we or our partner may not be able to transfer manufacturing to another third party in the time required to maintain supply. Even if we or our partner could transfer manufacturing to another third party, the shift would likely be expensive and time-consuming, particularly since the new facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements or may require regulatory approval before selling any products manufactured at that facility. Such an event could delay our clinical studies or reduce our commercial product revenues.

Previous wording

Reliance on third party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product and product candidates ourselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility that the third party manufacturer does not maintain the financial resources to meet its obligations under the manufacturing agreement, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control, including a failure to manufacture our product candidates or any products we or our partners may eventually commercialize in accordance with our specifications, misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how, the possibility that the third party does not devote sufficient time or resources to our product candidates or any products we or our partners may eventually commercialize based on its own business priorities, the possibility that the third party is acquired by another party and changes its business priorities, and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us. We have transferred responsibility for the manufacture of our product to Pierre Fabre, there can be no assurance that we will be able to find a new CMO or enter into a new commercial drug product supply agreement with a new CMO on terms favorable or acceptable to us or at all if Pierre Fabre does not perform its obligations. Any delays in entering into a new commercial manufacturing agreement could delay the development and commercialization of our product and product candidates, if approved. If Fujifilm does not perform its obligations under its agreement with Pierre Fabre adequately or does not devote sufficient time or resources to our product or product candidates, our operations, including the commercialization of our products, may be adversely impacted. Similarly, if CRL does not perform its obligations under its agreement with Pierre Fabre adequately or does not devote sufficient time or resources to our product or product candidates, our operations, including the commercialization of our products, may be adversely impacted. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our product candidates and any products that we or our partners may eventually commercialize be manufactured according to cGMP, cGTP and similar regulatory jurisdictional standards. These requirements include, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation. The FDA or similar foreign regulatory agencies may also implement new standards at any time or change their interpretations and enforcement of existing standards for manufacture, packaging or testing of products. We have limited control over our partners' or their manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards and althou…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Reliance on third party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product and product candidates ourselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility that the third party manufacturer does not maintain the financial resources to meet its obligations under the manufacturing agreement, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control, including a failure to manufacture our product candidates or any products we or our partners may eventually commercialize in accordance with our specifications, misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how, the possibility that the third party does not devote sufficient time or resources to our product candidates or any products we or our partners may eventually commercialize based on its own business priorities, the possibility that the third party is acquired by another party and changes its business priorities, and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us. We have transferred responsibility for the manufacture of our product to Pierre Fabre, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to find a new CMO or enter into a new commercial drug product supply agreement with a new CMO on terms favorable or acceptable to us or at all if Pierre Fabre does not perform its obligations. Any delays in entering into a new commercial manufacturing agreement could delay the development and commercialization of our product and product candidates, if approved. If Fujifilm does not perform its obligations under its agreement with Pierre Fabre adequately or does not devote sufficient time or resources to our product or product candidates, our operations, including the commercialization of our products, may be adversely impacted. Similarly, if CRL does not perform its obligations under its agreement with Pierre Fabre adequately or does not devote sufficient time or resources to our product or product candidates, our operations, including the commercialization of our products, may be adversely impacted. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our product candidates and any products that we or our partners may eventually commercialize be manufactured according to cGMP, cGTP and similar regulatory jurisdictional standards. These requirements include, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation. The FDA or similar foreign regulatory agencies may also implement new standards at any time or change their interpretations and enforcement of existing standards for manufacture, packaging or testing of products. We have limited control over our partners’ or their manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards and al…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We also depend on Pierre Fabre to comply with all applicable laws relative to the development, manufacture and commercialization of tab-cel in the Territory. The failure of Pierre Fabre to devote sufficient time and effort to the development, manufacture and commercialization of tab-cel; to obtain regulatory approvals, including in the US; to meet their obligations to us, including for future royalty and milestone payments; to adequately deploy business continuity plans in the event of a crisis; and/or to satisfactorily resolve significant disagreements with us or address other factors could have an adverse impact on our financial results and operations. In addition, if Pierre Fabre violates, or are alleged to have violated, any laws or regulations during the performance of their obligations for us, it is possible that we could suffer financial and reputational harm or other negative outcomes, including possible legal consequences.

Current wording

We also depend on Pierre Fabre to comply with all applicable laws relative to the development, manufacture and commercialization of tab-cel in the Territory. The failure of Pierre Fabre to devote sufficient time and effort to the development, manufacture and commercialization of tab-cel; to obtain regulatory approvals, including in the US; to meet their obligations to us, including for future royalty and milestone payments; to adequately deploy business continuity plans in the event of a crisis; and/or to satisfactorily resolve significant disagreements with us or address other factors could have an adverse impact on our financial results and operations. In addition, if Pierre Fabre violates, or is alleged to have violated, any laws or regulations during the performance of their obligations for us, it is possible that we could suffer financial and reputational harm or other negative outcomes, including possible legal consequences.

