Nuvation Bio Inc.

Previous wording

We will need substantial funding to pursue our business objectives. If we are unable to to raise capital if and when needed or on favorable terms, or receive significant revenues from the sales of our products, we could be forced to delay, reduce or terminate our product development, other operations or commercialization efforts.

Current wording

We will need substantial funding to pursue our business objectives. If we are unable to raise capital if and when needed or on favorable terms, or receive significant revenues from the sales of our products, we could be forced to delay, reduce or terminate our product development, other operations or commercialization efforts.

Previous wording

our ability to influence testing and appropriate patient identification processes within accounts;

Current wording

our ability to influence testing and appropriate patient identification processes within accounts, especially in the community setting where testing and patient identification rates are lower than in the academic setting;

Previous wording

IBTROZI has been approved in the U.S. and in China (sold under the brand name DOVBLREON) for the treatment of advanced ROS1+ NSCLC. Approved products are subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling and record-keeping. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”), regulations and GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products. In addition, any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for any future product candidates we may develop, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. However, if we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability.

Current wording

IBTROZI has been approved in the U.S. and in China (sold under the brand name DOVBLREON) for the treatment of advanced ROS1+ NSCLC. Approved products are subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling and record-keeping. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”), regulations and Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”), for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products. In addition, any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for any future product candidates we may develop, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. However, if we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had $607.7 million in cash and investments, and an accumulated deficit of $1,023.0 million. Based upon our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Changes may occur beyond our control that would cause us to consume our available capital before that time, including changes in and progress of our development activities and changes in regulation. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, we had $549.0 million in cash and investments, and an accumulated deficit of $1,078.8 million. Based upon our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Changes may occur beyond our control that would cause us to consume our available capital before that time, including changes in and progress of our development activities and changes in regulation. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Previous wording

In addition, our tax obligations and effective tax rate could increase, including as a result of the base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) project that is being led by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”), and other initiatives led by the OECD. For example, the OECD is leading work on proposals, commonly referred to as “BEPS 2.0”, which to the extent implemented, would make important changes to the international tax system. These proposals are based on two “pillars”, involving the reallocation of taxing rights in respect of certain multinational enterprises above a fixed profit margin to the jurisdictions in which they carry on business (referred to as “Pillar One”) and imposing a minimum effective corporate tax rate on certain multinational enterprises (referred to as “Pillar Two”). A number of countries have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, core elements of the Pillar Two rules. Based on our current understanding of the minimum revenue thresholds, we currently expect to be outside the scope of both the Pillar One and Pillar Two proposals but could fall within their scope in the future. We are monitoring developments and evaluating the potential impacts these new rules may have on our business.

Current wording

In addition, our tax obligations and effective tax rate could increase, including as a result of the base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) project that is being led by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”), and other initiatives led by the OECD. For example, the OECD is leading work on proposals, commonly referred to as “BEPS 2.0”, which to the extent implemented, would make important changes to the international tax system. These proposals are based on two “pillars”, involving the reallocation of taxing rights in respect of certain multinational enterprises above a fixed profit margin to the jurisdictions in which they carry on business (referred to as “Pillar One”) and imposing a minimum effective corporate tax rate on certain multinational enterprises

Previous wording

Further, we, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, an Institutional Review Board, or an Ethics Committee may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s current Good Clinical Practice, (“GCP”) and foreign equivalents, regulators find that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks or if the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities find deficiencies in our Investigational New Drugs, clinical trial applications or the conduct of these trials. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical trials. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our product candidates could be negatively impacted, and our ability to generate revenues from our product candidates may be delayed or eliminated entirely.

Current wording

Further, we, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, an Institutional Review Board, or an Ethics Committee may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s current GCP and foreign equivalents, regulators find that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks or if the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities find deficiencies in our Investigational New Drugs, clinical trial applications or the conduct of these trials. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical trials. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our product candidates could be negatively impacted, and our ability to generate revenues from our product candidates may be delayed or eliminated entirely.

Previous wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (“OBBBA”) was signed into law which, is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire in 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction, which triggered the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of, on average, 2% per fiscal year until 2032 unless Congress takes additional action. Additionally, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024.

Current wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the OBBBA was signed into law which, is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire in 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction, which triggered the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of, on average, 2% per fiscal year until 2032 unless Congress takes additional action. Additionally, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024.

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 and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, in January 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program (“SIP”) proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada.

Current 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 and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, in January 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program (“SIP”) proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted SIP proposals that are pending review by the FDA. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs.

