Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
For the period ended Dec 31, 2025. Filed Mar 30, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's yearly report to the SEC, with audited financial statements. It is the fullest account a company gives of its business, its finances and the risks it sees.
FY2025 · Filed Mar 30, 2026
ATNM$1.43+10.0%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-K
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-03-31.
0001213900-25-026371
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-K
Period ended 2025-12-31; filed 2026-03-30.
0001213900-26-036504
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe 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 205 previous paragraphs and 218 current paragraphs.
159 unchanged; 46 reworded; 12 added; 0 removed; 0 previous and 1 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 49 previous and 55 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 (12)
Current report
We have incurred net losses every year since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses in the future.
Current report
Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by government shutdowns, leadership changes, changes to regulatory approach, layoffs, funding shortages or global health concerns could negatively impact our business
Current report
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. In the recent past, the U.S. government shutdown on October 1, 2025 to November 12, 2025, which curtailed operations at key agencies such as the FDA and NIH. Based on this shutdown, we expect trials under our CRADA with the NCI to be delayed. There can be no assurances that additional shutdowns will occur in the future or how long such shutdowns may last. 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 enacted and continues to propose 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 delay reviews and negatively impact our business. There has been significant turnover and changes in senior leadership at the FDA and other government agencies including the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”), which is the division of the FDA that would oversee and review biologics-based targeted radiotherapies like those we currently develop and plan to continue to develop. We believe these changes could result in changes in the FDA’s perception of the approvability of therapies, the perceived value of certain therapies or therapeutic modalities, which could create material challenges for our development efforts. As of the date of this Report, there is significant uncertainty and risks associated with future FDA regulatory policies and actions that could have a material negative impact on our business. Any or all of these factors could cause us to amend, suspend or terminate the development of certain of our preclinical or clinical programs, which could have material adverse impacts on our business, our product candidates or our ability to continue operations.
Current report
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 and may cause us to amend our business strategy or. From October 1, 2025 until November 12, 2025, the U.S federal government was shutdown, which curtailed operations of key agencies such as the FDA and the NIH. Our ability to advance clinical development, obtain regulatory interactions/approvals, or secure government-funded grants may be delayed or disrupted by the aformentioned federal government shutdown. For example, the NCI with whom we have a CRADA with for the development of Actimab-A was not operating during the shutdown. As a result, trials active and planned under our CRADA are expected to be delayed. 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 enacted and continues to propose 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 delay reviews and negatively impact our business. There has been significant turnover and changes in senior leadership at the FDA and other government agencies including the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”), which is the division of the FDA that would oversee and review biologics based targeted radiotherapies like those we currently develop and plan to continue to develop. We believe these changes could result in changes in the FDA’s perception of the approvability of therapies, the perceived value of certain therapies or therapeutic modalities, which could create material challenges for our development efforts. At this time, there is significant uncertainty and risks associated with future FDA regulatory policies and actions that could have a material negative impact on our business. Any or all of these factors could cause us to amend, suspend or terminate the development of certain of our preclinical or clinical programs, which could have material adverse impacts on our business, our product candidates or our ability to continue operations.
Current report
The current Trump Administration is also pursuing policies intended to, among other things, reduce regulations and expenditures across government (including at the HHS, FDA, NIH, CMS, and other related agencies), lower prescription drug prices, and enhance drug price transparency. These actions, such as those directed by executive orders, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, on April 15, 2025, the Trump Administration released an executive order entitled, “Lower Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which among other things, included multiple directives to various agencies aimed at lowering prescription drug prices. Further, in May 2025, the Trump Administration released two executive orders aimed to promote domestic production of critical medicines and to establish a most-favored-nation (“MFN”) drug pricing policy that would tie U.S. drug prices to the prices paid for drugs in other countries. Other recent actions and proposals include, for example, (1) reducing federal agencies workforces; (2) directing program cuts; (3) 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 and eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan; (4) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and price plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans; (5) 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; (6) announcing a new payment initiative called the GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model (“GENEROUS Model”) where drug manufacturers may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs; (7) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs for Medicare through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and proposing two rules to incorporate MFN pricing into federal reimbursement for drugs including the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model (“GLOBE Model”) for Medicare Part B and Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (“GUARD Model”) for Medicare Part D; (8) launching the TrumpRx direct-to-consumer platform designed to have drug manufacturers offer consumers prescription drug MFN pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations; and (9) calling on Congress to enact the “The Great Healthcare Plan” to, among other things, codify and expand MFN pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and ena…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current report
Current and future legislative and regulatory changes aimed to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for healthcare products and treatments. Any reduction in coverage or reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government programs may result in similar actions taken by private payors such as reductions in payments. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates.
Current report
Additionally, in December 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (“NDAA”) was enacted, which included legislation commonly referred to as the “BIOSECURE Act.” The BIOSECURE Act restricts government agencies from procuring certain biotechnology equipment or services from, or entering into contracts with, entities that use biotechnology equipment or services from designated “biotechnology companies of concern,” (“BCCs”) and from expending certain federal loan or grant funds for such equipment or services. BCCs include those that are identified on the Department of Defense’s annual List of Chinese Military Companies, also known as the 1260H List, and the government also has the ability to designate entities as BCCs through a separate designation process. While the BIOSECURE Act has not yet been fully implemented through final regulations, there remains a continued policy interest in limiting U.S. companies’ relationships with biotechnology providers with relationships with foreign adversaries.
Current report
If any of our current or future vendors, or their affiliates, are designated as a BCC or placed on other U.S. restricted party lists, such designation could impact and potentially restrict our ability to purchase equipment or services from such vendors and could adversely affect our existing government-funded grants and our ability to secure future grants. These disruptions could also have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates and our business operations.
Current report
The ability of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government shutdowns, which recently occurred from October 1, 2025 until November 12, 2025, budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes that may otherwise affect the FDA’s or comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to perform routine functions. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies or comparable foreign regulatory authorities on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue to fund our operations.
Current report
In the U.S. and some jurisdictions outside the U.S., there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could impact our business. Generally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. with respect to drug pricing, including specialty drug pricing practices, in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Specifically, there have been U.S. Congressional inquiries and federal and state legislative activity designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the price of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs and biologics. In addition, the concept of most-favored nation pricing has been raised that would seek to establish drug prices in the U.S. to the lowest level paid by comparable countries. Such policy action could cause us to amend, suspend or terminate the development of any or all of our product candidates if a viable commercial market did not exist, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and ability to operate.
Current report
If future legislation were to impose direct governmental price controls and access restrictions, it could have a significant adverse impact on our business and financial results. Managed care organizations, as well as Medicaid and other government authorities, continue to seek price discounts. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biologic 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, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Due to the volatility in the current economic and market dynamics, we are unable to predict the impact of any unforeseen or unknown legislative, regulatory, payor or policy actions, which may include cost containment and healthcare reform measures. Such policy actions could have a material adverse impact on our business and ability to operate.
Current report
The uncertainty of tariff policies and potential countermeasures could increase our costs and disrupt our global supply chain, which could negatively impact the results of our operations.
Reworded paragraphs (46)
Previous wording
We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. As of December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $375.8 million and $337.6 million, respectively. We reported a net loss of $38.2 million and $48.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. We expect to continue to operate at a net loss as we continue our research and development efforts, continue to conduct clinical trials and develop manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. There can be no assurance that the products under development by us will be approved for sale in the United States or elsewhere. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that if such products are approved, they will be successfully commercialized, which would have an adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition and results of operation.
Current wording
We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. As of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $409.7 million and $375.8 million, respectively. We reported a net loss of $33.9 million and $38.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. We expect to continue to operate at a net loss as we continue our research and development efforts, continue to conduct clinical trials and develop manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. There can be no assurance that the products under development by us will be approved for sale in the United States or elsewhere. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that if such products are approved, they will be successfully commercialized, which would have an adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition and results of operation.
Previous wording
We are highly dependent on the clinical, regulatory and commercial success of Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT and other pipeline candidates which we may never achieve
Current wording
We are highly dependent on the clinical, regulatory and commercial success of ATNM-400, Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT, ATNM-400 and other pipeline candidates which we may never achieve
Previous wording
None of the drug candidates we are developing, or have developed, have received regulatory approval. Based on the current status of our pipeline candidates, it will likely take several years or additional clinical studies before we can seek approval for any drug candidate.
Current wording
None of the drug candidates we are developing, or have developed, have received regulatory approval. Based on the current status of our pipeline candidates, it will likely take several years and additional clinical studies before we can seek approval for any drug candidate.
Previous wording
Our Actimab-A drug candidate was studied in a Phase 2 clinical trial as a monotherapy and we are now studying it in combination with other therapies. We have aligned with the FDA on an operationally seamless Phase 2/3 trial that is intended to support a BLA filing. There can be no assurance that the Phase 2 portion of the trial will be successful and support advancing to the Phase 3 portion of the trial. In addition, our Iomab-ACT drug candidate has only been studied in a limited number of human subjects in a Phase 1 trial with a novel CAR-T therapy. While the initial results from this trial were encouraging, there can be no assurance that future results with Iomab-ACT from the commercial CAR-T trial at UTSW or sickle cell conditioning trial at Columbia will be positive.
Current wording
ATNM-400 is currently being studied preclinically and has not yet been studied in human subjects. There can be no assurances that we will advance ATNM-400 into clinical trials and even if we are successful in doing so, our preclinical results to date may not translate in connection with human subjects. Our Actimab-A drug candidate was studied in a Phase 2 clinical trial as a monotherapy, and we are now studying it in combination with other therapies. We believe we have aligned with the FDA on a Phase 2/3 trial that is intended to support a BLA filing. There can be no assurance that the Phase 2 portion of the trial will be successful and support advancing to the Phase 3 portion of the trial. In addition, our Iomab-ACT drug candidate has only been studied in a limited number of human subjects in a Phase 1 trial with a novel CAR-T therapy. While we believe the initial results from this trial were encouraging, there can be no assurance that future results with Iomab-ACT from the commercial CAR-T trial at UTSW or sickle cell conditioning trial at Columbia will be positive.
Previous wording
As for Iomab-B in particular, as previously disclosed, we completed the pivotal Phase 3 SIERRA trial (Study of Iomab-B in Elderly Relapsed or Refractory AML) and presented the trial results in February 2023, which were expected to support a BLA filing. The SIERRA trial met the primary endpoint of dCR with statistical significance (p-value<0.0001) but did not meet the secondary endpoint in achieving a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in the intent to treat population. On August 5, 2024, we announced that the FDA determined that the SIERRA trial alone is not adequate to support a BLA filing and is requiring an additional randomized head-to-head clinical trial to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in an intent to treat population. Further, the FDA is also requiring an additional dose optimization trial to calculate the dose of Iomab-B based on absorbed dose by the bone marrow, rather than the maximum tolerable dose of 24 Gy of radiation to the liver as was done in the SIERRA trial based on several interactions with the FDA prior to the start of the SIERRA trial. Based on this revised approach now required by the FDA, the safety and efficacy data generated from all Iomab-B studies, including the SIERRA trial, are inadequate to seek regulatory approval for Iomab-B, as dosing based on maximum tolerable dose of 24 Gy to the liver will lead to variable doses to the bone marrow (the target organ), result in underdosing or overdosing of patients and translate to a global patient safety risk. We are seeking a strategic partner for the U.S. in order to conduct the additional studies required by the FDA; however, we may not be successful in our efforts to find such a partner, or the trials and studies may not be successful. Further, there are no assurances that we can satisfy all of the FDA’s requests, and there could be additional regulatory hurdles that may result in either non-acceptance or non-approval of a future BLA filing. The U.S. commercial opportunity for Iomab-B may thus never be realized.
Current wording
As for Iomab-B in particular, as previously disclosed, we completed the Phase 3 SIERRA trial (Study of Iomab-B in Elderly Relapsed or Refractory AML) and presented the trial results in February 2023, which were expected to support a BLA filing. The SIERRA trial met the primary endpoint of dCR with statistical significance (p-value<0.0001) but did not meet the secondary endpoint in achieving a statistically significant improvement in OS in the intent to treat population. On August 5, 2024, we announced that the FDA determined that the SIERRA trial alone is not adequate to support a BLA filing and is requiring an additional randomized head-to-head clinical trial to demonstrate an OS benefit in an intent to treat population. Further, the FDA is also requiring an additional dose optimization trial to calculate the dose of Iomab-B based on absorbed dose by the bone marrow, rather than the maximum tolerable dose of 24 Gy of radiation to the liver as was done in the SIERRA trial based on several interactions with the FDA prior to the start of the SIERRA trial. Based on this revised approach now required by the FDA, the safety and efficacy data generated from all Iomab-B studies, including the SIERRA trial, are inadequate to seek regulatory approval for Iomab-B, as dosing based on maximum tolerable dose of 24 Gy to the liver will lead to variable doses to the bone marrow (the target organ), result in underdosing or overdosing of patients and translate to a global patient safety risk. We are seeking a strategic partner for the U.S. in order to conduct the additional studies required by the FDA; however, we may not be successful in our efforts to find such a partner, or the trials and studies may not be successful. Further, there are no assurances that we can satisfy all of the FDA’s requests, and there could be additional regulatory hurdles that may result in either non-acceptance or non-approval of a future BLA filing. The U.S. commercial opportunity for Iomab-B may thus never be realized.
Previous wording
In the third quarter of 2024, our overall headcount was reduced by approximately twenty percent, with a majority of departures coming from our clinical and CMC groups. As a result of these departures, we expect our personnel expenses to be reduced by approximately $3.7 million in 2025, which may be offset by additional hires or consultants. We do not expect these departures to have a material impact on our operations or ability to execute our operating plan and are actively seeking a strategic partner for Iomab-B in the U.S. to advance the additional studies and trials required by the FDA.
Current wording
In February 2026, Steve O’Loughlin tendered his resignation as the Chief Financial Officer of our Company. To fill this executive vacancy, our Board appointed Sandesh Seth, the current Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, to serve as our principal financial officer. In the second quarter of 2025, we conducted a workforce optimization that reduced our headcount by approximately fourteen percent and announced a strategic pipeline prioritization which led to further departures from the workforce in 2025. In the third quarter of 2024, our overall headcount was reduced by approximately twenty percent, with a majority of departures coming from our clinical and CMC groups. We do not expect these departures to have a material impact on our operations or ability to execute our operating plan and are actively seeking a strategic partner for Actimab-A and Iomab-B in the U.S. to advance the registrational Phase 2/3 trials required by the FDA.
Previous wording
Additionally, a future pandemic may result in delays in receiving approvals from local and foreign regulatory authorities, delays in necessary interactions with IRB’s or Institutional Review Boards, local and foreign regulators, ethics committees and other important agencies and contractors due to limitations in employee resources or forced furlough of government employees.
Current wording
Additionally, a future pandemic may result in delays in receiving approvals from local and foreign regulatory authorities, delays in necessary interactions with IRB, local and foreign regulators, ethics committees and other important agencies and contractors due to limitations in employee resources or forced furlough of government employees.
Previous wording
For instance, as for Iomab-B, despite the Phase SIERRA 3 trial meeting the primary endpoint of durable Complete Remission (dCR) with statistical significance (p-value<0.0001), the FDA has determined that demonstrating an overall survival benefit in a randomized head-to-head trial is required for a BLA filing. In addition, the FDA is also requiring that an additional dose optimization trial demonstrating safety and efficacy be completed to calculate the dose of Iomab-B based on absorbed dose by the bone marrow, rather than the maximum tolerable dose of 24 Gy of radiation to the liver as was done in the SIERRA trial based on several interactions we had with the FDA before starting the SIERRA trial. The head-to-head Phase 3 trial will evaluate allogeneic bone marrow transplant (BMT) using Iomab-B plus a reduced intensity conditioning regimen of fludarabine and total body irradiation (Flu/TBI) versus allogeneic BMT using reduced intensity conditioning comprised of cyclophosphamide plus Flu/TBI. This is different from the SIERRA trial, which allowed physician’s choice of salvage therapies and heterogenous conditioning regimens in the control arm. However, there are no assurances that the additional trials will be successful or that we can satisfy all of the FDA’s requests. There could also be additional regulatory hurdles that may result in either non-acceptance or non-approval of a future BLA filing.
Current wording
For instance, as for Iomab-B, despite the Phase SIERRA 3 trial meeting the primary endpoint of durable Complete Remission (dCR) with statistical significance (p-value<0.0001), the FDA has determined that demonstrating an OS benefit in a randomized head-to-head trial is required for a BLA filing. In addition, the FDA is also requiring that an additional dose optimization trial demonstrating safety and efficacy be completed to calculate the dose of Iomab-B based on absorbed dose by the bone marrow, rather than the maximum tolerable dose of 24 Gy of radiation to the liver as was done in the SIERRA trial based on several interactions we had with the FDA before starting the SIERRA trial. The head-to-head Phase 3 trial will evaluate allogeneic bone marrow transplant (BMT) using Iomab-B plus a reduced intensity conditioning regimen of fludarabine and total body irradiation (Flu/TBI) versus allogeneic BMT using reduced intensity conditioning comprised of cyclophosphamide plus Flu/TBI. This is different from the SIERRA trial, which allowed physician’s choice of salvage therapies and heterogenous conditioning regimens in the control arm. However, there are no assurances that the additional trials will be completed or successful or that we can satisfy all of the FDA’s requests. There could also be additional regulatory hurdles that may result in either non-acceptance or non-approval of a future BLA filing.
Previous wording
As previously disclosed and noted above, Actinium has licensed to Immedica the exclusive product rights for commercialization of Iomab-B in the EUMENA region. We are evaluating the impact of the FDA’s 2024 determination of the SIERRA trials results referred to above in the context of global regulatory submission for Iomab-B. At this time, filings for regulatory approval, obtaining regulatory approvals, and successful commercialization of Iomab-B in the EUMENA region and on a global basis are highly uncertain and may never be realized.
Current wording
As previously disclosed and noted above, Actinium has licensed to Immedica the exclusive product rights for commercialization of Iomab-B in the Europe, Middle East, and North Africa (EUMENA) region. We are evaluating the impact of the FDA’s 2024 determination of the SIERRA trials results referred to above in the context of global regulatory submission for Iomab-B. At this time, filings for regulatory approval, obtaining regulatory approvals, and successful commercialization of Iomab-B in the EUMENA region and on a global basis are highly uncertain and may never be realized.
Previous wording
Our Actimab-A (lintuzumab-Ac-225) product candidate has also been studied in several Phase 1 and 2 trials under our sponsorship and investigator-initiated trials in patients with r/r AML and we plan to continue to study Actimab-A in clinical trials. Actimab-A is also being developed under a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and we expect clinical trials to be initiated that will study Actimab-A as a single agent or in combination with other therapies. Product candidates utilizing the lintuzumab antibody would require BLA approval before they can be marketed in the United States. We are in the early stages of evaluating other product candidates consisting of conjugates of Ac-225 with human or humanized antibodies for pre-clinical and clinical development in other types of cancer. The FDA may not approve these products for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization. The FDA may fail to approve any BLA we submit for new product candidates or for new intended uses or indications for approved products or future product candidates. Failure to obtain FDA approval for our products in the proposed indications would have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
Current wording
Our Actimab-A (lintuzumab-Ac-225) product candidate has also been studied in several Phase 1 and 2 trials under our sponsorship and investigator-initiated trials in patients with r/r AML and we plan to continue to study Actimab-A in clinical trials. Actimab-A is also being developed under a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and we expect clinical trials to be initiated that will study Actimab-A as a single agent or in combination with other therapies. Product candidates utilizing the lintuzumab antibody would require BLA approval before they can be marketed in the United States. We are in the early stages of evaluating other product candidates consisting of conjugates of Ac-225 with human or humanized antibodies for pre-clinical and clinical development in other types of cancer such as ATNM-400. The FDA may not approve these products for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization. The FDA may fail to approve any IND, BLA or NDA we submit for new product candidates or for new intended uses or indications for approved products or future product candidates. Failure to obtain FDA approval for our products in the proposed indications would have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
Previous wording
We have not demonstrated that any of our products are safe and effective for any indication and will continue to expend substantial time and resources on clinical development before any of our current or future product candidates will be eligible for FDA approval, if ever.
Current wording
We have not demonstrated that any of our products are safe or effective for any indication and will continue to expend substantial time and resources on clinical development before any of our current or future product candidates will be eligible for FDA approval, if ever.
Previous wording
In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical and biological product candidates under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), as well as their respective implementing regulations. Such products and product candidates are also subject to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The process required by the FDA before a drug or biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
Current wording
In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical and biological product candidates under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), as well as their respective implementing regulations. Such products and product candidates are also subject to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The process required by the FDA before a drug or biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
Previous wording
Before testing any biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin or that, for those that have already commenced under an active IND, that issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.
Current wording
Before testing any biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND application. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND application is submitted. The IND application automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND application will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin or that, for those that have already commenced under an active IND application, that issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.
Previous wording
Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations composing the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
Current wording
Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND application. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations composing the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
Previous wording
Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might submit a BLA for regulatory approval for our product candidates or whether any such BLA will be approved by the FDA. Human clinical trials are very expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. For example, the FDA may not agree with our proposed endpoints for any clinical trial we propose, which may delay the commencement of our clinical trials. The clinical trial process is also lengthy and requires substantial time and effort.
Current wording
Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might submit a BLA for regulatory approval for our product candidates or whether any such BLA will be approved by the FDA. Human clinical trials are very expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. For example, the FDA may not agree with our proposed endpoints for any clinical trial we propose, which may delay the commencement of our clinical trials. The clinical trial process is also lengthy and requires substantial time, effort and expense.
Previous wording
Initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to support FDA approval of a BLA for Iomab-B, Actimab-A, and other product candidates, is a time-consuming and expensive process, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Moreover, the results of early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials.
Current wording
Initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to support FDA approval of a BLA for ATNM-400, Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT, Iomab-B, and other product candidates, is a time-consuming and expensive process, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Moreover, the results of early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials.
Previous wording
Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the efficacy and safety of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.
Current wording
Even if our preclinical studies or early clinical trials are favorable, later clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the efficacy and safety of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.
Previous wording
Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our product candidate claims or that the FDA or foreign authorities will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and pre-clinical studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses. If FDA concludes that the clinical trials for Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT, or any other product candidate for which we might seek approval, have failed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, we would not receive FDA approval to market that product candidate in the United States for the indications sought. In addition, such an outcome could cause us to abandon the product candidate and might delay the development of others. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay or preclude the filing of any submissions with the FDA and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues. It is also possible that patients enrolled in clinical trials will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of a product candidate’s profile.
Current wording
Even if our preclinical studies are favorable and our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our product candidate claims or that the FDA or foreign authorities will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and pre-clinical studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses. If the FDA concludes that any current or future clinical trials for ATNM-400, Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT, Iomab-B or any other product candidate for which we might seek approval, have failed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, we would not receive FDA approval to market that product candidate in the United States for the indications sought. In addition, such an outcome could cause us to abandon the product candidate and might delay the development of others. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay or preclude the filing of any submissions with the FDA and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues. It is also possible that patients enrolled in clinical trials will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of a product candidate’s profile.
Previous wording
The intellectual property related to antibodies we have licensed has expired or likely expired.
Current wording
The intellectual property related to certain antibodies we have licensed has expired or likely expired.
Previous wording
The key patents related to the humanized antibody, lintuzumab, which we use in our Actimab-A product candidate have expired. It is generally possible that others may be eventually able to use an antibody with the same sequence, and we will then need to rely on additional patent protection covering alpha particle drug products comprising Ac-225. Our final drug construct, Actimab-A, consists of the lintuzumab antibody labeled with the isotope Ac-225. We currently own issued and pending patents relating to methods of manufacturing Actimab-A, methods of treatment using Actimab-A and production of the Ac-225 isotope. In addition, we possess trade secrets and know how related to the manufacturing and use of isotopes. Any competing product based on the lintuzumab antibody is likely to require several years of development before achieving our product candidate’s current status and may be subject to significant regulatory hurdles but such development by others is nevertheless a possibility that could negatively impact our business in the future. We own 4 issued U.S. patents, 2 issued Canadian patents, 1 issued European patent (validated as a national patent in several countries) and 1 issued Japanese patent that relate to the composition of our Iomab-B product candidate. Patent applications relating to Iomab-B are also pending in the U.S. and internationally. We have and may continue to file patents related to Iomab-B that can provide barriers to entry but there is no certainty that these patents will be granted or such granting thereof will adequately prevent others from seeking to replicate and use the apamistamab antibody or the construct. Our patent portfolio includes pending applications related to radioimmunoconjugate composition, formulation administration, and methods of use in treating solid or liquid cancers. This subject matter includes composition, administration, and methods of treatment for our product candidates Actimab-A and Iomab-B. Any competing product based on the antibody used in Iomab-B is likely to require several years of development before achieving our product candidate’s current status and may be subject to significant regulatory hurdles. Further, if approved, Iomab-B would be entitled to 12 years of market exclusivity in the U.S. and 10 years in Europe, during which time no generic biologic or biosimilar referencing Iomab-B can be granted marketing approval.
Current wording
The key patents related to the humanized antibody lintuzumab, which we use in our Actimab-A product candidate, have expired. It is generally possible that others may be eventually able to use an antibody with the same sequence, and we will then need to rely on additional patent protection covering alpha particle drug products comprising Ac-225. Our final drug construct, Actimab-A, consists of the lintuzumab antibody labeled with the isotope Ac-225. We currently own issued and pending patents relating to methods of manufacturing Actimab-A, methods of treatment using Actimab-A and production of the Ac-225 isotope. In addition, we possess trade secrets and know how related to the manufacturing and use of isotopes. Any competing product based on the lintuzumab antibody is likely to require several years of development before achieving our product candidate’s current status and may be subject to significant regulatory hurdles, but such development by others is nevertheless a possibility that could negatively impact our business in the future. We own 4 issued U.S. patents, 2 issued Canadian patents, 2 issued European patent (each validated as a national patent in several countries) and 1 issued Japanese patent that relate to the composition of our Iomab-B product candidate. Patent applications relating to Iomab-B are also pending in the U.S. and internationally. We have and may continue to file patents related to Iomab-B that can provide barriers to entry but there is no certainty that these patents will be granted or such granting thereof will adequately prevent others from seeking to replicate and use the apamistamab antibody or the construct. Our patent portfolio includes pending applications related to radioimmunoconjugate composition, formulation administration, and methods of use in treating solid or liquid cancers. This subject matter includes composition, administration, and methods of treatment for our product candidates Actimab-A and Iomab-B. Any competing product based on the antibody used in Iomab-B is likely to require several years of development before achieving our product candidate’s current status and may be subject to significant regulatory hurdles. Further, if approved, Iomab-B would be entitled to 12 years of market exclusivity in the U.S. and 10 years in Europe, during which time no generic biologic or biosimilar product referencing Iomab-B can be granted marketing approval.
Previous wording
Our Actimab-A program is comprised of several clinical trials conducted under the CRADA with NCI, Actinium sponsored trials, investigator-initiated trials in AML and other myeloid indications and solid tumors that will study the same drug construct consisting of lintuzumab-Ac-225. Negative results from any of these trials could negatively impact our ability to enroll or complete our other trials studying lintzumab-Ac-225, including future studies conducted under our CRADA with the NCI. Additionally, negative outcomes including safety concerns, may result in the FDA requiring amendment to certain clinical trials, placing a clinical hold on certain or all clinical trials or discontinuing other trials utilizing lintuzumab-Ac-225.
Current wording
Our Actimab-A program is comprised of several clinical trials conducted under the CRADA with NCI, Actinium sponsored trials, investigator-initiated trials in AML and other myeloid indications and solid tumors that will study the same drug construct consisting of lintuzumab-Ac-225. Negative results from any of these trials could adversely impact our ability to enroll or complete our other trials studying lintzumab-Ac-225, including future studies conducted under our CRADA with the NCI. Additionally, negative outcomes including safety concerns, may result in the FDA requiring amendment to certain clinical trials, placing a clinical hold on certain or all clinical trials or discontinuing other trials utilizing lintuzumab-Ac-225.
Previous wording
Actinium-225 is a key component of our Actimab-A product candidate, technology platform, preclinical R&D programs and other drug candidates that we might consider for development with the Ac-225 payload. We have secured multiple suppliers that are expected to provide cGMP Ac-225 for our planned clinical trials. There are adequate quantities of Ac-225 available today to meet our current needs via our present supplier, the Department of Energy (“DOE”), who has been our primary supplier of Ac-225 historically. The Ac-225 currently supplied for our clinical trials from the DOE is derived from the natural decay of thorium-229 from so-called ‘thorium-cows’ and is able to produce sufficient quantities that are several multiples of the amount of Ac-225 we require to supply our clinical programs through to early commercialization phase. The DOE is also producing Ac-225 from a recently developed alternative route for Ac-225 production via a linear accelerator that is currently being evaluated by us. Initial preclinical and modelling results have indicated that the linear accelerator sourced Ac-225 does not impact labelling efficiency and expected distribution. In accordance with representations made by the DOE, the capacity of Ac-225 from this route is expected to be sufficient to supply all of Actinium’s pipeline and commercial Ac-225 needs and support new program expansion by not just Actinium but also other companies that are developing Ac-225 based products. Additional routes of Ac-225 production are being pursued by the DOE including the generation of new thorium cows and production via a cyclotron. The cyclotron production method for Ac-225 production leverages Actinium’s proprietary technology and know-how and presents an additional path towards production of high-quality Ac-225 at a scale that would be able to satisfy commercial needs. In addition, we are aware of at least ten other government and non-government entities globally including the U.S., Canada, Russia, Belgium, France and Japan that have, or expect to have ability to supply Ac-225 or equipment for its production within the timeframes relevant to the potential first commercial approval of our Ac-225-based drug candidate.
Current wording
Actinium-225 is a key component of our Actimab-A product candidate, technology platform, preclinical R&D programs including ATNM-400 and other drug candidates that we might consider for development with the Ac-225 payload. We have secured multiple suppliers that are expected to provide cGMP Ac-225 for our planned clinical trials. There are adequate quantities of Ac-225 available today to meet our current needs via our present supplier, the Department of Energy (“DOE”), who has been our primary supplier of Ac-225 historically. The Ac-225 currently supplied for our clinical trials from the DOE is derived from the natural decay of thorium-229 from so-called ‘thorium-cows’ and is able to produce sufficient quantities that are several multiples of the amount of Ac-225 we require to supply our clinical programs through to the early commercialization phase. The DOE is also producing Ac-225 from a recently developed alternative route for Ac-225 production via a linear accelerator that is currently being evaluated by us. Initial preclinical and modelling results have indicated that the linear accelerator sourced Ac-225 does not impact labelling efficiency and expected distribution. In accordance with representations made by the DOE, the capacity of Ac-225 from this route is expected to be sufficient to supply all of Actinium’s pipeline and commercial Ac-225 needs and support new program expansion by not just Actinium but also other companies that are developing Ac-225 based products. Additional routes of Ac-225 production are being pursued by the DOE including the generation of new thorium cows and production via a cyclotron. The cyclotron production method for Ac-225 production leverages Actinium’s proprietary technology and know-how and presents an additional path towards production of high-quality Ac-225 at a scale that would be able to satisfy commercial needs. In addition, we are aware of at least ten other government and non-government entities globally including the U.S., Canada, Russia, Belgium, France and Japan that have, or expect to have, ability to supply Ac-225 or equipment for its production within the timeframes relevant to the potential first commercial approval of our Ac-225-based drug candidate.
Previous wording
There can be no assurance that the data generated in our clinical trials will be acceptable to FDA or that if future modifications during the trial are necessary, that any such modifications will be acceptable to FDA. Certain modifications to a clinical trial protocol made during the course of the clinical trial have to be submitted to the FDA. This could result in the delay or halt of a clinical trial while the modification is evaluated. In addition, depending on the quantity and nature of the changes made, FDA could take the position that some or all of the data generated by the clinical trial is not usable because the same protocol was not used throughout the trial. This might require the enrollment of additional subjects, which could result in the extension of the clinical trial and the FDA delaying approval of a product candidate. If the FDA believes that its prior approval is required for a particular modification, it can delay or halt a clinical trial while it evaluates additional information regarding the change.
Current wording
There can be no assurance that the data generated in our clinical trials will be acceptable to the FDA or that if future modifications during the trial are necessary, that any such modifications will be acceptable to the FDA. Certain modifications to a clinical trial protocol made during the course of the clinical trial have to be submitted to the FDA. This could result in the delay or halt of a clinical trial while the modification is evaluated. In addition, depending on the quantity and nature of the changes made, the FDA could take the position that some or all of the data generated by the clinical trial is not usable because the same protocol was not used throughout the trial. This might require the enrollment of additional subjects, which could result in the extension of the clinical trial and the FDA delaying approval of a product candidate. If the FDA believes that its prior approval is required for a particular modification, it can delay or halt a clinical trial while it evaluates additional information regarding the change.
Previous wording
We have obtained orphan drug designation from FDA for two of our current product candidates and intend to pursue such designation for other candidates and indications in the future, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with any orphan drug designations we have received or may receive in the future.
Current wording
We have obtained orphan drug designation from the FDA for two of our current product candidates and intend to pursue such designation for other candidates and indications in the future, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with any orphan drug designations we have received or may receive in the future.
Previous wording
**Healthcare legislative reform measures intended to increase pressure to reduce prices of pharmaceutical products paid for by Medicare or, otherwise, affect the federal regulation of the U.S. healthcare system could have a material adverse effect our business, future revenue, if any, and results of operations. **
Current wording
Healthcare legislative reform measures intended to increase pressure to reduce prices of pharmaceutical products paid for by Medicare or, otherwise, affect the regulation of the U.S. healthcare system could have a material adverse effect on our business, future revenue, if any, and results of operations.
Previous wording
In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives focused on containing the cost of healthcare. The Affordable Care Act, for example, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. The Affordable Care Act contains a number of provisions that could impact our business and operations, primarily, once we obtain FDA approval to commercialize one of our product candidates in the United States, if ever, and may also affect our operations in ways we cannot currently predict. Affordable Care Act provisions that may affect our business include, among others, those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes, rules regarding prescription drug benefits under health insurance exchanges, expansion of the 340B program, expansion of state Medicaid programs, fees and increased discount and rebate obligations, transparency and reporting requirements, and fraud and abuse enforcement. Such changes may impact existing government healthcare programs, industry competition, formulary composition, and may result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives, health technology assessments, and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program.
Current wording
In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives focused on containing the cost of healthcare. The Affordable Care Act, for example, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. The Affordable Care Act contains a number of provisions that could impact our business and operations, primarily, once we obtain FDA approval to commercialize one of our product candidates in the United States, if ever. The Affordable Care Act may also affect our operations in ways we cannot currently predict. Affordable Care Act provisions that may affect our business include, among others, those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes, rules regarding prescription drug benefits under health insurance exchanges, expansion of the 340B program, expansion of state Medicaid programs, fees and increased discount and rebate obligations, transparency and reporting requirements, and fraud and abuse enforcement. Such changes may impact existing government healthcare programs, industry competition, formulary composition, and may result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives, health technology assessments, and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program.
Previous wording
There have been significant judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative initiatives to modify, limit, replace, or repeal the Affordable Care Act since its enactment. For example, during his first term, former President Trump issued several Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation that would repeal or replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation the Affordable Care Act have been passed. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the Affordable Care Act provision requiring individuals to purchase and maintain health coverage, or the “individual mandate,” by reducing the associated penalty to zero, beginning in 2019. In December 2018, a district court in Texas held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the Affordable Care Act is, therefore, invalid. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the holding on the individual mandate but remanded the case back to the lower court to reassess whether and how such holding affects the validity of the rest of the Affordable Care Act. The Fifth Circuit’s decision on the individual mandate was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs (comprised of the state of Texas, as well as numerous other states and certain individuals) did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and, accordingly, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and instructed the district court to dismiss the case. As a result, the Affordable Care Act remained in effect in its then-current form; however, we cannot predict what additional challenges may arise in the future, the outcome thereof, or the impact any such actions may have on our business. This uncertainty has become even greater given the new Trump administration and its proposed agenda.
Current wording
There have been significant judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative initiatives to modify, limit, replace, or repeal the Affordable Care Act since its enactment. For example, during his first term, President Trump issued several Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation that would repeal or replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act have been passed. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the Affordable Care Act provision requiring individuals to purchase and maintain health coverage, or the “individual mandate,” by reducing the associated penalty to zero, beginning in 2019. In December 2018, a district court in Texas held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the Affordable Care Act is, therefore, invalid. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the holding on the individual mandate but remanded the case back to the lower court to reassess whether and how such holding affects the validity of the rest of the Affordable Care Act. The Fifth Circuit’s decision on the individual mandate was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs (comprised of the state of Texas, as well as numerous other states and certain individuals) did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and, accordingly, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and instructed the district court to dismiss the case. As a result, the Affordable Care Act remained in effect in its then-current form; however, we cannot predict what additional challenges may arise in the future, the outcome thereof, or the impact any such actions may have on our business. This uncertainty has become even greater given the new Trump administration and its proposed agenda.
Previous wording
The Biden administration also introduced various measures in 2021 focusing on healthcare and drug pricing, in particular. For example, on January 28, 2021, former President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021, and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. On the legislative front, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law on March 11, 2021, which, in relevant part, eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source drugs and innovator multiple source drugs, which began on January 1, 2024. And, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order entitled, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices” that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles.
Current wording
The Biden administration also introduced various measures in 2021 focusing on healthcare and drug pricing, in particular. For example, on January 28, 2021, former President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021, and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. On the legislative front, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law on March 11, 2021, which, in relevant part, eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source drugs and innovator multiple source drugs, which began on January 1, 2024. And, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order entitled, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response, on September 9, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released a “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices” that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles.
Previous wording
More recently, on August 16, 2022, former President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”), which, among other provisions, included several measures intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs and related healthcare reforms. Specifically, the IRA authorizes and directs the Department of Health and Human Services (the “DHHS”) to set drug price caps for certain high-cost Medicare Part B and Part D qualified drugs, with the initial list of drugs announced on August 29, 2023, and the first year of maximum price applicability to begin in 2026. The IRA further authorizes the DHHS to penalize pharmaceutical manufacturers that increase the price of certain Medicare Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. Finally, the IRA creates significant changes to the Medicare Part D benefit design by capping Part D beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket spending at $2,000 beginning in 2025. Additional legislative and regulatory changes could be made to governmental health programs that could significantly impact pharmaceutical companies and the success of our product candidates. 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.
Current wording
On August 16, 2022, former President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”), which, among other provisions, included several measures intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs and related healthcare reforms. Specifically, the IRA authorizes and directs the HHS to set drug price caps for certain high-cost Medicare Part B and Part D qualified drugs, with the initial list of drugs announced on August 29, 2023, and the first year of maximum price applicability beginning in 2026. The IRA further authorizes the HHS to penalize pharmaceutical manufacturers that increase the price of certain Medicare Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. The IRA creates significant changes to the Medicare Part D benefit design by capping Part D beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket spending at $2,000 beginning in 2025. Further, on July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law which, among other things, is expected to reduce funding to federal healthcare programs, imposes additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, and clarifies exclusions for orphan drugs under IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program
Previous wording
Our business and research efforts rely, in part, on funding and support from U.S. government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). Government funding for these programs is subject to annual budgetary decisions, which can be unpredictable and influenced by shifting political and economic priorities. Reductions in government support for cancer research or other healthcare initiatives could limit grants, contracts, or other financial resources that we or our research collaborators depend on, potentially delaying our clinical programs and increasing our reliance on alternative funding sources. For instance, we have a CRADA with the NCI for the development of Actimab-A. While we have been informed that the funding for our CRADA is not expected to be impacted, there can be no assurances that this will remain the case and any reduction or elimination of funding can have a material adverse impact on our business.
Current wording
Our business and research efforts rely, in part, on funding and support from U.S. government agencies such as the NIH, NCI and HHS. Government funding for these programs is subject to annual budgetary decisions, which can be unpredictable and influenced by shifting political and economic priorities. Reductions in government support for cancer research or other healthcare initiatives could limit grants, contracts, or other financial resources that we or our research collaborators depend on, potentially delaying our clinical programs and increasing our reliance on alternative funding sources. From October 1, 2025 until November 12, 2025, the U.S federal government was shutdown, which curtailed operations of key agencies such as the FDA and the NIH. The NCI, with whom we have a CRADA with for the development of Actimab-A, was not operating during the shutdown. As a result, our ability to advance clinical development, obtain regulatory interactions/approvals, or secure government-funded grants may be delayed or disrupted by the federal government shutdown. For example, active and planned trials under our CRADA are expected to be delayed.
Previous wording
Moreover, with the change in presidential administration that recently occurred in the United States, government spending programs have become even more difficult to predict and may be subject to greater risk. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding how future budget and program decisions will unfold, including the spending priorities of the new U.S. presidential administration and Congress and what challenges budget reductions may present for our industry generally or for our company. In particular, President Trump recently attempted to place a widespread freeze on most federal grants and loans. Any freeze on government support for our products, programs, or studies could significantly impair our research and development activities, business, and operations.
Current wording
Moreover, with the change in presidential administration that recently occurred in the United States, government spending programs have become even more difficult to predict and may be subject to greater risk. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding how future budget and program decisions will unfold, including the spending priorities of the new U.S. presidential administration and Congress and what challenges budget reductions may present for our industry generally or for our company. For example, President Trump recently attempted to place a widespread freeze on most federal grants and loans. Any freeze, reduction, recission, change in eligibility or compliance requirements, or other actions affecting government support for our products, programs, or studies could significantly impair our research and development activities, business, and operations.
Previous wording
Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies or comparable regulatory authorities caused by funding shortages or global health concerns, in addition to substantial uncertainty regarding the new Administration’s initiatives and how these might impact the FDA, its implementation of laws, regulations, policies and guidance, and its personnel, could hinder government agencies’ ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which our business operations rely, including timely reviews, which could negatively impact our business.
Current wording
Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies or comparable regulatory authorities caused by government shutdowns, funding shortages or global health concerns, in addition to substantial uncertainty regarding the new Administration’s initiatives and how these might impact the FDA, its implementation of laws, regulations, policies and guidance, and its personnel, could hinder government agencies’ ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which our business operations rely, including timely reviews, which could negatively impact our business.
Previous wording
With the change in the U.S. Presidential Administration in 2025, there is substantial uncertainty as to whether and how the new administration will seek to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates. This uncertainty could present new challenges and/or opportunities as we navigate development of our product candidates. Some of these efforts have manifested to date in the form of personnel measures that could impact the FDA’s ability to hire and/or retain key personnel, which could result in delays or limitations on our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA on our product candidates in development and obtain the requisite regulatory approvals in the future. Moreover, the new Administration has proposed action to freeze or reduce the budget of the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, as related to its funding for medical research, which could decrease the ability of facilities that rely on NIH funding to enroll and conduct clinical trials or increase the costs to us of conducting clinical trials. There remains general uncertainty regarding future activities. The new Administration could issue or promulgate executive orders, regulations, policies or guidance that adversely affect us or create a more challenging or costly environment to pursue the development of new therapeutic products. Alternatively, state governments may attempt to address or react to changes at the federal level with changes to their own regulatory frameworks in a manner that is adverse to our operations. If we become negatively impacted by future governmental orders, regulations, policies or guidance as a result of the new Administration, there could be a material adverse effect on us and our business.
Current wording
With the change in the U.S. Presidential Administration in 2025, there is substantial uncertainty as to whether and how the new administration will seek to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates. This uncertainty could present new challenges and/or opportunities as we navigate development of our product candidates. Some of these efforts have manifested to date in the form of personnel measures that could impact the FDA’s ability to hire and/or retain key personnel, which could result in delays or limitations on our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA on our product candidates in development and obtain the requisite regulatory approvals in the future. Moreover, the new Administration has proposed action to freeze or reduce the budget of the NIH, as related to its funding for medical research, which could decrease the ability of facilities that rely on NIH funding to enroll and conduct clinical trials or increase the costs to us of conducting clinical trials. There remains general uncertainty regarding future activities. The new Administration could issue or promulgate executive orders, regulations, policies or guidance that adversely affect us or create a more challenging or costly environment to pursue the development of new therapeutic products. Alternatively, state governments may attempt to address or react to changes at the federal level with changes to their own regulatory frameworks in a manner that is adverse to our operations. If we become negatively impacted by future governmental orders, regulations, policies or guidance as a result of the new Administration, there could be a material adverse effect on us and our business.
Previous wording
We are not aware of any existing or pending regulations or legislation that pertains to generic radiopharmaceutical products such as our targeted radiotherapy product candidates. Our ARC product candidates are regulated by the FDA as biologic products, and we intend to seek approval for these products pursuant to the BLA pathway. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biologic products. The abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an existing brand product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the original branded product was approved under a BLA and in Europe a biosimilar product cannot be approved until 10 years after the original branded product was approved. The law is complex and as a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. Even if a biosimilar gets approved for one of the antibodies that we use, the final constructs of our drug candidates consist of an antibody, radioisotope and in some cases a linker and we are not aware of any regulations that would require us to provide the final constructs or components to third parties or potential competitors. Therefore, based on the current regulations, we do not believe that the final drug product of our candidates can be subject to competition from a biosimilar as outlined in BPCIA for at least 12 years in the U.S. and 10 years in the EU. We are aware that generic versions of certain radiopharmaceuticals utilizing peptides have been submitted to the FDA via the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) pathway, however, those products are not covered under the BPCIA and therefore that generic pathway is not applicable to Iomab-B or Actimab-A. We expect this would also apply to other biologic drug candidates we may seek to develop in the future based on the current provisions of the BPCIA. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) that was enacted in August 2022, states that reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare& Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for high-expenditure single-source biologic drugs, which we expect Iomab-B and Actimab-A to be, can only be negotiated after at least 11 years following approval compared to 7 years for non-biologic drugs with negotiated prices taking effect two years after selection. Therefore, we currently believe that our ARCs are less likely than small molecules to face pricing pressure and negotiation from IRA. Further, a drug or biological product that has an orphan drug designation, which Iomab-B and Actimab-A both have, for only one rare disease or condition will be excluded from the IRA’s price negotiations requirements until such time the biological products has des…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
We are not aware of any existing or pending regulations or legislation that pertains to generic radiopharmaceutical products such as our targeted radiotherapy product candidates. Our ARC product candidates are regulated by the FDA as biologic products, and we intend to seek approval for these products pursuant to the BLA pathway. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biologic products. The abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an existing brand product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the original branded product was approved under a BLA and in Europe a biosimilar product cannot be approved until 10 years after the original branded product was approved. The law is complex and as a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. Even if a biosimilar gets approved for one of the antibodies that we use, the final constructs of our drug candidates consist of an antibody, radioisotope and in some cases a linker and we are not aware of any regulations that would require us to provide the final constructs or components to third parties or potential competitors. Therefore, based on the current regulations, we do not believe that the final drug product of our candidates can be subject to competition from a biosimilar as outlined in BPCIA for at least 12 years in the U.S. and 10 years in the EU. We are aware that generic versions of certain radiopharmaceuticals utilizing peptides have been submitted to the FDA via the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) pathway, however, those products are not covered under the BPCIA and therefore that generic pathway is not applicable to Iomab-B or Actimab-A. We expect this would also apply to other biologic drug candidates we may seek to develop in the future based on the current provisions of the BPCIA. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) that was enacted in August 2022, states that reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare& Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for high-expenditure single-source biologic drugs, which we expect Iomab-B and Actimab-A to be, can only be negotiated after at least 11 years following approval compared to 7 years for non-biologic drugs with negotiated prices taking effect two years after selection. Therefore, we currently believe that our antibody radiation conjugates (“ARCs”) are less likely than small molecules to face pricing pressure and negotiation from IRA. Further, a drug or biological product that has an orphan drug designation, which Iomab-B and Actimab-A both have, for only one rare disease or condition will be excluded from the IRA’s price negotiations requirements until such ti…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT and Iomab-B and future product candidates that we may develop may never gain market acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our products will depend on a number of factors, including the actual and perceived effectiveness and reliability of the product; the results of any long-term clinical trials relating to use of the product; the availability, relative cost and perceived advantages and disadvantages of alternative technologies; the degree to which treatments using the product are approved for reimbursement by public and private insurers; the strength of our marketing and distribution infrastructure; and the level of education and awareness among physicians and hospitals concerning the product.
Current wording
Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT, ATNM-400, Iomab-B and future product candidates that we may develop may never gain market acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our products will depend on a number of factors, including the actual and perceived effectiveness and reliability of the product; the results of any long-term clinical trials relating to use of the product; the availability, relative cost and perceived advantages and disadvantages of alternative technologies; the degree to which treatments using the product are approved for reimbursement by public and private insurers; the strength of our marketing and distribution infrastructure; and the level of education and awareness among physicians and hospitals concerning the product.
Previous wording
Failure of Actimab-A or Iomab-ACT or any of our other product candidates to significantly penetrate current or new markets would negatively impact our business financial condition and results of operations.
Current wording
Failure of Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT, ATNM-400, Iomab-B or any of our other product candidates to significantly penetrate current or new markets would negatively impact our business financial condition and results of operations.
Previous wording
We may have conflicts with our partners, such as conflicts concerning the interpretation of preclinical or clinical data, pertaining to the global patient safety profile or efficacy results of our products, the achievement of milestones, the interpretation of contractual obligations, payments for services, development obligations or the ownership of intellectual property developed during our collaboration. We may seek to amend, modify or terminate agreements with partners, suppliers or service providers related to Iomab-B, Actimab-A or Iomab-ACT but there can be no assurance that we can do so successfully or negotiate terms that are favorable to us. Failure of which can increase the risk of or result in litigation or alternative dispute resolution options taken against us. Further, we may exercise our decision-making authority under certain circumstances pertaining to global patient safety related to our products, which our partners may disagree with and may result in potential conflicts and public disclosure of our rationale and position. If any conflicts arise with any of our partners, such partner may act in a manner that is adverse to our best interests. Any such disagreement could result in one or more of the following, each of which could delay or prevent the development or commercialization of our product candidates, and in turn prevent us from generating revenues: unwillingness on the part of a partner to pay us milestone payments or royalties we believe are due under a collaboration; uncertainty regarding ownership of intellectual property rights arising from our collaborative activities, which could prevent us from entering into additional collaborations; unwillingness by the partner to cooperate in the development or manufacture of the product, including providing us with product data or materials; unwillingness on the part of a partner to keep us informed regarding the progress of its development and commercialization activities or to permit public disclosure of the results of those activities; initiating litigation or alternative dispute resolution options by either party to resolve the dispute; or attempts by either party to terminate the agreement. Litigation or alternative dispute resolution options can be lengthy and expensive, require significant time and attention from our management and are highly uncertain. There can be no assurance that if we pursue, or a partner pursues litigation or alternative dispute resolution options, that we will prevail. Monetary and equitable damages awarded against us could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Current wording
We may have conflicts with our partners, such as conflicts concerning the interpretation of preclinical or clinical data, pertaining to the global patient safety profile or efficacy results of our products, the achievement of milestones, the interpretation of contractual obligations, payments for services, development obligations or the ownership of intellectual property developed during our collaboration. We may seek to amend, modify or terminate agreements with partners, suppliers or service providers related to ATNM-400, Actimab-A, Iomab-ACT or Iomab-B, but there can be no assurance that we can do so successfully or negotiate terms that are favorable to us. Failure of which can increase the risk of or result in litigation or alternative dispute resolution options taken against us. Further, we may exercise our decision-making authority under certain circumstances pertaining to global patient safety related to our products, which our partners may disagree with and may result in potential conflicts and public disclosure of our rationale and position. If any conflicts arise with any of our partners, such partner may act in a manner that is adverse to our best interests. Any such disagreement could result in one or more of the following, each of which could delay or prevent the development or commercialization of our product candidates, and in turn prevent us from generating revenues: unwillingness on the part of a partner to pay us milestone payments or royalties we believe are due under a collaboration; uncertainty regarding ownership of intellectual property rights arising from our collaborative activities, which could prevent us from entering into additional collaborations; unwillingness by the partner to cooperate in the development or manufacture of the product, including providing us with product data or materials; unwillingness on the part of a partner to keep us informed regarding the progress of its development and commercialization activities or to permit public disclosure of the results of those activities; initiating litigation or alternative dispute resolution options by either party to resolve the dispute; or attempts by either party to terminate the agreement. Litigation or alternative dispute resolution options can be lengthy and expensive, require significant time and attention from our management and are highly uncertain. There can be no assurance that if we pursue, or a partner pursues litigation or alternative dispute resolution options, that we will prevail. Monetary and equitable damages awarded against us could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Previous wording
As a result, our owned and licensed patents may not be valid, and we may not be able to obtain and enforce patents and to maintain trade secret protection for the full commercial extent of our technology. The extent to which we are unable to do so could materially harm our business.
Current wording
As a result, our owned and licensed patents may be held invalid, and we may not be able to obtain and enforce patents and to maintain trade secret protection for the full commercial extent of our technology. The extent to which we are unable to do so could materially harm our business.
Previous wording
We rely on trade secrets that we seek to protect through numerous measures, including non-compete and confidentiality agreements with our employees and other parties. If these agreements are breached, our competitors may obtain and use our trade secrets to gain a competitive advantage over us. Any remedies that may be available to us may not be adequate to protect our business or compensate us for the damaging disclosure. In addition, we may have to expend resources to protect our interests from possible infringement by others. For instance, we learned that a former employee, Qing Liang, Ph.D., who was employed by Actinium in the position of Vice President, Head of Radiation Sciences, violated the non-compete provision of her employment agreement by working for a direct competitor. Additionally, while working for the direct competitor, Dr. Liang continued to provide consulting services to Actinium. We also learned that Dr. Liang was providing consulting services to another company, which was in violation of certain provisions of her post-employment consulting agreement with Actinium. Dr. Liang, who had access to materials containing proprietary information and trade secrets, pursuant to actions taken by Actinium, is no longer employed by the direct competitor. With the assistance of outside counsel and a forensic investigator, we identified that Dr. Liang downloaded confidential information prior to her employment at Actinium ending. To aid in arbitration proceedings, we petitioned and were granted a Stipulated Preliminary Injunction by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 656841/2022) on June 28, 2022 that ordered that Dr. Liang is enjoined from destroying or deleting any Actinium documents or information, is enjoined from using, transmitting or transferring any Actinium Information other than to her counsel or Actinium’s counsel, ordered to return Actinium information within 5 days of Stipulated Preliminary Injunction, ordered to disclose to Actinium under oath, all persons and devices she transferred or disclosed Actinium Information, and ordered to allow a qualified forensic examiner selected by Actinium to remove and permanently delete all Actinium Information from any electronic devices, systems, email accounts, or other electronic or physical storage sites belonging to Dr. Liang. On April 25, 2023, a Final Award and Permanent Injunction was granted by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Case No. 01-22-0003-2375) that ordered that Dr. Liang is permanently enjoined from using, possessing, transmitting or transferring any Actinium property, documents of business information.
Current wording
We rely on trade secrets that we seek to protect through numerous measures, including non-compete and confidentiality agreements with our employees and other parties. If these agreements are breached, our competitors may obtain and use our trade secrets to gain a competitive advantage over us. Any remedies that may be available to us may not be adequate to protect our business or compensate us for the damaging disclosure. In addition, we may have to expend resources to protect our interests from possible infringement by others.
Previous wording
Our research, development and manufacturing activities involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including chemicals, radioactive and biological materials, such as radioactive isotopes. We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign environmental laws and regulations governing, among other matters, the handling, storage, use and disposal of these materials and some waste products. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials, and we could be held liable for any damages that result, which could exceed our financial resources. We currently maintain insurance coverage for injuries resulting from the hazardous materials we use; however, future claims may exceed the amount of our coverage. Also, we do not have insurance coverage for pollution cleanup and removal. Currently the costs of complying with such federal, state, local and foreign environmental regulations are not significant, and consist primarily of waste disposal expenses. However, they could become expensive, and current or future environmental laws or regulations may impair our research, development, production and commercialization efforts.
Current wording
Our research, development and manufacturing activities involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including chemicals, radioactive and biological materials, such as radioactive isotopes. We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign environmental laws and regulations governing, among other matters, the handling, transportation, storage, use and disposal of these materials and some waste products. Our radiopharmaceutical operations depend on NRC/Agreement State licenses, hazardous-materials shipping permissions, and third-party radioactive waste services; loss or disruption of any of these could halt clinical supply or commercialization. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials, and we could be held liable for any damages that result, which could exceed our financial resources. We currently maintain insurance coverage for injuries resulting from the hazardous materials we use; however, future claims may exceed the amount of our coverage. Also, we do not have insurance coverage for pollution cleanup and removal. Currently the costs of complying with such federal, state, local and foreign environmental regulations are not significant, and consist primarily of waste disposal expenses. However, they could become expensive, and current or future environmental laws or regulations may impair our research, development, production and commercialization efforts.
Showing the first 40 of 46 pairs. Open the source sections for the rest.
Rearranged current paragraphs (1)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Preliminary, Interim, and “top-line” data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.