Surrozen, Inc./DE
For the period ended Sep 30, 2026. Filed Nov 9, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's report for each of its first three quarters. The financial statements are not audited. It shows how the business has moved since the last annual report, and what management says changed.
Sep 30, 2026 · Filed Nov 9, 2026
SRZN$32.00+3.2%Stored close · as of Nov 9, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-Q
Period ended 2026-06-30; filed 2026-08-06.
0001193125-26-338120
Item 1A. Risk FactorsUnregistered Sales of Equity Securities, Use of Proceeds and Issuer Purchases of Equity SecuritiesDefaults Upon Senior SecuritiesMine Safety DisclosuresCurrent report: 10-Q
Period ended 2026-09-30; filed 2026-11-09.
0001193125-26-453790
Item 1A. Risk FactorsUnregistered Sales of Equity Securities, Use of Proceeds and Issuer Purchases of Equity SecuritiesDefaults Upon Senior SecuritiesMine Safety DisclosuresThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 414 previous paragraphs and 414 current paragraphs.
394 unchanged; 15 reworded; 3 added; 3 removed; 2 previous and 2 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (3)
Current report
Collaborators may interpret the terms of our agreements differently than we do, which could lead us to disagreements and disputes which could diminish the value of such collaboration to us. For example, in October 2026, Boehringer Ingelheim filed a request for arbitration with the ICC, asserting that we had materially breached the CLA and seeking a 50% reduction of its royalty and milestone payment obligations and repayment of $5.0 million of the June 2026 development milestone payment received in September 2026. The claims asserted are contractual in nature and do not relate to the safety or efficacy of SZN-413. In November 2026, we submitted our response to the ICC, denying the allegations in full. The arbitration proceedings may divert management’s time and attention and be costly, and could result in a reduction of future milestone and royalty payments to us, or the termination of the CLA. If the CLA is terminated, while the rights to SZN-413 would revert to us and Boehringer Ingelheim would no longer have any rights to develop or commercialize SZN-413, we would not be entitled to future milestone or royalty payments.
Current report
Recent drug pricing initiatives also create uncertainty and could materially affect our future business and financial condition. For example, the administration is pursuing most-favored-nation, or MFN, drug pricing policies for certain prescription drugs. As part of these initiatives, the administration is implementing or considering various CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation models, under which manufacturers may owe rebates for certain prescription drugs under Medicaid or Medicare if the price of a drug included in an applicable model exceeds an international benchmark calculated based on prices available in certain reference countries. These include the voluntary GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid, or GENEROUS, Model, which focuses on Medicaid covered outpatient drugs and is currently voluntary for manufacturers and states; the finalized Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model, or GLOBE, Model for certain Medicare Part B drugs; and the proposed Guarding United States Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs, or GUARD, Model for certain Medicare Part D drugs, among others.
Current report
Further, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. HHS has also been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source biologics that have been on the market for at least eleven (11) years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis.
Removed paragraphs (3)
Previous report
Collaborators may interpret the terms of our agreements differently than we do, which could lead us to disagreements and disputes which could diminish the value of such collaboration to us. For example, Boehringer Ingelheim has recently advised us that it believes it has grounds to assert a contractual remedy under the CLA and reduce the amount of future milestone and royalty payments payable to us thereunder. The CLA provides that all disputes under the CLA will be resolved by arbitration. While we believe Boehringer Ingelheim’s interpretation of the terms of the CLA is without merit, disagreements between the parties could adversely affect the collaboration and diminish the value of such collaboration.
Previous report
Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. For example, there have been several recent 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 drug products. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source biologics that have been on the market for at least 11 years covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, or the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions took effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon prices of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional products covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Further, on December 7, 2023, an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act was announced. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. It is unclear whether this executive order or similar policy initiatives will be implemented in the future.
Previous report
The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies including at HHS, the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 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, the current administration has announced agreements with pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform (TrumpRx), 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) directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives; (3) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s Strategy Report released in September 2025, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. 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.
Reworded paragraphs (15)
Previous wording
failure of us or Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to adequately perform under the Collaboration and License Agreement;
Current wording
failure of us or Boehringer Ingelheim to adequately perform under the CLA, including in connection with our ongoing arbitration, or the termination of the CLA;
Previous wording
From time to time, we expect that we will make public statements regarding the expected timing of certain milestones and key events, such as the commencement and completion of preclinical and IND-enabling studies in our internal drug discovery programs as well as the commencement and completion of our ongoing and planned clinical trials. The actual timing of these events can vary dramatically due to a number of factors such as delays or failures in our or any future collaborators’ drug discovery and development programs, the amount of time, effort and resources committed by us and any future collaborators, and the numerous uncertainties inherent in the development of drugs. As a result, there can be no assurance that we or any current or future collaborators’ programs will advance or be completed in the time frames we or they announce or expect. If we or any collaborators fail to achieve one or more of these milestones or other key events as planned, including the milestones in our agreement with Boehringer Ingelheim, our business could be materially adversely affected and the price of common stock could decline.