Previous wording

We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state healthcare legislation in the U.S. directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare, particularly in light of the recent U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections. The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions for example include (1) directives to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and develop a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs of imported pharmaceutical products; and (6) and directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could, among others, impact the drug approval process and modify the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program , expand the orphan drug exclusion in the IRA, and reduce Medicaid enrollment and funding. We expect additional health reform measures may be implemented in the future, particularly given the recent change in administration. These and any further changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our revenue or increase our costs could also have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state healthcare legislation in the U.S. directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare, particularly in light of the recent U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections. The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, on September 30, 2025, the current administration announced the first agreement with a major pharmaceutical company that requires the drug manufacturer to offer, through a direct to consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions for example include (1) directives to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and develop a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs of imported pharmaceutical products; (6) and directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans and (7) as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care rel…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 16, 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. On March 16, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act enacted in September 2011 (the “Leahy-Smith Act”), the U.S. transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. The USPTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, particularly the first inventor-to-file provisions. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ issued patents, all of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 16, 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. On March 16, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act enacted in September 2011 (the “Leahy-Smith Act”), the U.S. transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. The USPTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith

Previous wording

Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that third-party patents asserted against us are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such rights are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such a third party in order to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. 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, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties and other fees, redesign our infringing drug or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. Any of the foregoing events would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that third-party patents asserted against us are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such rights are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such a third party in order to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. 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, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’

Previous wording

The ability of the FDA to review proposed clinical trials or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, including executive and congressional priorities, the impacts of which are inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. In addition, the current administration has proposed substantial reductions in force at various government agencies including the FDA, which could significantly reduce the FDA’s capacity to perform its functions in a manner consistent with its past practices and could negatively impact our business.

Current wording

The ability of the FDA to review proposed clinical trials or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, including executive and congressional priorities, the impacts of which are inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018 and beginning most recently on October 1, 2025, the U.S. government has shut down and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. In addition, the current administration has implemented substantial reductions in force at various government agencies including the FDA, which could significantly reduce the FDA’s capacity to perform its functions in a manner consistent with its past practices and could negatively impact our business.

Previous wording

Common Stock of biopharmaceutical companies. To the extent health epidemics adversely affect our business, financial results and value of our Common Stock, it may also affect our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity.

Current wording

Health epidemics may lead to disruption and volatility in the global capital markets, which increases the cost of, and adversely impacts access to, capital and increases economic uncertainty. Health epidemics may also result in volatile trading prices for the Common Stock of biopharmaceutical companies. To the extent health epidemics adversely affect our business, financial results and value of our Common Stock, it may also affect our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had 278 employees. As our preclinical and clinical development progresses, we expect to experience growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of research, clinical operations, regulatory affairs, general and administrative, marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, we had 291 employees. As our preclinical and clinical development progresses, we expect to experience growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of research, clinical operations, regulatory affairs, general and administrative, marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Previous wording

We cannot predict whether our dual-class structure, combined with the concentrated voting power of Dr. Hung by virtue of his ownership of 100% of the outstanding shares of our Class B Common Stock, will result in a lower or more volatile market price of our Class A Common Stock in the future, or in adverse publicity or other adverse consequences. Certain index providers have announced restrictions on including companies with multi-class share structures in certain of their indices. For example, in 2017, FTSE Russell and Standard & Poor’s announced that they would cease to allow most newly public companies utilizing dual or multi-class capital structures to be included in their indices. Under the announced policies, our dual-class capital structure makes us ineligible for inclusion in any of these indices. Given the sustained flow of investment funds into passive strategies that seek to track certain indices, exclusion from stock indices would likely preclude investment by many of these funds and could make our securities less attractive to other investors. As a result, the market price of our Class A Common Stock could be adversely affected.

Current wording

Standard & Poor’s announced that they would cease to allow most newly public companies utilizing dual or multi-class capital structures to be included in their indices. Under the announced policies, our dual-class capital structure makes us ineligible for inclusion in any of these indices. Given the sustained flow of investment funds into passive strategies that seek to track certain indices, exclusion from stock indices would likely preclude investment by many of these funds and could make our securities less attractive to other investors. As a result, the market price of our Class A Common Stock could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, we have options outstanding to purchase approximately 77,654,180 shares of Class A Common Stock. Pursuant to the 2021 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2021 Plan”) and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2021 ESPP”), we may issue under the 2021 Plan an aggregate of up to 43,320,238 shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock, which amount will be subject to increase from time to time. In addition, in the AnHeart acquisition, we assumed the AnHeart equity incentive plans and reserved an aggregate of approximately 15,943,933 shares of Class A Common Stock for issuance upon exercise of outstanding options or settlement of outstanding restricted stock units issued under those plans. We may also issue additional shares of Class A Common Stock or other equity securities of equal or senior rank in the future in connection with, among other things, future acquisitions or repayment of outstanding indebtedness, without stockholder approval, in a number of circumstances.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, we have options outstanding to purchase approximately 77,074,354 shares of Class A Common Stock. Pursuant to the 2021 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2021 Plan”) and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2021 ESPP”), we may issue under the 2021 Plan an aggregate of up to 43,320,326 shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock, which amount will be subject to increase from time to time. In addition, in the AnHeart acquisition, we assumed the AnHeart equity incentive plans and reserved an aggregate of approximately 15,943,933 shares of Class A Common Stock for issuance upon exercise of outstanding options or settlement of outstanding restricted stock units issued under those plans. We may also issue additional shares of Class A Common Stock or other equity securities of equal or senior rank in the future in connection with, among other things, future acquisitions or repayment of outstanding indebtedness, without stockholder approval, in a number of circumstances.