Previous wording

Territory, by reducing or eliminating our right to receive fees, milestones and royalties. In such an event, we may be required to devote additional efforts and to incur additional costs associated with the development, manufacture, and commercialization of tab-cel. Alternatively, we may attempt to identify and transact with a new commercialization partner, but there can be no assurance that we would be able to identify a suitable partner or transact on terms similar to the A&R Commercialization Agreement or that are favorable to us.

Current wording

Any termination, breach or expiration of the A&R Commercialization Agreement or ancillary agreements, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, and our obligations under the HCRx Agreement with respect to the Initial Territory, by reducing or eliminating our right to receive fees, milestones and royalties. In such an event, we may be required to devote additional efforts and to incur additional costs associated with the development, manufacture, and commercialization of tab-cel. Alternatively, we may attempt to identify and transact with a new commercialization partner, but there can be no assurance that we would be able to identify a suitable partner or transact on terms similar to the A&R Commercialization Agreement or that are favorable to us.

Previous wording

We may desire to form additional strategic alliances, commercialization partnerships, create joint ventures or collaborations, enter into licensing arrangements with third parties or acquire products or business, in each case that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. These relationships or transactions, or those like them, may require us to incur nonrecurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, reduce the potential profitability of the products that are the subject of the relationship or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic alliances and transactions and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex and there can be no assurance that we can enter into any of these transactions even if we desire to do so. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic alliance or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate a positive benefit/risk profile. Any delays in entering into new strategic alliances agreements related to our product candidates could also delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market. In addition, any termination of established strategic alliance agreements will terminate any potential future funding we may receive under the relevant agreements, and we would have to seek a new partner for development or commercialization, curtail or abandon that development or commercialization, or undertake and fund the development and commercialization of the relevant product. If we seek a new partner but are unable to do so on acceptable terms, or at all, or do not have sufficient funds to conduct the development or commercialization of products ourselves, we would have to explore other strategic options, including curtailing or abandoning that development or commercialization, which could harm our business.

Current wording

we can enter into any of these transactions even if we desire to do so. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic alliance or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate a positive benefit/risk profile. Any delays in entering into new strategic alliance agreements related to our product candidates could also delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market. In addition, any termination of established strategic alliance agreements will terminate any potential future funding we may receive under the relevant agreements, and we would have to seek a new partner for development or commercialization, curtail or abandon that development or commercialization, or undertake and fund the development and commercialization of the relevant product. If we seek a new partner but are unable to do so on acceptable terms, or at all, or do not have sufficient funds to conduct the development or commercialization of products ourselves, we would have to explore other strategic options, including curtailing or abandoning that development or commercialization, which could harm our business.

Previous wording

If we or our partners are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, product and methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid is difficult and even if we are successful in the relevant proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted from other activities. If any issued third party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the relevant product or product candidate until the relevant patent expired. Alternatively, we may desire or be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product or product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonably terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property licensed to us.

Current wording

If we or our partners are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, product and methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid is difficult and even if we are successful in the relevant proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted from other activities. If any issued third party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the relevant product or product candidate until the relevant patent expired. Alternatively, we may desire or be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product or product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property licensed to us.

Previous wording

Defending against intellectual property claims could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle before a final judgment, any litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business. During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation and these announcements may have negative impact on the perceived value of our product, product candidates, programs or intellectual property. In the event of a successful intellectual property claim against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent, or to redesign our infringing product and product candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel and the parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could impose limitations on the conduct of our business. We may also elect to enter into license agreements in order to settle patent infringement claims prior to litigation, and any of these license agreements may require us to pay royalties and other fees that could be significant. As a result of all of the foregoing, any actual or threatened intellectual property claim could prevent us or our partners from developing or commercializing a product or product candidate or force us to cease some aspect of our business operations.

Current wording

Defending against intellectual property claims could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle before a final judgment, any litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business. During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation and these announcements may have negative impact on the perceived value of our product, product candidates, programs or intellectual property. In the event of a successful intellectual property claim against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent, or to redesign our infringing product and product candidates, which may

Previous wording

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties, brought by us or our partners, or brought by the USPTO or any non-U.S. patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions or matters of inventorship with respect to our patents or patent applications. We or our partners may also become involved in other proceedings, such as reexamination or opposition proceedings, inter partes review, post-grant review or other pre-issuance or post-grant proceedings in the USPTO or its foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property of others. An unfavorable outcome in any of these proceedings could require us or our partners to cease using the related technology and commercializing our product and product candidates, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our partners a license on commercially reasonable terms if any license is offered at all. Even if we or our licensors obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product and product candidates.

Current wording

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties, brought by us or our partners, or brought by the USPTO or any non-U.S. patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions or matters of inventorship with respect to our patents or patent applications. We or our partners may also become involved in other proceedings, such as reexamination or opposition proceedings,inter partesreview, post-grant review or other pre-issuance or post-grant proceedings in the USPTO or its foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property of others. An unfavorable outcome in any of these proceedings could require us or our partners to cease using the related technology and commercializing our product and product candidates, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our partners a license on commercially reasonable terms if any license is offered at all. Even if we or our licensors obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product and product candidates.

Previous wording

In addition to seeking the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and other elements of our technology, discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. The T-cell immunotherapy product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from our partners are protected primarily as confidential know-how and trade secrets. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, including by enabling them to develop and commercialize products substantially similar to or competitive with our product candidates, thus eroding our competitive position in the market.

Current wording

In addition to seeking the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and other elements of our technology, discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. The T-cell immunotherapy product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from our partners are protected primarily as confidential know-how and trade secrets. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, including by enabling them to

Previous wording

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Coverage and reimbursement policies for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor as there is no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products among third party payors in the U.S. Third party payors in the U.S. often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. The process of determining coverage and reimbursement is often time consuming and costly which will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be obtained. It is difficult to predict at this time what government authorities and third party payors will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for our drug products. Our partners’ inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed and our overall financial condition.

Current wording

for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Coverage and reimbursement policies for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor as there is no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products among third party payors in the U.S. Third party payors in the U.S. often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. The process of determining coverage and reimbursement is often time consuming and costly which will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be obtained. It is difficult to predict at this time what government authorities and third party payors will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for our drug products. Our partners’ inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed and our overall financial condition.

Previous wording

There have been judicial and congressional challenges to numerous elements of the ACA, as well as efforts by both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. While the U.S. Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA, such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance and eliminating the implementation of certain mandated fees. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a legal challenge to the law brought by several states arguing that, without the individual mandate, the entire ACA was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit without ruling on the merits of the states’ constitutionality arguments. Further, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law in August 2022, extended the provision of enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health coverage through the ACA marketplace. The enhanced subsidies expired on December 31, 2025, but remain the subject of Congressional debate. In the future, there may be additional challenges and/or amendments to the ACA. It is unclear how future litigation and the healthcare reform measures of future presidential administrations will impact the ACA and our business.

Current wording

There have been judicial and congressional challenges to numerous elements of the ACA, as well as efforts by both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. While the U.S. Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA, such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance and eliminating the implementation of certain mandated fees. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a legal challenge to the law brought by several states arguing that, without the individual mandate, the entire ACA was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit without ruling on the merits of the states’ constitutionality arguments. Further, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law in August 2022, extended the provision of enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health coverage through the ACA marketplace. The enhanced subsidies expired on December 31, 2025, but remain the subject of Congressional debate. In the future, there may be

Previous wording

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the U.S. or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of these changes on the regulatory approvals of our product and product candidates, if any, may be. In the U.S., the EU and other potentially significant markets for our product and product candidates, government authorities and third party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which has resulted in lower average selling prices for certain products in certain markets. In the U.S., there have been several congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, the IRA allows Medicare to: establish a “maximum fair price” for certain pharmaceutical and biological products covered under Medicare Parts B and D; penalize drug companies that raise prices for products covered under Medicare Parts B and D faster than inflation; and impose new discount obligations on pharmaceutical and biological manufacturers for products covered under Medicare Part D. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) has and continues to take steps to implement the IRA, including negotiating and publishing "maximum fair prices" for drugs selected under the IRA’s price negotiation framework and releasing quarterly lists of Medicare Part B products and annual lists of Medicare Part D products that are subject to adjusted coinsurance rates based on the inflationary rebate provisions of the IRA. Additionally, when originally enacted, the IRA explicitly excluded from price negotiation orphan drugs designated for only one rare disease or condition and for which the only active approved indication is for such disease or condition. However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law on July 4, 2025, amended the applicable statute to broaden the orphan drug exclusion such that products with more than one orphan designation and more than one approved indication will remain exempt from price negotiation, so long as each approved indication is for a rare disease or condition. The OBBBA also postpones the start of price negotiation requirements for drugs and biologics with orphan designations until the product receives approval for a non-orphan indication. While it remains to be seen how the drug pricing provisions imposed by the IRA will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry, several pharmaceutical manufacturers and other industry stakeholders have challenged the …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the U.S. or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of these changes on the regulatory approvals of our product and product candidates, if any, may be. In the U.S., the EU and other potentially significant markets for our product and product candidates, government authorities and third party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which has resulted in lower average selling prices for certain products in certain markets. In the U.S., there have been several congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, the IRA allows Medicare to: establish a “maximum fair price” for certain pharmaceutical and biological products covered under Medicare Parts B and D; penalize drug companies that raise prices for products covered under Medicare Parts B and D faster than inflation; and impose new discount obligations on pharmaceutical and biological manufacturers for products covered under Medicare Part D. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken and continues to take steps to implement the IRA, including negotiating and publishing "maximum fair prices" for drugs selected under the IRA’s price negotiation framework and releasing quarterly lists of Medicare Part B products and annual lists of Medicare Part D products that are subject to adjusted coinsurance rates based on the inflationary rebate provisions of the IRA. Additionally, when originally enacted, the IRA explicitly excluded from price negotiation orphan drugs designated for only one rare disease or condition and for which the only active approved indication is for such disease or condition. However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law on July 4, 2025, amended the applicable statute to broaden the orphan drug exclusion such that products with more than one orphan designation and more than one approved indication will remain exempt from price negotiation, so long as each approved indication is for a rare disease or condition. The OBBBA also postpones the start of price negotiation requirements for drugs and biologics with orphan designations until the product receives approval for a non-orphan indication. While it remains to be seen how the drug pricing provisions imposed by the IRA will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry, several pharmaceutical manufacturers and other industry stakeholders have …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

those aimed at reducing prescription drug prices. In January 2026, the White House released information on the “Great Healthcare Plan”, which included proposals to codify most-favored nation drug pricing, expand access to over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, increase transparency requirements for health insurers, cut payments to pharmacy benefit managers, and expand the use of health savings accounts. President Trump has also signed multiple executive orders addressing prescription drug pricing and access, including an order on May 12, 2025 aiming to establish a “most favored nation” drug pricing policy that would tie US drug prices to the prices paid for drugs in other countries. Since the May 12, 2025 “most favored nation” executive order, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on drug manufacturers to implement “most favored nation” pricing. For example, in November 2025, CMS announced a new voluntary payment initiative, the GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid Model (GENEROUS) Model, where drug manufacturers may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs that are intended to provide such Medicaid programs with a “most favored nation” price for participating manufacturers’ products. In December 2025, the Trump Administration released Proposed Rules for two new mandatory models: the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (GLOBE) and Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (GUARD) Models, which would impose international benchmarks for certain drugs covered by Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D, respectively.

Current wording

nation” drug pricing policy that would tie US drug prices to the prices paid for drugs in other countries. Since the May 12, 2025 “most favored nation” executive order, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on drug manufacturers to implement “most favored nation” pricing. For example, in November 2025, CMS announced a new voluntary payment initiative, the GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid Model (GENEROUS) Model, where drug manufacturers may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs that are intended to provide such Medicaid programs with a “most favored nation” price for participating manufacturers’ products. In December 2025, the Trump administration released Proposed Rules for two new mandatory models: the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (GLOBE) and Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (GUARD) Models, which would impose international benchmarks for certain drugs covered by Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D, respectively. In October 2026, CMS published a final rule implementing the GLOBE Model beginning January 1, 2027, which, as finalized, excludes orphan-only drugs and cell and gene therapies, among other products. The GUARD Model has not been finalized.

Previous wording

Other recent administrative actions may affect our partner's upcoming government pricing responsibilities stemming from our anticipated participation in government pricing programs. For example, CMS continues to publish new regulations and guidance that revise key components of government pricing programs such as the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and Medicare Part B. In addition, there are pending legal and legislative developments relating to the 340B drug pricing program, including ongoing litigation challenging federal enforcement actions against manufacturers and recently introduced and enacted state legislation. In March 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the Arkansas law prohibiting drug makers for restricting 340B drug discounts for providers using contract pharmacies. The current administration has also considered several changes to the 340B program, including a proposal in the President’s 2026 budget to shift oversight of the 340B program from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to CMS. Additionally, on July 31, 2025, HRSA announced that it will implement a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program that will be open to a selected group of drugs and manufacturers. However, HRSA withdrew this proposal in January 2026 following litigation that resulted in a federal court granting a temporary restraining order to block the program and has since requested information from stakeholders as to alternative rebate models. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry.

Current wording

Other recent administrative actions may affect our partner’s upcoming government pricing responsibilities stemming from our anticipated participation in government pricing programs. For example, CMS continues to publish new regulations and guidance that revise key components of government pricing programs such as the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and Medicare Part B. In addition, there are pending legal and legislative developments relating to the 340B drug pricing program, including ongoing litigation challenging federal enforcement actions against manufacturers and recently introduced and enacted state legislation. In March 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the Arkansas law prohibiting drug makers from restricting 340B drug discounts for providers using contract pharmacies. The current administration has also considered several changes to the 340B program, including a proposal in the President’s 2026 budget to shift oversight of the 340B program from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to CMS. Additionally, on July 31, 2025, HRSA announced that it will implement a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program that will be open to a selected group of drugs and manufacturers. However, HRSA withdrew this proposal in January 2026 following litigation that resulted in a federal court granting a temporary restraining order to block the program and has since requested information from stakeholders as to alternative rebate models. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry.

Previous wording

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Another emerging trend at the state level is the establishment of prescription drug affordability boards, some of which will prospectively permit certain states to establish upper payment limits for drugs that the state has determined to be “high-cost”. Prescription drug affordability boards in several states, including Colorado, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington, have begun identifying products for affordability reviews, issuing information requests to manufacturers to determine whether upper payment limits may be justified, and implementing upper payment limits. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the U.S. and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the EU will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, other insurers, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

Current wording

restrictions on certain product access marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Another emerging trend at the state level is the establishment of prescription drug affordability boards, some of which will prospectively permit certain states to establish upper payment limits for drugs that the state has determined to be “high-cost”. Prescription drug affordability boards in several states, including Colorado, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington, have begun identifying products for affordability reviews, issuing information requests to manufacturers to determine whether upper payment limits may be justified, and implementing upper payment limits. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the U.S. and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the EU will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, other insurers, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

Previous wording

There are currently no FDA-approved products for the treatment relapse and/or refractory of EBV+ PTLD, and there are no EC-approved products for this indication except for Ebvallo. However, we are aware some marketed products and therapies are used per global physician treatment guidelines in the US and the EU in the treatment of EBV+ PTLD by some healthcare professionals and institutions, such as rituximab and combination chemotherapy regimens.

Current wording

There are currently no FDA-approved products for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory of EBV+ PTLD, and there are no EC-approved products for this indication except for Ebvallo. However, we are aware some marketed products and therapies are used per global physician treatment guidelines in the US and the EU in the treatment of EBV+ PTLD by some healthcare professionals and institutions, such as rituximab and combination chemotherapy regimens.

Previous wording

We currently have 10 employees. We may encounter difficulties in managing the size of our operations to support our continuing development activities and the commercialization of our product and potential commercialization of our product candidates by our partners. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies continue to evolve, or as a result of any future acquisitions, we must continue to improve our managerial, operational, financial and other procedures and processes to manage the size our of operations. Our management, personnel and systems currently in place may not be adequate to support any future growth. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

We currently have 10 employees. We may encounter difficulties in managing the size of our operations to support our continuing development activities and the commercialization of our product and potential commercialization of our product candidates by our partners. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies continue to evolve, or as a result of any future acquisitions, we must continue to improve our managerial, operational, financial and other procedures and processes to manage the size of our operations. Our management, personnel and systems currently in

Previous wording

Ensuring that we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place to produce accurate

Current wording

Ensuring that we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is a costly and time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently. To ensure the level of segregation of duties customary for a U.S. public company and the requirement to produce timely financial information requires sufficient resources within the accounting and finance functions. Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for

Previous wording

control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company will have been detected.

Current wording

external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Our management does not expect that our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company will have been detected.

Previous wording

In March 2025, Eric Hyllengren, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, left the company. In

Current wording

In March 2025, Eric Hyllengren, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, left the Company, and in July 2026, Yanina Grant-Huerta, our Chief Accounting Officer, left the Company. Since June 2026, our interim Chief Financial Officer has provided services to us as a consultant through a third party firm rather than as an employee. In connection with our reductions in force in 2025 and 2026, we have reduced the size of our accounting and finance function. If we fail to staff our accounting and finance function adequately, if key employees within our accounting and finance function leave or if we fail to maintain internal control over financial reporting adequate to meet the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our business and reputation may be harmed. If we are unable to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could cause the market price of our common stock to decline and make it more difficult for us to finance our operations and growth. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could also require additional financial and management resources.