Current wording
From time to time, we expect that we will make public statements regarding the expected timing of certain milestones and key events, such as the commencement and completion of preclinical and IND-enabling studies in our internal drug discovery programs as well as the commencement and completion of our ongoing and planned clinical trials. The actual timing of these events can vary dramatically due to a number of factors such as delays or failures in our or any future collaborators’ drug discovery and development programs, the amount of time, effort and resources committed by us and any future collaborators, and the numerous uncertainties inherent in the development of drugs. For example, in October 2026, Boehringer Ingelheim filed a request for arbitration with the ICC, asserting that we had materially breached the CLA and seeking a 50% reduction of its royalty and milestone payment obligations and repayment of $5.0 million of the June 2026 development milestone payment received in September 2026. The claims asserted are contractual in nature and do not relate to the safety or efficacy of SZN-413. In November 2026, we submitted our response to the ICC, denying the allegations in full. The arbitration proceedings may divert management’s time and attention and be costly, and could result in a reduction of future milestone and royalty payments to us, or the termination of the CLA. If the CLA is terminated, while the rights to SZN-413 would revert to us and Boehringer Ingelheim would no longer have any rights to develop or commercialize SZN-413, we would not be entitled to future milestone or royalty payments. As a result, there can be no assurance that we or any current or future collaborators’ programs will advance or be completed in the time frames we or they announce or expect. If we or any collaborators fail to achieve one or more of these milestones or other key events as planned, including the milestones in our agreement with Boehringer Ingelheim, our business could be materially adversely affected and the price of common stock could decline.
Previous wording
Our understanding of the number of people who suffer from certain types of retinal vascular associated diseases that our lead product candidates may be able to treat are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect, and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States or elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our current or potential future product candidates or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition. In particular, the treatable population for our candidates may further be reduced if its estimates of addressable populations are erroneous or sub-populations of patients do not derive benefit from SZN-413, SZN-8141, or SZN-8143.
Current wording
Our understanding of the number of people who suffer from certain types of retinal vascular associated diseases that our lead product candidates may be able to treat are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect, and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States or elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our current or potential future product candidates or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition.
Previous wording
31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such NOLs generally will be limited in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020 to 80% of current year taxable income. As of December 31, 2025, we had NOLs of approximately $185.1 million and $31.3 million available to reduce future taxable income, if any, for federal and California state income tax purposes, respectively. NOLs generated after 2018 for federal tax reporting purposes of $181.6 million have an indefinite carryforward period. The remaining federal and all state NOLs begin expiring in 2036.
Current wording
Our NOLs could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities because of their limited duration or because of restrictions under U.S. tax law. NOLs generated in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018 are permitted to be carried forward for only 20 taxable years under applicable U.S. federal income tax law. Under current law, NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020 may not be carried back. Moreover, under current law, NOLs generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such NOLs generally will be limited in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020 to 80% of current year taxable income. As of December 31, 2025, we had NOLs of approximately $185.1 million and $31.3 million available to reduce future taxable income, if any, for federal and California state income tax purposes, respectively. NOLs generated after 2018 for federal tax reporting purposes of $181.6 million have an indefinite carryforward period. The remaining federal and all state NOLs begin expiring in 2036.
Previous wording
Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or elsewhere could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. The United States has enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law, which could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any future owned or in-licensed issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, may affect patent litigation and switch the U.S. patent system from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system. Under a first-to-file system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier.
Current wording
Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or elsewhere could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. The United States has enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law, which could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any future owned or in-licensed issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, may affect patent litigation and switch the U.S. patent system from a “first-to-invent” system to a
Previous wording
In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Among the provisions of the ACA, of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry are increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; required manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts (increased to 70 percent, effective as of January 1, 2019) off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.
Current wording
In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.
Previous wording
There have been amendments to and legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional future challenges or the healthcare reform measures of the current presidential administration will impact the ACA and our business. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken.
Current wording
There have been amendments to and legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or the OBBBA, was signed into law, which narrowed access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The OBBBA also 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. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired ACA subsidies. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken.
Previous wording
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing 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. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.
Current wording
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing 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, on June 15, 2026, the FDA approved Colorado’s Section 804 Importation Program proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this and Florida’s similar program, approved by the FDA in 2024, will be implemented and whether they will overcome potential legal, regulatory, or industry challenges in the United States and/or Canada. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.
Previous wording
Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors, among others, will play a primary role in the prescription and recommendation of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with third-party payors, providers and customers, among others, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our product candidates for which it obtains marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and other countries, include the following:
Current wording
Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors, among others, will play a primary role in the prescription and recommendation of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with third-party payors, providers and customers, among others, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and other countries, include the following:
Previous wording
analogous local, state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to healthcare items or services reimbursed by third party payors, including private insurers; local, state and foreign transparency laws that require manufacturers to report information related to payments and transfers of value to other healthcare providers and healthcare entities, marketing expenditures, or drug pricing; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to register certain employees engaged in marketing activities in the location and comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Current wording
analogous local, state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to healthcare items or services reimbursed by third party payors, including private insurers; local, state and foreign transparency laws that require manufacturers to report information related to payments and transfers of value to other healthcare providers and healthcare entities, marketing expenditures, or drug pricing; state and local laws that require certain regulatory licenses to manufacture or distribute our products commercially and/or the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Previous wording
Cost-containment is a priority in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere. As a result, government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors also may request additional clinical evidence beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval, requiring a company to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our product. Commercial third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products in the U.S. can differ significantly from payor to payor. We cannot be sure that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that it commercializes and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be adequate. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which it obtains marketing approval.
Current wording
Cost-containment is a priority in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere. As a result, government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the cost of the less expensive product. Third-party payors also may request additional clinical evidence beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval, requiring a company to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our product. Commercial third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products in the U.S. can differ significantly from payor to payor. We cannot be sure that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that it commercializes and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be adequate. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which it obtains marketing approval.
Previous wording
Additionally, the regulations that govern regulatory approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs and therapeutic biologics vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug or therapeutic biologic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay its commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues it is able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup its investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Current wording
Additionally, the regulations that govern regulatory approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs and therapeutic biologics vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug or therapeutic biologic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay its commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues it is able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Previous wording
Noncompliance with anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws could subject us to whistleblower complaints, investigations, sanctions, settlements, prosecution, other enforcement actions, disgorgement of profits, significant fines, damages, other civil and criminal penalties or injunctions, suspension or debarment from contracting with certain persons, the loss of export privileges, reputational harm, adverse media coverage and other collateral consequences. If any subpoenas, investigations or other enforcement actions are launched, or governmental or other sanctions are imposed, or if we do not prevail in any possible civil or criminal litigation, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, responding to any action will likely result in a materially significant diversion of management’s attention and resources and significant defense and compliance costs and other professional fees. In certain cases, enforcement authorities may even cause us to appoint an independent compliance monitor which can result in added costs and administrative burdens.
Current wording
Noncompliance with anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws could subject us to whistleblower complaints, investigations, sanctions, settlements, prosecution, other enforcement actions, disgorgement of profits, significant fines, damages, other civil and criminal penalties or injunctions, suspension or debarment from contracting with certain persons, the loss of export privileges,
Previous wording
In addition, in August 2025, we entered into a sales agreement with TD Securities (USA) LLC, or TD Cowen, to issue and sell up to $50.0 million of shares of common stock, or the 2025 ATM, and to date we have sold 2,150,937 shares of common stock for net proceeds of $35.9 million under the 2025 ATM. In March 2026, we terminated the 2025 ATM and entered into a new sales agreement with TD Cowen to issue and sell up to $50.0 million of shares of common stock, or the 2026 ATM. To date we have not sold any shares of common stock under the 2026 ATM.
Current wording
In addition, in August 2025, we entered into a sales agreement with TD Securities (USA) LLC, or TD Cowen, to issue and sell up to $50.0 million of shares of common stock, or the 2025 ATM, and to date we have sold 2,150,937 shares of common stock for net proceeds of $35.9 million under the 2025 ATM. In March 2026, we terminated the 2025 ATM and entered into a new sales agreement with TD Cowen to issue and sell up to $50.0 million of shares of common stock, or the 2026 ATM. As of September 30, 2026, we had not sold any shares of common stock under the 2026 ATM. In October 2026, we sold a total of 1.2 million shares of common stock under the 2026 ATM for net proceeds of $29.8 million, after deducting sales agent commissions.
Previous wording
As of June 30, 2026, entities affiliated with The Column Group (of which a member of our board of directors, Tim Kutzkey, Ph.D., is a Managing Partner) beneficially owned approximately 28.7% of our common stock and can significantly influence any matter requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combinations.
Current wording
As of September 30, 2026, entities affiliated with The Column Group (of which a member of our board of directors, Tim Kutzkey, Ph.D., is a Managing Partner) beneficially owned approximately 28.1% of our common stock and can significantly influence any matter requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combinations.
Rearranged current paragraphs (2)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
In particular, the treatable population for our candidates may further be reduced if its estimates of addressable populations are erroneous or sub-populations of patients do not derive benefit from SZN-413, SZN-8141, or SZN-8143.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
“first-to-file” system. Under a first-to-file system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier.
Rearranged previous paragraphs (2)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
Our NOLs could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities because of their limited duration or because of restrictions under U.S. tax law. NOLs generated in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018 are permitted to be carried forward for only 20 taxable years under applicable U.S. federal income tax law. Under current law, NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020 may not be carried back. Moreover, under current law, NOLs generated in taxable years beginning after December
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback